Pope John Paul II

[2fast4u]

I honestly don't give two shits about how it sounds to you, because being a Catholic priest immediately makes him a conservative. Repetitive whining about whether he was anti-gay or anti-birth control or anti-whatever is useless, because the Bible clearly deems those as a sin, and the Pope going against what the Bible says ain't gonna happen. Believe it or not, there are cool people out there who aren't heart bleeding pinkos, and JP2 was apparently one of those.

you know i dont give a shit what the bible says. its a worthless piece of writing with no authority. other than that, i reserve the right to name reactionaries when i see them, and if that may be the pope so be it.

 

[Trotterwatch]

I think the point of having a Pope 2fast4u is that he DOES give a fuck about the Bible. Kinda pointless otherwise.

 

[blizz]

There are passages which hint (or state, depends on who's reading or talking) about homosexuality, leviticus 18:22 (King James Version): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination".

speaking of Leviticus, here is that joke email that is the nearest that most people get to reading the bible these days. Which you've obviously read

Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality. Recently, she said that as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned in any circumstance. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet:

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, or example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to follow them.

1 - When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2 - I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3 - I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4 - Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5 - I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

6 - A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

7 - Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some room for negotiation here?

8 - Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

9 - I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10 - My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

 

[Orkin]

you know i dont give a shit what the bible says. its a worthless piece of writing with no authority. other than that, i reserve the right to name reactionaries when i see them, and if that may be the pope so be it.

So basically you're saying that the pope should say that The Bible is useless and to ignore everything it says...

You may have a point...but why stop there? Bill Gates should tell Microsoft to stop writing software, and Steve Jobs should have Apple stop selling computers, and George Bush should make the U.S., the Un-united States!

Such open-minded, tolerant, forward, thinking! You're a genius 2fast4u!!!


Sarcasm aside, the Bible doesn't say anything about condoms, but it does quite clearly condemn homosexuality and adultery, and also says to hold men responsible for killing an unborn infant (the specific context refers to a man causing an unborn baby to die by striking a pregnant woman).

 

[Eagle]

...and George Bush should make the U.S., the Un-united States!

Shhh... don't give him any ideas.

 

[Stalkid64]

There are passages which hint (or state, depends on who's reading or talking) about homosexuality, leviticus 18:22 (King James Version): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination". and in genesis 19, the story of Lot with the angelic visitors. I'm not saying that this is by any means a definitive answer, just a couple places where it could be argued (there are arguments that go either way, yes homosexuality is wrong, and no, it isn't).

Those places aside, looking at it from a natural point of view, it doesn't make a lot of sense IMO. The primary goal of a species is to survive, and since it's not possible in the human species to do so homosexually, then yeah

You have the right to disagree.

The thing to remember though, and it happened rather a lot even in early translations (IIRC, the Hebrew was translated to Greek first, then other translations of that translation etc) and especially so in the King James version, that passages were altered or "interpreted" to fit the times, or simply because different languages don't always have literal translations available.

(Anyone not that interested may skip the rest of this...)

An example would be "Lucifer" which (again IIRC - it's been a few months since I was last looking) in the original Hebrew is taken to mean not an entity or force, but "morning star" which was in reference to a King of the time... and I don't think anyone will have trouble realising how that would alter things dramatically all by itself. The King James though has my favourite little change made to it.

People often ask about the famous line in the Bible, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." (Exodus 22:18)
Here are the facts;
James I was notorious for being paranoid about witches, spells, and so on. This was, in part, due to volatile politics of the time. He had good reason to be nervous.
"His" Bible (the King James Bible) was translated to keep King James happy, so they translated the word chasaph--which is Hebrew for poisoner-- to mean "witch" instead.
The real Biblical passage was about the disturbing crime of poisoning in the Jewish community.

(And thus "Thou shalt not suffer a Witch to live" is correctly in all pre-James versions "Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live". Pretty significant again.)

Another example of how translations and time alter words;

The word "witch" appeared in Christian scriptures as maleficos, which is gender-neutral, until the mid-1500's. Then things took a nasty turn. In the "Luther Bible," the German line is "Die Zuberinnen soltu nicht leben lassen," which makes the word "witch" feminine. By 1566, in La Saincte Bible of Lyon, France, the word is even more clearly female, despite a footnote that the law applied equally to men.

The moral of the story? It's open to interpretation.
(Whoa... that works on so many levels. So much so that dammit, I'm going to BOLD it up a notch.)

As for the USA; to say "United States" seems a slight contradiction really if you think about the semantics of it. The very word "States" points out that it is divided into States... whether because different area's desired different laws or moral code, they are seperate. Thus it isn't united. "Divided States of America" is actually technically correct.
And, well, sort of fitting too...
"Hyuk, looks like we gots us an actural dee-bayte goin on."

`What you readin' for?`
(Bill Hicks anyone?

(Corrected that mistake to read "Lucifer". Cheers.)

