Pope Francis describes ‘ideological Christians’ as a ‘serious illness’

[Humanity has risen!]

I always prefer a Bible that is a few hundred years old, because recent translations are either mired in other ideologies, or have been mangled by political correctness. I use the Douay Rheims Challoner edition in English, and in French the Port Royal bible.

http://www.bible.ca/Jw-NWT.htm

Here's an example of many things wrong with their translation. They removed all references to Jesus being God and to the Holy Spirit, who has been reduced to nothing but a "spiritual wind".

 

[FretRider]

Yeah, trusting the "original greek texts" is bullshit. They have been extant for centuries and all we have is reconstructions from fragments. Saint Jerome's vulgate might be a couple of centuries late, but it was written by a Saint(with capital S) who had access to the original texts. We also have thousands of copies, some of a few decades removed. That's why traditional Catholics trust it better.

Not to mention there are annoying modern revisions that keep showing up in all new translations such as "gender inclusive language" and other nonsense.

I wouldn't put it this way, but the "sola scriptura" doctrine is like shackles to Protestantism

They had to find a way to break free from the Church, that was their solution. Honestly I understand the temptation to be free and independent, specially considering that sad state of decline the Church is in now. But the fact is Christianity makes no sense if you take out apostolic sucession, tradition and ecclesiastical authority.

It also isn't functional. There are over 40.000 protestant denominations worldwide, no religion can survive this kind of fragmentation. Remember, the first european countries to become atheist were the protestant ones(France being the exception, but then crazy revolutions tend to do away with religions).

 

[Humanity has risen!]

It's true that modern biblical translations contain surrenders to political correctness. For instance, the most popular one, the New International Version, contains numerous dubious translation choices to make it more palatable to the mainstream, for example in regards to abortion.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/niv_exposed.htm

It's one thing to disagree with controversial parts of the Scriptures, but it's another to alter these parts to fit your agenda and deprive others from being able to make their own interpretations and choices to begin with. While we're probably never going to be a perfect bible, I would indeed trust the most a bible that has been reviewed and approved by a large committee that has existed for 2000 years.

 

[Turjan]

I always prefer a Bible that is a few hundred years old, because recent translations are either mired in other ideologies, or have been mangled by political correctness. I use the Douay Rheims Challoner edition in English…

Yeah, that's what I meant. Douay-Rheims is not based on the original texts, but on translations, which tends to multiply errors when you translate them again. It comes with Latinisms.

Here's an example of many things wrong with their translation. They removed all references to Jesus being God and to the Holy Spirit, who has been reduced to nothing but a "spiritual wind".

Which is as it should be. The words for "wind" and "spirit" are the same in Greek. So, if Paul speaks of a soma pneumatikon that every human being will get during resurrection, you can either translate it as "spirit body" or "wind body". Both is correct. And as he calls Jesus a "πνεῦμα ζοωποιουν", a life-giving wind or life-giving spirit, you have the same choices.

Which means that you just have shown that Jehova's Witnesses, for once, translate the text correctly.

 

[Turjan]

But the fact is Christianity makes no sense if you take out apostolic sucession, tradition and ecclesiastical authority.

While you probably mean this in a completely different way, I agree with the sentiment. I don't think early 2nd century Christianity had any semblance to today's Christianity, but if you want to understand the result of canon building and accept the results of the church councils from the 300s on, which made Christianity what it is today, you are probably better off embracing the stuff you mentioned.

 

[Corwin]

What you are calling Christianity is no such thing. All you have there is the RC Church which in no way resembles what Christ established. Get back to the simple message of the Gospels; that's the heart of Christianity, not all the pagan rigmarole we see in the RC church today.

 

[Turjan]

What you are calling Christianity is no such thing. All you have there is the RC Church which in no way resembles what Christ established.

Christ didn't establish anything. He definitely didn't found any new religion. And Paul's life-giving spirit is a generation older than the gospels.

Get back to the simple message of the Gospels; that's the heart of Christianity, not all the pagan rigmarole we see in the RC church today.

The gospels also all have their own messages, each one a bit different. In the end, you are just saying that you want to believe in what you want. Which you are free to do nowadays, fortunately. But don't come with the "heart of Christianity". That will also be different, depending on whom you ask.

And mentioning "pagan rigamole" makes me chuckle. There's not a single Christian document in the Bible that has not been written originally in Greek. The only gospel that is half-way considerate regarding Jewish practice is the one by John, and that one is late. The ideal Christian society described in Acts is Platonic. Not sure where you want to draw the line there.

 

[Humanity has risen!]

Yeah, that's what I meant. Douay-Rheims is not based on the original texts, but on translations, which tends to multiply errors when you translate them again. It comes with Latinisms.


