Teacher Beheaded in France for Showing Class Picture of Muhammad (1 Viewer)

DaveXA

I love the Lord!
Staff member
Super Moderator
Joined
Sep 6, 2001
Messages
32,375
Reaction score
20,135
Age
49
Location
Vienna, VA via Lafayette
Offline
In reference to a couple of deleted posts. Let's stay away from personal insults and calling people names. No need for that. Thanks.
 

SystemShock

uh yu ka t'ann
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 23, 2011
Messages
12,277
Reaction score
17,069
Location
Xibalba
Offline
You're suggesting it has physical militant implications when it is simply an allegory to internal spiritual struggle.
That's how 21st century Tenordas interprets that passage.
How would 13th century Tenordas interpret that passage?
How would a 13th century Pope with his own private army interpret that passage?
 

DaveXA

I love the Lord!
Staff member
Super Moderator
Joined
Sep 6, 2001
Messages
32,375
Reaction score
20,135
Age
49
Location
Vienna, VA via Lafayette
Offline
That's how 21st century Tenordas interprets that passage.
How would 13th century Tenordas interpret that passage?
How would a 13th century Pope with his own private army interpret that passage?
That's all irrelevant. What's relevant is the writer's intended meaning. We can glean a bit of that from the context and the intended audience. To ascribe meaning to the writer's intended meaning is to take the quote out of context and use it in a way the author never intended.
 

SystemShock

uh yu ka t'ann
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 23, 2011
Messages
12,277
Reaction score
17,069
Location
Xibalba
Offline
That's all irrelevant. What's relevant is the writer's intended meaning. We can glean a bit of that from the context and the intended audience. To ascribe meaning to the writer's intended meaning is to take the quote out of context and use it in a way the author never intended.
I thought you were done. Why do you continue to reply to me on this subject?

And it is relevant. These are the type of "textuals" who are conveniently interpreted to fit whatever agenda church leaders have at the time, like a 13th century Pope with a private army. We are talking about people who thought burning someone alive would purify their souls.

And no, you have no idea what the writer's intended meaning was. You don't even know who the actual writer was.
 

DaveXA

I love the Lord!
Staff member
Super Moderator
Joined
Sep 6, 2001
Messages
32,375
Reaction score
20,135
Age
49
Location
Vienna, VA via Lafayette
Offline
I thought you were done. Why do you continue to reply to me on this subject?

And it is relevant. These are the type of "textuals" who are conveniently interpreted to fit whatever agenda church leaders have at the time, like a 13th century Pope with a private army. We are talking about people who thought burning someone alive would purify their souls.

And no, you have no idea what the writer's intended meaning was. You don't even know who the actual writer was.
And I completely disagree. To each his own then.
 

guidomerkinsrules

W H A T E V I R
VIP Contributor
Joined
Apr 30, 2007
Messages
59,680
Reaction score
96,339
Location
by the cemeteries
Offline
I thought you were done. Why do you continue to reply to me on this subject?

And it is relevant. These are the type of "textuals" who are conveniently interpreted to fit whatever agenda church leaders have at the time, like a 13th century Pope with a private army. We are talking about people who thought burning someone alive would purify their souls.

And no, you have no idea what the writer's intended meaning was. You don't even know who the actual writer was.
and granted this is a semantic and subjective distinction, but i would say if you are abstracting the text to achieve a goal against another peoples, then it's political
if you are applying the text to facilitate an individual or cultural spirituality, then it's religious

to whit - marshaling against abortion or homosexuality or other issues the gospels did not address even remotely is political
- if people are organizing to feed the poor or heal the sick - stuff jesus went on and on and on and on and on about - that's religious
 

tenordas

Vesti le procè flamber
VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 31, 1997
Messages
10,838
Reaction score
5,107
Location
Houston via New Jersey, New Orleans, Baton Rouge,
Online
I thought you were done. Why do you continue to reply to me on this subject?

And it is relevant. These are the type of "textuals" who are conveniently interpreted to fit whatever agenda church leaders have at the time, like a 13th century Pope with a private army. We are talking about people who thought burning someone alive would purify their souls.

And no, you have no idea what the writer's intended meaning was. You don't even know who the actual writer was.
Your point about a Pope misusing a text for his own agenda definitely is valid, especially considering the priests would not allow common people to read the texts for themselves in those days. Certainly, many words were used out of context to mean something they do not (not to mention words being made up completely).
However, you are incorrect in saying we don't know the writer's intention. All one has to do is read the entire chapter to understand his intention (better to read the entire letter, of course, which makes it even more obvious).
You also are incorrect entirely in saying we do not know who wrote the letter. Even antagonistic scholars agree that Ephesians was written by Paul (around AD 62). You have a better argument about the Gospels because there is barely any historical evidence to directly tie the traditional authors to those texts, but you have no defensible argument about Paul's letter because historian scholarship going all the way back to the late first century AD (and some of those documents were written by men who knew Paul personally) says he is the author.
 

SystemShock

uh yu ka t'ann
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 23, 2011
Messages
12,277
Reaction score
17,069
Location
Xibalba
Offline
and granted this is a semantic and subjective distinction, but i would say if you are abstracting the text to achieve a goal against another peoples, then it's political
if you are applying the text to facilitate an individual or cultural spirituality, then it's religious
There is no distinction. Your individual or cultural spirituality could very well be achieving something against other people. See crusades. Even today Jerusalem is considered a holy land, and people see it a righteous enterprise to take it over, give it to the Jews, and defend it from the Muslims, because prophesy.

to whit - marshaling against abortion or homosexuality or other issues the gospels did not address even remotely is political
The Bible clearly states homosexuality is an abomination and people who practice homosexuality shall be put to death.
 