 

[smcd]

I believe you meant Lucifer as being the morning star. He was a king of Babylon(Babel, Babylonia). I agree that some things are lost in translation. That is why I added my view on homosexuality at the end of the post regarding nature wanting the survival of the species. If you're (not >you< but in general "you") homosexual, fine. More women for me! Regarding your passage about witches, some could "interpret" poisoner to be talking about witchcraft and it's "poisoning" people's faith. (example: pharaoh's magicians/priests were as powerful as moses' god by turning their rods to snakes as moses could. Since it's a large point of the bible that none are as powerful as god then that's blasphemous) As you said, things get lost in translation and interpretation, which is where faith comes in... whatever path you choose to live. If we could all agree that we can disagree, maybe we could all just get along

 

[2fast4u]

in a summarized response to the replies of you lot: maybe i went over the top with the word choice, however my point stands. i dont care if the reason for his positions is that the bible says so. the fact that jp2 (nice nickname, btw) took the most part part of his moral ideas and positions from the bible doesnt make them one tad better. being intolerant against gays, opposing birth control and discriminating women is something i consider wrong and if the bible says its right its still wrong in my book. im pretty sure this is open to interpretation anyway.

 

[2fast4u]

Shhh... don't give him any ideas.

technically the united states is a confederation, so "un-united" would work

 

[Eagle]

technically the united states is a confederation, so "un-united" would work

/begin government lesson

Thats a common misconception. Many people misuse the word confederation, because many nations start as one and then move to another form of government. The United States was a confederation prior to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. A confederation is a group of states created by a treaty for purposes of foreign affairs and other things. Currently the United States is a state made from several self-governing regions with a central government (or federal government) that governs the nation. This is known as a federation.

/end government lesson

 

[Orkin]

The KJV is probably one of the worst translations available. It has gone through something like 4 translations before even getting to Old English, and there have even been several revisions to it making its English less...old. Besides being overtranslated, it's in a dialect no one uses anymore, so people have trouble even understanding what it it's meant to say. This is one thing that has helped make the Bible so open to misinterpretation over the centuries. It's sad how many people still use the KJV...I've even heard it argued that "If it was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!" This kind of ignorance is, kind of sickening, actually...

That said, a more modern, direct (Old Testament from Hebrew, and New Testament from Greek), translation is not only more accurate, but much easier to understand, and therefore, interpret.

 

[2fast4u]

Eagle: yeah youre right, my statement wasnt correct there. in order to justify my government grades i should have done better.

 

[DuDe]

You read the Bible lately? There is nothing in it about contreception (or at least not in so many words). The commandment says "Thou shalt not kill" and most believe that destroying an unfertilized egg is not killing, nor is using a condom. Therefore, nothing in the bible says you may not use birth control or condoms. The bible doesn't even mention abortion, again "Thou shalt not kill", the idea is that an unborn baby is alive, but this isn't entirely clear so therefore, the Bible clearly deems nothing of the sort.

I've in fact read the Old Testament in its original language (Hebrew that is), and it clearly says at some verse somewhere something along the lines of "thouh shall not spill thy sperm for no reason" - now, that's not the best translation that you can get, but most of the Jewish scholars agree that it means that wanking and fucking with a condom is not favourite in the eyes of the Lord Almighty, and Catholics probably see it the same way.

 

[DuDe]

I'm also fairly sure "Thou Shalt Not Be A Woman Priest" isn't in there either. Then of course "Thou Shalt Not Be Gay" wasn't seen as important enough to be one of the 10 Commandments... though it has been a while and they may have been updated in the last 2,000+ years I guess what with all the other editing that has gone on. Wonder what else just got cut from the list.

The Bible isn't comprised of merely the 10 commandments you know...

 

[ScottJC]

That's right, it is also the worlds most popular fiction

/me runs from the wrath of the true believers

 

[Eagle]

The Bible isn't comprised of merely the 10 commandments you know...

But see, thats where the problem lies, the bible isn not as straight forward as the 10 commandments. I could get 10 different people to interpret the same passage from the bible and come up with 10 different conflicting explanations for what it means, and whats even worse about that is they would all be correct.

For example. The bible talks about "men of god", or priests and popes and such. It does say MEN so that means no women, right? But if I walk up to all my friends in a group on the street, I say "Hi Guys". Does that mean I'm only talking to the men in the group and not the women? The english language, as well as many others, when presented with a confilct will always take the masculine vernacular. Its all in the interpretation, and interpretations can be literal or they can be generalized.

 

[deesse]

ehm. The Pope did his job. Bible or whatever religious is another thing. Vatican has its own power, it's political. Time will tell us about that.

 

[Stalkid64]

That's right, it is also the worlds most popular fiction

* ScottJC runs from the wrath of the true believers

C'mon, when has a Christian ever commited a violent act in the name of God? What? When? Oh, right. I forgot about those Crusades...

 

[vampireuk]

That's right, it is also the worlds most popular fiction

* ScottJC runs from the wrath of the true believers

Actually scientology is, XENU!!!

C'mon, when has a Christian ever commited a violent act in the name of God? What? When? Oh, right. I forgot about those Crusades...

Meanwhile pagans only murdered and plundered.

 

[t0rek]

Actually I think he was a very good man... no body is perfect, and if he is a pope he can be a rebel pope, so he has to naturally stick with the cathlic religion laws and stuff. He was a man of peace and that listened and visited all the world, not only the cathloic people