Which is as it should be. The words for "wind" and "spirit" are the same in Greek. So, if Paul speaks of a soma pneumatikon that every human being will get during resurrection, you can either translate it as "spirit body" or "wind body". Both is correct. And as he calls Jesus a "πνεῦμα ζοωποιουν", a life-giving wind or life-giving spirit, you have the same choices.

Which means that you just have shown that Jehova's Witnesses, for once, translate the text correctly.

Actually the Douay Rheims has a good reputation.

Concerning the Jehovah's Witnesses, most scholars find their biblical translation to be highly devious and manipulative just as I mentioned.

It's not so much how they're translating "Holy Spirit" that is the problem, it's that they're making these numerous edits specifically in a manner to support their already pre-conceived beliefs: the lack of a Trinity, Jesus not being the Son of God but rather the Archangel Michael, annihilationism (the lack of Hell and eternal punishment), Jesus being reincarnated in 1914, etc. Most of their doctrine comes from Seventh Day Adventists.

Christ didn't establish anything. He definitely didn't found any new religion. And Paul's life-giving spirit is a generation older than the gospels.

The gospels also all have their own messages, each one a bit different. In the end, you are just saying that you want to believe in what you want. Which is probably not a bad thing, either. But don't come with the "heart of Christianity". That will also be different, depending on whom you ask.

There is no reason why Catholics and Protestants cannot be part of the body of Christ. At any rate, Revelation mentions there being an incalculable amount people of various confessions and parts of the world in the Heavens.

The exception is those who don't believe in Christ's Divinity and sacrifice on the cross, upon which all the faith rests.

 

[Turjan]

It's not so much how they're translating "Holy Spirit" that is the problem, it's that they're making these numerous edits specifically in a manner to support their already pre-conceived beliefs: the lack of a Trinity, Jesus not being the Son of God but rather the Archangel Michael, annihilationism (the lack of Hell and eternal punishment), Jesus being reincarnated in 1914, etc. Most of their doctrine comes from Seventh Day Adventists.

As I said, we are not talking about their doctrine here, but about translation. And the fun thing is that their translation does cater less to their specific needs than all other translations to the need of their specific doctrines. When you talk about how they translate "holy spirit", you have to admit that the Bible text simply does not say "holy spirit" in most places where some bible translations put it. And the trinity is not a Bible construct, either, and you won't find it in there. With "hell" you go into Revelation territory, and I didn't check there specifically.

There is no reason why Catholics and Protestants cannot be part of the body of Christ.

No objection. The differences are mostly irrelevant.

 

[FretRider]

What you are calling Christianity is no such thing. All you have there is the RC Church which in no way resembles what Christ established. Get back to the simple message of the Gospels; that's the heart of Christianity, not all the pagan rigmarole we see in the RC church today.

I would never call the message of the gospels "simple". That is why there are over 40.000 protestant denominations that can't agree about its interpretation and meaning. Without tradition, authority and scholarity there is no way a man can make full sense of it. Remember, Orthodox and Catholics still mostly agree about doctrine after a millenium of separation and there is a good reason for that.

Also, what do you mean by "pagan rigmarole"? Hopefully not that "two babylons" baloney that has been making the rounds since the 19th century right? No educated person gives it any credit.

 

[Turjan]

Remember, Orthodox and Catholics still mostly agree about doctrine after a millenium of separation and there is a good reason for that.

Grudgingly. For example, the Orthodox steadfastly ignore the Book of Revelations and would never read from it in Church. The eastern churches never liked it.

 

[FretRider]

Do you have a source for that factoid? They accept the same canon, so I pretty much doubt it.

 

[Turjan]

Wikipedia: "Book of Revelation is the only book of the New Testament that is not read during services by the Eastern Orthodox Church."
"Even today it is the only New Testament work not read in the Divine Liturgy of the Eastern Orthodox Church, though it is included in Catholic and Protestant liturgies."

You can find similar statements on Orthodox church websites.

 

[FretRider]

Did you read the reason why?

"Eastern Orthodoxy treats the text as simultaneously describing contemporaneous events (events occurring at the same time) and as prophecy of events to come, for which the contemporaneous events were a form of foreshadow. It rejects attempts to determine, before the fact, if the events of Revelation are occurring by mapping them onto present-day events, taking to heart the Scriptural warning against those who proclaim "He is here!" prematurely. Instead, the book is seen as a warning to be spiritually and morally ready for the end times, whenever they may come ("as a thief in the night"), but they will come at the time of God's choosing, not something that can be precipitated nor trivially deduced by mortals.[31] This view is also held by many Catholics, although there is a diversity of opinion about the nature of the Apocalypse within Catholicism."(from the same wiki article you linked)

Honestly, I don't see any conflict. The greeks probably don't read it during service for fear of errors in public perception, or perhaps merely for custom and tradition.