SystemShock

uh yu ka t'ann
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 23, 2011
Messages
12,277
Reaction score
17,069
Location
Xibalba
Offline
Your point about a Pope misusing a text for his own agenda definitely is valid, especially considering the priests would not allow common people to read the texts for themselves in those days. Certainly, many words were used out of context to mean something they do not (not to mention words being made up completely).
However, you are incorrect in saying we don't know the writer's intention. All one has to do is read the entire chapter to understand his intention (better to read the entire letter, of course, which makes it even more obvious).
You also are incorrect entirely in saying we do not know who wrote the letter. Even antagonistic scholars agree that Ephesians was written by Paul (around AD 62). You have a better argument about the Gospels because there is barely any historical evidence to directly tie the traditional authors to those texts, but you have no defensible argument about Paul's letter because historian scholarship going all the way back to the late first century AD (and some of those documents were written by men who knew Paul personally) says he is the author.
You may want to look into that agreement even among agnostic scholars as to who wrote it. So, no, you don't know who the writer was, and after the many translations and interpretations, considering how long ago it was allegedly written, I can say that you don't know what the writer's intentions were.

As for a Pope misusing the text, can you say for certain he misused the texts, or that he believed them as he read them and understood them? We have gone from believing the Bible a literal, 100% factual text, to a number of interpretations depending on scientific advances and cultural evolution. There is a reason why there are so many denominations out there.
 
Joined
Nov 10, 2018
Messages
1,119
Reaction score
1,886
Age
56
Location
Carriere Ms
Offline
You may want to look into that agreement even among agnostic scholars as to who wrote it. So, no, you don't know who the writer was, and after the many translations and interpretations, considering how long ago it was allegedly written, I can say that you don't know what the writer's intentions were.

As for a Pope misusing the text, can you say for certain he misused the texts, or that he believed them as he read them and understood them? We have gone from believing the Bible a literal, 100% factual text, to a number of interpretations depending on scientific advances and cultural evolution. There is a reason why there are so many denominations out there.
In the world we live in today you can take the simple text “run spot run” and find 5 different people who have 5 different interpretations of it. But when Jesus said “I am the way the truth and the and the life and no one comes to the father except through me” John 14:6 that was pretty straightforward.
 

Saintman2884

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Dec 17, 2003
Messages
14,288
Reaction score
2,076
Offline
Your point about a Pope misusing a text for his own agenda definitely is valid, especially considering the priests would not allow common people to read the texts for themselves in those days. Certainly, many words were used out of context to mean something they do not (not to mention words being made up completely).
However, you are incorrect in saying we don't know the writer's intention. All one has to do is read the entire chapter to understand his intention (better to read the entire letter, of course, which makes it even more obvious).
You also are incorrect entirely in saying we do not know who wrote the letter. Even antagonistic scholars agree that Ephesians was written by Paul (around AD 62). You have a better argument about the Gospels because there is barely any historical evidence to directly tie the traditional authors to those texts, but you have no defensible argument about Paul's letter because historian scholarship going all the way back to the late first century AD (and some of those documents were written by men who knew Paul personally) says he is the author.
As a corresponding statement to the some of the points made in this reply is that even most historians, Biblical scholars, theologians agree that Paul wrote or co-wrote half of the books in the New Testament, reportedly even a few Christian Aprocryphal Gospels the Council of Nicea argued strenuously against and agreed not to include them.

Most historians also agree that Paul was executed via decapitation in a barely-used rock quarry outside city of Rome in 66-67 CE. Inheriting his Roman citizenship from his father being a major tent merchant could choose his form of execution.
 

gavinj

Super Forum Fanatic
Joined
Apr 12, 2004
Messages
10,607
Reaction score
8,357
Online
There is no distinction. Your individual or cultural spirituality could very well be achieving something against other people. See crusades. Even today Jerusalem is considered a holy land, and people see it a righteous enterprise to take it over, give it to the Jews, and defend it from the Muslims, because prophesy.
As far as the crusades go, you have to realize that there was a war between two empires going on. An old Christian one versus an upstart Muslim one. The Holy Land also happened to be the gateway of the most important trade routes linking Europe and North Africa to Asia. It was more about $$$$ than prophecy.
 

SystemShock

uh yu ka t'ann
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 23, 2011
Messages
12,277
Reaction score
17,069
Location
Xibalba
Offline
As far as the crusades go, you have to realize that there was a war between two empires going on. An old Christian one versus an upstart Muslim one. The Holy Land also happened to be the gateway of the most important trade routes linking Europe and North Africa to Asia. It was more about $$$$ than prophecy.
I don't doubt there was money involved, but that was not the main motivator. Even today, it is clear what Jerusalem means to Christians. No Jerusalem in the hands of the Jews, no prophesy fulfilled.
 

SystemShock

uh yu ka t'ann
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 23, 2011
Messages
12,277
Reaction score
17,069
Location
Xibalba
Offline
More like animalistic. I don’t care what you religion is condoning this type of behavior is inhuman. I really don’t want ti insult anyone but if you feel this is ok then please explain it to me.
Are you asking me if I think it is ok? No, don't.

In the world we live in today you can take the simple text “run spot run” and find 5 different people who have 5 different interpretations of it. But when Jesus said “I am the way the truth and the and the life and no one comes to the father except through me” John 14:6 that was pretty straightforward.
Another thing that is straight forward is that, when Jesus allegedly said that, he was in direct violation of the 2nd commandment: thou shalt have no other gods before me, which prompted to later develop concept of the holy trinity to get around that.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)



Headlines

Top Bottom