| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 919 Given: 5 |
Taliban : italian spiderman
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 2,431 Given: 241 |
Jesus said he did not come to abolish the law but to fullfill it. Love is the fullfillment of the Law. Love is equal to fulfilling the law of God AND God is equal to love, therefore, love is the law of God.Originally Posted by SneedsFeedNSeed
"Jesus answered them, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6) The way to eternal life is by loving others and God (Luke 10:25-28).
In other words Jesus is equal the way to eternal life and the way to eternal life is equal to loving others and God therefore the way to eternal life is by loving others and God. Jesus came to show the way to heaven and that way is God - the light that is love. Nobody can come to God except through the way shown by Jesus - a life lived in love for everyone. The way to eternal life is through loving others and God. Loving others is equal to being a disciple of Jesus.
The old law, the "law of God" in the Οld Testament is based on the concept of "an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth." This is the natural law of cause and effect; what goes up must come down; do unto others and the same will be done to you; live by the sword and you will die by the sword; you reap what you sow; every action has an equal and opposite reaction; the law of karma, etc... This is the law of nature and the law of the physical realm.
While the effects of this law can be seen everywhere, there exists an even greater law revealed from higher sources. It is the law of love - forgiveness and grace. When someone strikes you in the face, you should not strike back. This will stop the vicious cycle of hurt in its tracks. It means loving even your enemies. The best way to undo "bad karma" is through love and forgiveness. Like love, forgiveness is a divine trait because God forgives everyone.
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 8,490 Given: 10,741 |
Not only technically speakers of Indo-Euroepan, but they ARE Indoeuropeans
(as a nation) and the majority of the society contains real Indoeuropean individuals.
Rethelistan is accepting all people, first baptizing them, but not everyone is admitted to be an Indoeuropean.Perhaps Rethelistan will accept them
You can't baptize someone and then lie to him, or accept his old lie, when he just become a new person with clean account.
Last edited by Rethel; 08-23-2021 at 08:33 PM.
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 8,490 Given: 10,741 |
This is the natural law of cause and effect (...) the law of karma,
Btw,
It is very interesting, that usually people, who argue about OT vs. NT have NO IDEA about neither, and do not understand both parts of the Bible.
Christianity and the Church long ago in majority explianed relation of both correctly, and everything is clear written in the both parts.
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 240 Given: 332 |
If this is what you believe, fine. I can't define your religion and what you believe for you. But if I was to convert to Christianity, that is not what I would have understood from it.
The extent can't be to the degree of complacency. Otherwise it would mean that there's no support in the Bible to punish a thief for example, which doesn't make sense. Everything is not forgivable, and I don't believe fulfillment and replacement is the same.
If you were thinking of Romans 13:10, earlier(Romans 13:1-5) it says:
God's servants bear swords to punish wrongdoers.Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
The recommendation in 13:10 was not addressed to the authorities, but to the subjects of those authorities. And at the start of it, it says: "Love does no wrong to a neighbor". So it's like a rule of thumb to the commoner that "if you love your neighbor, you will automatically follow these laws". But it still means that a sodomite would be stoned for example. And they were for a long time, it's only recently that all of these laws were considered "replaced by love" because people became squeamish.
Regarding the passage from Matthew; later in Matthew when Jesus sends out the disciples to preach, he says this to them(among other things) :
(Matthew 10:34-36)
And part of it is supposed to be a reference to Micah 7:6 talking about immorality in Israel. What turns people so close against each other? Different allegiances, different values, like LGBTQ child vs. traditional parent, because both demand submission of the other to their side. The reference and him telling his disciples that he will turn people against each other and that he brings a sword can't mean anything other than that what he asks the disciples to do will cause at very least discomfort to a lot of people. Love, forgiveness, turning the other cheek all the time doesn't cause discomfort, it makes everyone comfortable in their sin.“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’
If you mean to say that love can be harshness as well, out of concern for someone's well-being, well then being harsh to criminals can also be loving to both the criminal and to the society around them, and following the harsh laws can be loving then too.