Aside from filioque and papal supremacy there aren't really any doctrinal differences worthy of note between the Orthodox and the Latins. There are off course liturgical differences, cultural differences and the ban on statues, but really, these conflicts exist within Catholicism(look at the eastern rite churches in communion with the vatican for great examples of it).

 

[Turjan]

Honestly, I don't see any conflict. The greeks probably don't read it during service for fear of errors in public perception, or perhaps merely for custom and tradition.

The Book of Revelation had a very hard time to get into Christian canon. Opinion about it was always split. Anyway, you asked for a proof that the Orthodox church doesn't read it in church, and you got it. What you make of it is up to you.

 

[Humanity has risen!]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/1...cize-unacceptable-gay-friendly-synod-release/

So we have these synod discussions, in which the media is reporting that the Church is considering adopting a friendlier tone toward homosexuals and homosexual couples.

I am ambivalent about this. On one hand, I do want more efforts to be done toward homosexuals so they know that God loves them, and the church reaches out to them with love. It surprises me when I talk to a homosexual person to see almost none of them think that God loves them. They need to be shown Christian charity.

On the other hand, I don't think it's a good idea to gloss over important parts of the Bible which unequivocally show that it is not compatible with Christian practice and is considered a sinful deviation from it. Although from what I can understand the church doctrine isn't changing and this isn't the final text, and this is just discussions being paraphrased and sensationalized in the media. Also a lot of conservative Catholics and bishops have come out against it, saying it is sensationalized.

I guess this is why I'm not fond of Pope Francis. He seems like someone who is fond of popularity and catering to the current cultural zeitgeist, while when you look at it nothing changes. He tries to cater to both the liberal segments of society and conservative Catholics but ends up betraying both.

 

[Myrthos]

So how does this work? God loves homosexuals, but the doctrine of the Catholic church dictates that they are not worthy to be part of their community. Why doesn't God frown upon the Catholic church (or its representatives) to deny people he loves access to that church?

I'm not asking this to make fun of you, as you probably know I'm an atheist, but I actually wonder how these two can be reconciled.

 

[Aubrielle]

I'm really astonished that there's so much debate over whether homosexuals deserve kindness, and people have forgotten how much railing the Bible has against tax collectors and adulterers. A sample:

Matthew 11:19 ESV

"The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’

(I'm no Bible expert and certainly no Christian. But I know a little.)

I really think we should sit back like some here and do some hand-wringing about how catering to tax collectors and adulterers is "catering to liberals", and maybe start serious discussion in society about banning tax collector marriage. And maybe the fact that adulterers get to live is abomination, since numerous passages command their deaths.

But then…too many faithful Christians might lose their lives, so let's just maybe sweep that one under the rug.

But those gays. *shakes head* We need to do somethin' about them gays.

(Maybe I am making fun, just a little.)

 

[Pladio]

Might be more than a little

 

[Humanity has risen!]

So how does this work? God loves homosexuals, but the doctrine of the Catholic church dictates that they are not worthy to be part of their community. Why doesn't God frown upon the Catholic church (or its representatives) to deny people he loves access to that church?

I'm not asking this to make fun of you, as you probably know I'm an atheist, but I actually wonder how these two can be reconciled.

It does not dictate that they are not worthy of being part of their community, they are supposed to be welcome at church. However the church is not to sanction same sex unions and partnerships, which go against God's design and intent.

It is possible to love certain people and minister to them with charity and compassion, while not approving all of their behavior and standing firmly on certain sacred standards.

I'm really astonished that there's so much debate over whether homosexuals deserve kindness, and people have forgotten how much railing the Bible has against tax collectors and adulterers. A sample:

Matthew 11:19 ESV

"The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’

(I'm no Bible expert and certainly no Christian. But I know a little.)

I really think we should sit back like some here and do some hand-wringing about how catering to tax collectors and adulterers is "catering to liberals", and maybe start serious discussion in society about banning tax collector marriage. And maybe the fact that adulterers get to live is abomination, since numerous passages command their deaths.

But then…too many faithful Christians might lose their lives, so let's just maybe sweep that one under the rug.

But those gays. *shakes head* We need to do somethin' about them gays.

(Maybe I am making fun, just a little.)

For the record I never lived in an American society where Christianity is associated with right-wing fiscal values, that always flew over my head. I live in a society that used to be practically a Catholic theocracy where people were taught all these things, such as relishing money being evil, etc.

It might look like a whole lot of energy being spent on a single issue among many others, but when the definition of something major like our expectations of what is marriage and what is a family are being changed, it will resound in a lot of people's minds and they will step up.