[karajorma]

Originally posted by Clave
You know, if I had been crucified, then came back to life, say 2,000 years later, the last thing I'd want to see was loads of crosses everywhere....

Kinda like going up to Jackie O with a rifle pendant. "Thinking of John." (mimes holding and firing a rifle)

I love Bill Hicks

[Mongoose]

aldo, the Bible is a divinely inspired text, but it was also written by humans, and it contains a myriad of different literary types, including but not limited to allegory, parable, poetry, song, genealogy, commentary, and direct narrative.  No part of the Bible is unimportant; it's just that some of the social regulations placed on the ancient Isrealites do not apply to modern-day Christians.  They were written in the form of legal statutes, not God's moral law.

Flipside, crosses are no more important than crucifixes are.  Many Catholic churches I've been in have both crosses and crucifixes on display.  A crucifix is generally a more realistic or artistic way of portraying Christ's crucifixion, while a cross is a simpler symbol of Christianity.  Some fundamentalist sects view the crucifix as a form of idol, but as I said above, that's not true for Catholics.

karajorma, you're missing a huge and fundamenal part of Catholicism.  My beliefs as a Catholic are not limited to the verbatim text of the Bible.  The Catholic faith is comprised of both the Bible and Church Tradition, which is made up of the moral teachings of the Pope and Church councils going back to the time of the apostles.  I'm going to do myself a favor and copy a post I made a few days ago in another forum about this same point; hopefully, this will clear up some of the misconceptions you may have:

The term "Tradition" refers to something different when referring to the Church than it does in the popular sense.  There are many fundamentalist Christian groups that follow a strict and literal interpretation of the Bible; in other words, if it isn't written in the Bible, then it isn't a legitimate belief. We as Catholics believe differently. For the Catholic Church, the teachings of the popes on matters of faith and morals, along with the Church councils and decrees of the College of Cardinals, are viewed as divinely inspired; they are classified under the role of Tradition. (Many people have a misconception about part of this, namely, papal infallibility. This doctrine does not state that the pope can do no wrong; it states that, when he is speaking with his full authority as the bishop of Rome in matters of faith and morals, his proclamations are considered without moral fault.) This gathered body of Church teaching, from the time of the apostles, carries equal weight with regards to faith as does the actual text of the Bible. This does require a clarification, though; all of these teachings were derived in some way or another from the teachings and actions of Christ, in the same way that the Church views the seven sacraments as each having been instituted by Christ.

The prohibition against artificial birth control stems from Catholic sexual morality.  For Catholics, the sexual act is a sacred gift from God meant to be shared only between man and wife.  It has a dual nature:  unitive, for the love and devotion of the couple, and procreative, for the sharing with God in the act of creation of new life.  Neither of these elements can be taken away from the sexual act; thus, artificial birth control, since it removes the procreative aspect, is immoral.

P.S.  The person who said that the earliest complete writings of the New Testament were made around the year 300 was actually wrong; there are samples of the New Testament dating to as early as 100 or even earlier, and the text of these ancient documents is almost completely the same as that of modern-day translations.

[Solatar]

P.S.  The person who said that the earliest complete writings of the New Testament were made around the year 300 was actually wrong; there are samples of the New Testament dating to as early as 100 or even earlier, and the text of these ancient documents is almost completely the same as that of modern-day translations.

Just a little tidbit to add. IIRC, the Gospels of Matthew and Mark were the two earliest, and they were written somewhere around 40-50 AD I think.

I think Mongoose explained it very well...

[Bobboau]

almost, so not exactly, so not the final version.

and it's nice that all of the sudden you've decided to accept radiometric dateing.

[Solatar]

lol, I just took that figure out of a textbook. If there's something I haven't been informed of, I'd be glad to hear it (I agree with a lot of Catholicism, but I don't ward off criticism of it, after all, if we didn't ask questions, then I really would would be brainwashed).

[Deepblue]

*thought title of topic was "New pope elected..."*

[Taristin]

It was. but you know how things go here, sucka.

[Goober5000]

Originally posted by karajorma
So the 10 commandments are now invalid too then?

No, since as I said, they're moral law.  They're so important that God gave them to Moses personally.  He wouldn't do that with mere regulations.

The regulations were cancelled.  The law was fulfilled (but is still in effect).

Originally posted by Flipside
Well, number one certainly has to be. The Cross, The Virgin Mary etc etc are all infractions of it.

Mongoose addressed this very well IMHO.  If you start worshipping Mary directly, it crosses the line.  But there's nothing wrong with merely keeping a token around to remind you of your faith.

I think it'd be kinda hard to idolize an image of the cross anyway.  Christians are commanded to "take up your cross" daily, after all.

Originally posted by aldo_14
So if the bible is so important, why are parts of it ignoreable?  What's the point or relevance of a holy book if some of it isn't actually 'holy'?

It's not ignorable.  None of the Bible is ignorable.  While the regulations and restrictions no longer apply, it's still important to know them.  They're still valuable as a history of Israel and an illustration of God's process of redemption.  Why else would Christians keep the Old Testament around when they have the New Testament?

Originally posted by Flipside
But there are far far more crosses representing Christiantiy in the world than crosses with images of Christ on them. That suggests the Cross is the more important part of the pairing in Christianities view?

It's actually a very healthy thing, from a Christian point of view, to focus on the cross.  It doesn't matter whether it's the cross alone or the cross with Jesus on it, becaue they're both valuable.  The cross with Jesus on it reminds us of Jesus's sacrifice.  The cross alone reminds us to die to ourselves.