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 2,431 Given: 241 |
Forgiveness is not acceptance. You can forgive someone while still showing them the door. Having grace does not give the person who hurt you a get out of jail free card. In fact, forgiveness is not about the other person at all. Having mercy is more about personal growth. It is a process of surrendering all of your pain to God.
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 6,019 Given: 4,943 |
Anathema or not, Origen is considered as a founding father of Biblical exegesis and he had an important influence on later Church Fathers and other theologians, such as Thomas Aquinas. Also, the Lectio divina, a traditional monastic reading method is based on the senses of the scriptures.
What you found “cute” is actually in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (point 118):
https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PQ.HTM#-3G
And Benedict XVI paid homage to Origen twice in general audiences:
https://www.vatican.va/content/bened..._20070425.html
https://www.vatican.va/content/bened..._20070502.html
Paul talked about obeying consciousness elsewhere, fact.
And in Verbum Domini, the fact the "letter kills" is quoted totally in link with what I said:
“The need to transcend the “letter”
38. In rediscovering the interplay between the different senses of Scripture it thus becomes essential to grasp the passage from letter to spirit. This is not an automatic, spontaneous passage; rather, the letter needs to be transcended: “the word of God can never simply be equated with the letter of the text. To attain to it involves a progression and a process of understanding guided by the inner movement of the whole corpus, and hence it also has to become a vital process”.[125] Here we see the reason why an authentic process of interpretation is never purely an intellectual process but also a lived one, demanding full engagement in the life of the Church, which is life “according to the Spirit” (Gal 5:16). The criteria set forth in Number 12 of the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum thus become clearer: this progression cannot take place with regard to an individual literary fragment unless it is seen in relation to the whole of Scripture. Indeed, the goal to which we are necessarily progressing is the one Word. There is an inner drama in this process, since the passage that takes place in the power of the Spirit inevitably engages each person’s freedom. Saint Paul lived this passage to the full in his own life. In his words: “the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life”
(2 Cor 3:6), he expressed in radical terms the significance of this process of transcending the letter and coming to understand it only in terms of the whole. Paul discovered that “the Spirit of freedom has a name, and hence that freedom has an inner criterion: ‘The Lord is the Spirit and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom’ (2 Cor 3:17). The Spirit of freedom is not simply the exegete’s own idea, the exegete’s own vision. The Spirit is Christ, and Christ is the Lord who shows us the way”. We know that for Saint Augustine too this passage was at once dramatic and liberating; he came to believe the Scriptures – which at first sight struck him as so disjointed in themselves and in places so coarse – through the very process of transcending the letter which he learned from Saint Ambrose in typological interpretation, wherein the entire Old Testament is a path to Jesus Christ. For Saint Augustine, transcending the literal sense made the letter itself credible, and enabled him to find at last the answer to his deep inner restlessness and his thirst for truth.[127]
https://www.vatican.va/content/bened...um-domini.html
Sure…
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 6,019 Given: 4,943 |
I never said the Bible isn’t “valid everywhere and at any time” lol. I was talking about the Quran and said it’s a problem in this case because it’s supposed to be the uncreated word of God, leading to a frozen literal interpretation. It has nothing to do with the Catholic reading of the Bible.
You can insult me all you want with your little friends, but you haven’t invalidated anything I said. I have no problem with dogmas, but I feel like you have a big one, because of your Islamic bias, for example with the texts from the Magisterium I referred to, including for ex. the dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum.
Verbum Domini is about the reading of the Bible, but it seems to be, like the other passages I had posted, really embarrassing for you.
The need to transcend the “letter”
38. In rediscovering the interplay between the different senses of Scripture it thus becomes essential to grasp the passage from letter to spirit. This is not an automatic, spontaneous passage; rather, the letter needs to be transcended: “the word of God can never simply be equated with the letter of the text. To attain to it involves a progression and a process of understanding guided by the inner movement of the whole corpus, and hence it also has to become a vital process”.[125] Here we see the reason why an authentic process of interpretation is never purely an intellectual process but also a lived one, demanding full engagement in the life of the Church, which is life “according to the Spirit” (Gal 5:16). The criteria set forth in Number 12 of the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum thus become clearer: this progression cannot take place with regard to an individual literary fragment unless it is seen in relation to the whole of Scripture. Indeed, the goal to which we are necessarily progressing is the one Word. There is an inner drama in this process, since the passage that takes place in the power of the Spirit inevitably engages each person’s freedom. Saint Paul lived this passage to the full in his own life. In his words: “the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life”
(2 Cor 3:6), he expressed in radical terms the significance of this process of transcending the letter and coming to understand it only in terms of the whole. Paul discovered that “the Spirit of freedom has a name, and hence that freedom has an inner criterion: ‘The Lord is the Spirit and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom’ (2 Cor 3:17). The Spirit of freedom is not simply the exegete’s own idea, the exegete’s own vision. The Spirit is Christ, and Christ is the Lord who shows us the way”. We know that for Saint Augustine too this passage was at once dramatic and liberating; he came to believe the Scriptures – which at first sight struck him as so disjointed in themselves and in places so coarse – through the very process of transcending the letter which he learned from Saint Ambrose in typological interpretation, wherein the entire Old Testament is a path to Jesus Christ. For Saint Augustine, transcending the literal sense made the letter itself credible, and enabled him to find at last the answer to his deep inner restlessness and his thirst for truth.[127]
The fundamentalist interpretation of sacred Scripture (it states clearly, among other things, that the Scriptures were not “dictated word by word by the Spirit”).
44. The attention we have been paying to different aspects of the theme of biblical hermeneutics now enables us to consider a subject which came up a number of times during the Synod: that of the fundamentalist interpretation of sacred Scripture.[145] The Pontifical Biblical Commission, in its document The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, has laid down some important guidelines. Here I would like especially to deal with approaches which fail to respect the authenticity of the sacred text, but promote subjective and arbitrary interpretations. The “literalism” championed by the fundamentalist approach actually represents a betrayal of both the literal and the spiritual sense, and opens the way to various forms of manipulation, as, for example, by disseminating anti-ecclesial interpretations of the Scriptures. “The basic problem with fundamentalist interpretation is that, refusing to take into account the historical character of biblical revelation, it makes itself incapable of accepting the full truth of the incarnation itself. As regards relationships with God, fundamentalism seeks to escape any closeness of the divine and the human … for this reason, it tends to treat the biblical text as if it had been dictated word for word by the Spirit. It fails to recognize that the word of God has been formulated in language and expression conditioned by various periods”.[146] Christianity, on the other hand, perceives in the words the Word himself, the Logos who displays his mystery through this complexity and the reality of human history.[147] The true response to a fundamentalist approach is “the faith-filled interpretation of sacred Scripture”. This manner of interpretation, “practised from antiquity within the Church’s Tradition, seeks saving truth for the life of the individual Christian and for the Church. It recognizes the historical value of the biblical tradition. Precisely because of the tradition’s value as an historical witness, this reading seeks to discover the living meaning of the sacred Scriptures for the lives of believers today”,[148] while not ignoring the human mediation of the inspired text and its literary genres.
On the historical-critical method
It shows the importance of the historical-critical method (rejected in Islam, btw) to study the texts, but welcome in Christianity because of the Incarnation, enabling real hermeneutics, contextualisation, in order to get what the sacred authors really intended to say.
32. Before all else, we need to acknowledge the benefits that historical-critical exegesis and other recently-developed methods of textual analysis have brought to the life of the Church.
“[b]For the Catholic understanding of sacred Scripture, attention to such methods is indispensable, linked as it is to the realism of the Incarnation: “This necessity is a consequence of the Christian principle formulated in the Gospel of John 1:14: Verbum caro factum est. The historical fact is a constitutive dimension of the Christian faith. The history of salvation is not mythology, but a true history, and it should thus be studied with the methods of serious historical research”.
https://www.vatican.va/content/bened...um-domini.html
You said my views on Islam contradict the Catechism, lol.