Originally posted by karajorma
So by that logic the pope should dump the whole restrictions on birth control thing then right? After all that's not even a regulation, Christ never said anything on the matter and the only thing it's based on is Onan getting wiped out for spilling his seed.
 If we're saying that anything that isn't restated as being a law in the NT isn't one then birth control is completely okay.

True, it isn't a law, and following it isn't critical to your spiritual health.  However, if you agree to be bound by the Catholic church's authority, you must live up to your responsibility and follow its rules.  Of course, there's nothing preventing you from joining another denomination.

Originally posted by Bobboau
and it's nice that all of the sudden you've decided to accept radiometric dateing.

Leaving the old-earth/young-earth discussion aside for the moment (it's a whole other can of worms, and very off-topic) there are other ways of dating manuscripts.  Linguistic styles, graphical styles, references to other documents, type of ink used, and type of paper used, to name several.

[Mongoose]

What exactly were you implying by that last statement, Bobbaou?  Why would I, as a physics major, have any problem accepting the accuracy of radiometric dating?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Mongoose
aldo, the Bible is a divinely inspired text, but it was also written by humans, and it contains a myriad of different literary types, including but not limited to allegory, parable, poetry, song, genealogy, commentary, and direct narrative.  No part of the Bible is unimportant; it's just that some of the social regulations placed on the ancient Isrealites do not apply to modern-day Christians.  They were written in the form of legal statutes, not God's moral law.

Originally posted by Goober5000
It's not ignorable. None of the Bible is ignorable. While the regulations and restrictions no longer apply, it's still important to know them. They're still valuable as a history of Israel and an illustration of God's process of redemption. Why else would Christians keep the Old Testament around when they have the New Testament?

(sort of combined)

This is exactly my point, really; parts of the bible are outdated and written for the time they were created - so what ensures the rest is any more sacrosanct than those other than mass acceptance?

It's written combining myth with history with idealised history and using characters whose very existence are debated; on top of that parts of it are definitively only valid for the time of its creation, and other parts appear equally outdated to modern society.  IMO something that jumbled up, cannot be used as a definitive set of moral rules (at least when it comes to my choice of how I live my life).

That's why* I don't believe in organized religion (as a personal choice of belief, that is); I feel it bears far more hallmarks of humanity than any divine inspiration.  After all, if someone today says God (or Allah, or Buddah, or Vishnu, etc) is speaking through them, 99% of the population laugh or look the other way.  And yet IMO exactly the same thing is accepted as a basis of a belief system.


*partly why, at least.  It's not the sole reason.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Goober5000
No, since as I said, they're moral law.  They're so important that God gave them to Moses personally.  He wouldn't do that with mere regulations.

But who decides what is moral law and what is regulation? Seems to me that you don't seem to have a list from Jesus and are just making it up as you go along.

Sure if the NT mentions the law again you can claim it's part of the new contract but what about in cases where nothing is said. The laws on rape for instance aren't repeated in the NT as far as I know. So who decides whether they are moral laws or regulations?

[Bobboau]

that's the exact point I've been trying to get at too.
DEUTERONOMY 22:11 is outdated and stupid, but Leviticus 18:22 isn't, but were exactly are all these destinctions spelled out? it seems to me that it's totaly arbitrary.

[Stealth]

Originally posted by aldo_14

It's written combining myth with history with idealised history

where do you find any myth in the Bible?  Practically everything that the Bible mentions, has been validated today.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Stealth


where do you find any myth in the Bible?  Practically everything that the Bible mentions, has been validated today.

Genesis?  The flood?

EDIT; depending on your criteria, the entire Bible could be considered as mythical; as myths are stories - often with historical origins - usually intended to express some ideological or cultural idea.

[Zarax]

No... Not that again please...

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Zarax
No... Not that again please...

Well, note I am saying it could be considered as such; I'm just pointing out there's more than one view of this.

[Zarax]

I'm sure your intentions are good Aldo, however i'm sure you can see where these consideration leads...
Do we really want another flamewar on that topic?

[vyper]

They're not flamewars they're debates.

You people seem to think a difference of opinion constitutes a flame.

[Zarax]

Not really Vyper... It's just that we already had a several pages long very heated discussion on the topic and i don't think we need another one.

[Goober5000]

Originally posted by aldo_14
This is exactly my point, really; parts of the bible are outdated and written for the time they were created - so what ensures the rest is any more sacrosanct than those other than mass acceptance?

I think something Sesquipedalian said exemplified it pretty well: The purpose of the Bible is to point people to God.  It does that through history, myth, lists of laws, personal stories, proverbs, poetry, and so forth.  The whole thing works as the whole thing.  You can't separate out any one part on the grounds of being out-of-date, because each part provides insight into all the rest.

Originally posted by karajorma
But who decides what is moral law and what is regulation? Seems to me that you don't seem to have a list from Jesus and are just making it up as you go along.

Originally posted by Bobboau
that's the exact point I've been trying to get at too.
DEUTERONOMY 22:11 is outdated and stupid, but Leviticus 18:22 isn't, but were exactly are all these destinctions spelled out? it seems to me that it's totaly arbitrary.

The more I think of it, the more it occurs to me that the Ten Commandments were the only moral law handed down during the OT.  Every law in the OT is either 1) something that directly references one of the Ten Commandments; or 2) a regulation not derived from the Ten Commandments.  That's the qualifier.

And that's why you have people preaching against homosexuality but nobody rounding them up and stoning them.  The Ten Commandments only says, "Do not commit adultery," period, leaving the consequences up to God.  The regulation mandating a specific punishment, as part of "the old written code" was repealed.  The moral law, as the basis for that regulation, was not.