According to the Catechism, Islam is not even a “response to the divine Revelation of the Old Convenant”. Poor Muslims, who pretend their religion is one. One the contrary, the Jewish religion is one and it is described in much more prestigious terms in the Catechism, just before: “The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ",328 "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable." Anyway, of course the plan of Salvation includes all humans and we are reminded there are some vague points of reference between Islam and Christianity, for ex. the oneness of God, but it’s understood very differently, the tawhid having nothing to do with the Trinity… I fail to see how it’s supposed to legitimate the Islamic ideology…
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 6,019 Given: 4,943 |
Adultery was not my point, it was the demonization of women. I wanted to show that the moral injunction concerning adultery is much more beautiful and powerful in Mt., no need for demonizing women. In the Sermon of the Mount, Jesus deals with morals in depth and interiorises morals. And those verses have of course never been understood as a literal exhortation. And we are much stricter than Muslims concerning adultery, as having more than one woman would be considered adultery, infidelity. Even if there’s a separation in a married couple, the two are linked until death, they cannot shouldn’t married until one dies. Divorced people that get married again are deprived of several rights within the Church.
And referring to the laws of the Old Testament as if it constitutes norms for Christians is dishonest. The intimacy with God humans acquired throughout history let them perceive what is really his design, through the person of Jesus. Before, during, God was deformed, misrepresented in human spirits. The modalities of the Revelation are very different in Christianity and in Islam, which makes the Scriptural reading very different.
When you read the whole passage, you see that there’s a parallel with Adam, who suffers the same way. So it's not just the woman, contrary to what you imply. The fact the man rules over the woman is a consequence of the transgression, the sin, which disrupts the order wanted by God, where both are equal.
Explained in Mulieris Dignitatem:
"He shall rule over you"
10. [/b]The biblical description in the Book of Genesis outlines the truth about the consequences of man's sin, as it is shown by the disturbance of that original relationship between man and woman which corresponds to their individual dignity as persons.[/b] A human being, whether male or female, is a person, and therefore, "the only creature on earth which God willed for its own sake"; and at the same time this unique and unrepeatable creature "cannot fully find himself except through a sincere gift of self".[32] Here begins the relationship of "communion" in which the "unity of the two" and the personal dignity of both man and woman find expression. Therefore when we read in the biblical description the words addressed to the woman: "Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you" (Gen 3:16), we discover a break and a constant threat precisely in regard to this "unity of the two" which corresponds to the dignity of the image and likeness of God in both of them. But this threat is more serious for the woman, since domination takes the place of "being a sincere gift" and therefore living "for" the other: "he shall rule over you". This "domination" indicates the disturbance and loss of the stability of that fundamental equality which the man and the woman possess in the "unity of the two": and this is especially to the disadvantage of the woman, whereas only the equality resulting from their dignity as persons can give to their mutual relationship the character of an authentic "communio personarum". While the violation of this equality, which is both a gift and a right deriving from God the Creator, involves an element to the disadvantage of the woman, at the same time it also diminishes the true dignity of the man. Here we touch upon an extremely sensitive point in the dimension of that "ethos" which was originally inscribed by the Creator in the very creation of both of them in his own image and likeness.
https://www.vatican.va/content/john-...ignitatem.html
It’s actually a very beautiful passage, and it’s a pity you quoted a truncated version of it, like for the Genesis one. How surprising…
Wives must submit to their husbands since the latter ought love their wives like their own bodies. The man and his wife will become one flesh.
“22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.”
This invitation to women for submission is cultural, settled in the ancient Jewish and Greco-Roman world.1 Timothy 2:11-13 "A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[b] she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve."
What Mulieris Dignitatem says about it:
We find various passages in which the apostolic writings express this innovation, even though they also communicate what is "old": what is rooted in the religious tradition of Israel, in its way of understanding and explaining the sacred texts, as for example the second chapter of the Book of Genesis.[49]
[49]1 Tim 2:11-15.
The apostolic letters are addressed to people living in an environment marked by that same traditional way of thinking and acting. The "innovation" of Christ is a fact: it constitutes the unambiguous content of the evangelical message and is the result of the Redemption. However, the awareness that in marriage there is mutual "subjection of the spouses out of reverence for Christ", and not just that of the wife to the husband, must gradually establish itself in hearts, consciences, behaviour and customs. This is a call which from that time onwards, does not cease to challenge succeeding generations; it is a call which people have to accept ever anew. Saint Paul not only wrote: "In Christ Jesus... there is no more man or woman", but also wrote: "There is no more slave or freeman". Yet how many generations were needed for such a principle to be realized in the history of humanity through the abolition of slavery! And what is one to say of the many forms of slavery to which individuals and peoples are subjected, which have not yet disappeared from history?
It's interesting to note that 1 Tim 2 is not considered as an authentic letter written by Paul by many exegetes. I have two books on Saint Paul and women, and one of them, written by a priest, Michel Quesnel, Professor at Catholic Institute of Paris and at the Catholic University of Lyon, in France, specialist of the New Testament, tells that this letter wasn’t written by Paul, but by a disciple, after him.
Spoiler!
Before, in the same letter, in 1 Co 11, 5, Paul says women can pray and prophesize in the churches, which meant aloud.
So, the ban of the verse 34 must be relative. Michel Quesnel says he wants to combat women’s jabbering in prayer meetings of the church of Corinth. And indeed, the whole passage (1 Co 14) is about the intelligibility in worship and the word “speak” in the verse 34 is a translation of the verb laleo, meaning first “to pronounce inarticulate and incomprehensible sounds”.
Concerning the verse 35, Michel Quesnel says that according to the code of honour of the Greco-Roman society, women couldn’t express publicly a different opinion from that of their husbands, it was humiliating for the husband.
I didn’t make anything up. And the Quran and the hadiths repeat several times that the slave girls are lawful for sex for the Master. Nowhere it’s written that the consent makes the girl lawful, it’s the fact she’s a slave.
Surah 70: 29-31: “And those who guard their private parts/who guard their chastity/restrain their carnal desires [depending on the translation, all recognised ones] Except from their wives or those their right hands possess [females slaves], for indeed, they are not to be blamed - But whoever seeks beyond that, then they are the transgressors.”
In the case you mention, the slave is raped by another slave or a free man that is not her master. The consent is taken into account to determine if she is culprit of zina and it’s not the case because she was forced. But if the master, possessing her in her right hand, rapes her, there isn’t zina and it’s lawful. Also, the fact to pay the depreciation in the slave value implies that the charges concern only rapists that are not the slave owners.
Classic treaty of Islamic law (azil means coitus interruptus):
https://archive.org/details/TheHeday.../2up?q=consent
You can always try to convince yourself that Christianity condones paedophilia/child marriages/forced marriages like Islam, lol.
Referring to Quranic verses and the paedophile example of Muhammad, Islam, the Sharia condone paedophilia/child marriages, and talking about consent regarding children is irrelevant and pure hypocrisy, lol.We even have hadiths like this:
Narrated `Aisha:
I asked the Prophet, "O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)! Should the women be asked for their consent to their marriage?" He said, "Yes." I said, "A virgin, if asked, feels shy and keeps quiet." He said, "Her silence means her consent."
It was narrated from Ibn 'Abbas that the Prophet said:
"The guardian has no right (to force) the previously married woman (into a marriage). And an orphan girl should be consulted, and her silence is her approval."
And still you will find people in Afghanistan or other countries who may practice forced marriage and say that it's part of shariah.
I guess you’ve never heard of khiyar al-bulugh, the “option of puberty” in Islamic law:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3399462
Another interesting article on the topic:
https://www.iiu.edu.pk/wp-content/up...1_1_010817.pdf
It’s based also on the sahih hadiths saying that there’s “no marriage except with a guardian”:
https://sunnah.com/ibnmajah/9 (point 15)
And also on this sahih hadith:
“the Messenger of Allah said: “No woman should arrange the marriage of another woman, and no woman should arrange her own marriage. The adulteress is the one who arranges her own marriage.””
https://sunnah.com/ibnmajah:1882
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 6,019 Given: 4,943 |
Accomplishing the divine law doesn’t mean to implement it according to the rules enacted in the Old Testament. The way Jesus accomplishes and interprets the law, through his acts and sayings, makes it obsolete.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Deutschland
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks