Search forums

Forums

Export thread

God, a hard act to follow!

Dec 17, 2009#1

@Li3n

Blasphemy... Joseph should be older then that.

An unholy row has broken out in New Zealand over a church billboard aimed at "challenging stereotypes" about the birth of Jesus Christ.

A dejected-looking Joseph lies in bed next to Mary under the caption, "Poor Joseph. God was a hard act to follow".
St Matthew-in-the-City Church in Auckland, which erected the billboard, said it had intended to provoke debate.
But the Catholic Church, among others, has condemned it as "inappropriate" and "disrespectful".
Within hours of its unveiling, the billboard had been defaced with brown paint.
The church's vicar, Archdeacon Glynn Cardy, said the aim of the billboard had been to lampoon the literal interpretation of the Christmas conception story.

The billboard was defaced within hours of its unveiling

"What we're trying to do is to get people to think more about what Christmas is all about," he told the New Zealand Press Association (NZPA).
"Is it about a spiritual male God sending down sperm so a child would be born, or is it about the power of love in our midst as seen in Jesus?"
He told NZPA that the church had received e-mails and phone calls about the controversial image.
"About 50% said they loved it, and about 50% said it was terribly offensive," he said. "But that's out of about 20 responses - this is New Zealand."
But Lyndsay Freer, spokeswoman for the Catholic Diocese of Auckland, said the poster was offensive to Christians.
"Our Christian tradition of 2,000 years is that Mary remains a virgin and that Jesus is the son of God, not Joseph," she told the New Zealand Herald. "Such a poster is inappropriate and disrespectful."
The family values group Family First said any debate about the Virgin birth should be held inside the church.
"To confront children and families with the concept as a street billboard is completely irresponsible and unnecessary," Family First director Bob McCroskrie told the news website stuff.co.nz.

Dec 17, 2009#2

North_Ranger

Bah, someone has their cilice on way too tight.

Also, heareth ye wordes of Rufus, the Thirteenth Apostle:

Bethany: Jesus didn't have any brothers or sisters. Mary was a virgin.
Rufus: Mary gave birth to CHRIST without having known a man's touch, that's true. But she did have a husband. And do you really think he'd have stayed married to her all those years if he wasn't getting laid? The nature of God and the Virgin Mary, those are leaps of faith. But to believe a married couple never got down? Well, that's just plain gullibility.

Dec 17, 2009#3

JCM

@Li3n said:
Blasphemy... Joseph should be older then that.

An unholy row has broken out in New Zealand over a church billboard aimed at "challenging stereotypes" about the birth of Jesus Christ.

A dejected-looking Joseph lies in bed next to Mary under the caption, "Poor Joseph. God was a hard act to follow".
St Matthew-in-the-City Church in Auckland, which erected the billboard, said it had intended to provoke debate.
But the Catholic Church, among others, has condemned it as "inappropriate" and "disrespectful".
Within hours of its unveiling, the billboard had been defaced with brown paint.
The church's vicar, Archdeacon Glynn Cardy, said the aim of the billboard had been to lampoon the literal interpretation of the Christmas conception story.

The billboard was defaced within hours of its unveiling

"What we're trying to do is to get people to think more about what Christmas is all about," he told the New Zealand Press Association (NZPA).
"Is it about a spiritual male God sending down sperm so a child would be born, or is it about the power of love in our midst as seen in Jesus?"
He told NZPA that the church had received e-mails and phone calls about the controversial image.
"About 50% said they loved it, and about 50% said it was terribly offensive," he said. "But that's out of about 20 responses - this is New Zealand."
But Lyndsay Freer, spokeswoman for the Catholic Diocese of Auckland, said the poster was offensive to Christians.
"Our Christian tradition of 2,000 years is that Mary remains a virgin and that Jesus is the son of God, not Joseph," she told the New Zealand Herald. "Such a poster is inappropriate and disrespectful."
The family values group Family First said any debate about the Virgin birth should be held inside the church.
"To confront children and families with the concept as a street billboard is completely irresponsible and unnecessary," Family First director Bob McCroskrie told the news website stuff.co.nz.

Click to expand...

Religious outrage is always funny.

However, to be fair, if it ware a Muslim mosque poking fun of Muhammed's mother, there'd be a fatwa and maybe, deaths, so one has to be thankful that at least the Christian world has almost caught up to the modern world.

Dec 17, 2009#4

Silver Jelly

North_Ranger said:
Bah, someone has their cilice on way too tight.

Also, heareth ye wordes of Rufus, the Thirteenth Apostle:

Bethany: Jesus didn't have any brothers or sisters. Mary was a virgin.
Rufus: Mary gave birth to CHRIST without having known a man's touch, that's true. But she did have a husband. And do you really think he'd have stayed married to her all those years if he wasn't getting laid? The nature of God and the Virgin Mary, those are leaps of faith. But to believe a married couple never got down? Well, that's just plain gullibility.

Dogma is one of the best films about religion I've ever seen.

Dec 17, 2009#5

Wasabi Poptart

Dec 17, 2009#6

Chibibar

Silver Jelly;316725][quote=North_Ranger said:
Bah, someone has their cilice on way too tight.

Also, heareth ye wordes of Rufus, the Thirteenth Apostle:

Bethany: Jesus didn't have any brothers or sisters. Mary was a virgin.
Rufus: Mary gave birth to CHRIST without having known a man's touch, that's true. But she did have a husband. And do you really think he'd have stayed married to her all those years if he wasn't getting laid? The nature of God and the Virgin Mary, those are leaps of faith. But to believe a married couple never got down? Well, that's just plain gullibility.

Dogma is one of the best films about religion I've ever seen.[/QUOTE]

I love that movie

Dec 17, 2009#7

Chazwozel

@Li3n said:
Blasphemy... Joseph should be older then that.

An unholy row has broken out in New Zealand over a church billboard aimed at "challenging stereotypes" about the birth of Jesus Christ.

A dejected-looking Joseph lies in bed next to Mary under the caption, "Poor Joseph. God was a hard act to follow".
St Matthew-in-the-City Church in Auckland, which erected the billboard, said it had intended to provoke debate.
But the Catholic Church, among others, has condemned it as "inappropriate" and "disrespectful".
Within hours of its unveiling, the billboard had been defaced with brown paint.
The church's vicar, Archdeacon Glynn Cardy, said the aim of the billboard had been to lampoon the literal interpretation of the Christmas conception story.

The billboard was defaced within hours of its unveiling

"What we're trying to do is to get people to think more about what Christmas is all about," he told the New Zealand Press Association (NZPA).
"Is it about a spiritual male God sending down sperm so a child would be born, or is it about the power of love in our midst as seen in Jesus?"
He told NZPA that the church had received e-mails and phone calls about the controversial image.
"About 50% said they loved it, and about 50% said it was terribly offensive," he said. "But that's out of about 20 responses - this is New Zealand."
But Lyndsay Freer, spokeswoman for the Catholic Diocese of Auckland, said the poster was offensive to Christians.
"Our Christian tradition of 2,000 years is that Mary remains a virgin and that Jesus is the son of God, not Joseph," she told the New Zealand Herald. "Such a poster is inappropriate and disrespectful."
The family values group Family First said any debate about the Virgin birth should be held inside the church.
"To confront children and families with the concept as a street billboard is completely irresponsible and unnecessary," Family First director Bob McCroskrie told the news website stuff.co.nz.

Click to expand...

Kinda lame.

Dec 17, 2009#8

SeraRelm

Thank you Wildsoul, that got a laugh out of me.

Dec 17, 2009#9

SpecialKO

Think the image is funny, but the explanation for it is pretty weak. I'm not sure what stereotypes are supposedly being challenged.

That looks more like a shock-jockish attempt to get people to come to church, which I do think is a little inappropriate for a billboard.

Dec 17, 2009#10

Chibibar

Amorous Vyxen said:
Kinda fail.

"Challenging stereotypes" my ass, they still look pasty white ass to me.

The phrase itself is kinda funny, but a semi-permanent billboard? Not so much.

Also, just to rectify, Jesus was not the only child of Mary.

wait?? they are not white?!?!!?!

(sarcasm off)

Dec 17, 2009#11

Bowielee

That was one of the things that always floored me about images of Mary and Jesus in America. They're always portrayed as Caucasian when there's so obviously no way they could have been.

Dec 17, 2009#12

Hailey Knight

I think the movie Nativity Story actually showed them as more Mediterranean-looking.

Dec 17, 2009#13

Philosopher B.

I'm more offended by the defaced poster. Looks like someone let something come spatterin' out their ass-cavity, yo.

Dec 18, 2009#14

@Li3n

Amorous Vyxen said:
Also, just to rectify, Jesus was not the only child of Mary.

Actually because some people that are clearly identified as His cousins are also called Jesus's brothers (as i recall) we don't really know that.

I think the movie Nativity Story actually showed them as more Mediterranean-looking.

Now Mediterraneans aren't white anymore?! Remind me never to get a tan.

Also, why are Jews not considered white, they certainly don't qualify as black, brown or yellow.

Dec 18, 2009#15

JONJONAUG

Silver Jelly;316725][quote=North_Ranger said:
Bah, someone has their cilice on way too tight.

Also, heareth ye wordes of Rufus, the Thirteenth Apostle:

Bethany: Jesus didn't have any brothers or sisters. Mary was a virgin.
Rufus: Mary gave birth to CHRIST without having known a man's touch, that's true. But she did have a husband. And do you really think he'd have stayed married to her all those years if he wasn't getting laid? The nature of God and the Virgin Mary, those are leaps of faith. But to believe a married couple never got down? Well, that's just plain gullibility.

Dec 18, 2009#16

@Li3n

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desposyni#Degree_of_consanguinuity_between_the_Adelphoi_and_Jesus

Dec 18, 2009#17

North_Ranger

JONJONAUG;317410][quote=Silver Jelly;316725][quote=North_Ranger said:
Bah, someone has their cilice on way too tight.

Also, heareth ye wordes of Rufus, the Thirteenth Apostle:

Bethany: Jesus didn't have any brothers or sisters. Mary was a virgin.
Rufus: Mary gave birth to CHRIST without having known a man's touch, that's true. But she did have a husband. And do you really think he'd have stayed married to her all those years if he wasn't getting laid? The nature of God and the Virgin Mary, those are leaps of faith. But to believe a married couple never got down? Well, that's just plain gullibility.

Dec 18, 2009#18

Silver Jelly

North_Ranger;317427][quote=JONJONAUG;317410][quote=Silver Jelly;316725][quote=North_Ranger said:
Bah, someone has their cilice on way too tight.

Also, heareth ye wordes of Rufus, the Thirteenth Apostle:

Bethany: Jesus didn't have any brothers or sisters. Mary was a virgin.
Rufus: Mary gave birth to CHRIST without having known a man's touch, that's true. But she did have a husband. And do you really think he'd have stayed married to her all those years if he wasn't getting laid? The nature of God and the Virgin Mary, those are leaps of faith. But to believe a married couple never got down? Well, that's just plain gullibility.

Dec 18, 2009#19

@Li3n

That's probably because there's no actual mention of YOUNGER brethren... just of brethren in general.

Dec 18, 2009#20

Silver Jelly

If I have to believe my priest, wich I do, the original greek word that was transated as "virgin" was one that meant "girl" as in a girl that can't be pregnant yet. It gives a new symbolism to the two sisters that get pregnant when they can't (one because she's too young and the other one because she's too old) and... It's a much more interesting miracle.

Dec 18, 2009#21

@Li3n

Fun fact: any greek word was not actually the original.

And what sisters are you talking about?!

Dec 18, 2009#22

Silver Jelly

@Li3n said:
Fun fact: any greek word was not actually the original.

Ok, ok. The text from wich the version we use of the bible was originally translated.

@Li3n said:
And what sisters are you talking about?!

John the baptist was Jesus' cousin, and Elisabeth was Mary's older COUSIN.

(looking on wikipedia, I can't find this particular fact... But it's one of those things I know for sure because I have heard them again and again at mess... It's told, for example, in that part in wich Mary visits Elisabeth and "the child in her womb jumps (or something similar) at the arrival of Mary pregnant with Jesus".)

Edited: D'oh. Cousin, not sister!

Dec 18, 2009#23

sixpackshaker

@Li3n said:
Fun fact: any greek word was not actually the original.

And what sisters are you talking about?!

Fun Fact, the locals of the time spoke and wrote in Greek.

Dec 18, 2009#24

North_Ranger

And Aramaic.

I wonder how many people knew that before that Gibson gorefest gonzo movie?

Dec 18, 2009#25

sixpackshaker

Silver Jelly;317485][quote=@Li3n said:
Fun fact: any greek word was not actually the original.

Ok, ok. The text from wich the version we use of the bible was originally translated.

[/QUOTE]

The gospels and the letters of Paul were mostly written in Greek. There is some Aramaic. Palestine was a very cosmopolitan region, the crossroads of Egypt-Africa, Arabia, Asia Minor, The Silk Road (China), Greece, and Rome. This was the peak of Hellenistic culture, 300 years after Alexander. The locals were heavily influenced by the Greek Language. Most likely Jesus would have spoken to crowds using Greek, it was the Lingua Franca of the time.

---------- Post added at 03:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:49 PM ----------

North_Ranger said:
And Aramaic.

I wonder how many people knew that before that Gibson gorefest gonzo movie?

I never saw the movie, did Jesus ever speak Greek in it? He should have.

Dec 18, 2009#26

North_Ranger

Actually, it is my understanding that Aramaic was the local language spoken by the Jews and other neighbouring peoples at the time. Greek was the lingua franca of the eastern part of the Roman Empire, though.

As for the film... tried to watch it, but couldn't past a certain point where I could imagine Gibson just creamin' his pants with the whole violence fetish thing. But if memory serves, Jesus is shown speaking Aramaic with Jews. And Latin with the Romans (apparently a conscious choice so people could better hear the language difference or something, cue eye-roll...).

Dec 18, 2009#27

Silver Jelly

Well, I don't know much about this language thing! I'm quoting something a priest told me years ago! And, really, I couldn't care less about what language it was. What I'm talking about are the meanings of teh words, not the words themselves. I care about this "mistranslation" that became so important for christianity.

Dec 18, 2009#28

Dave

It's impossible to misunderstand the Word of God. As the Bible was written by Him and not man it doesn't matter what we think because the text is perfect.

Unless you are Conservative and want to rewrite the Bible and take out all that liberal bias.

Dec 18, 2009#29

Chibibar

Dave said:
It's impossible to misunderstand the Word of God. As the Bible was written by Him and not man it doesn't matter what we think because the text is perfect.

Unless you are Conservative and want to rewrite the Bible and take out all that liberal bias.

That never happen

The bible is never altered by anyone. It is perfect since it was made by God

Dec 18, 2009#30

Covar

Dave said:
It's impossible to misunderstand the Word of God. As the Bible was written by Him and not man it doesn't matter what we think because the text is perfect.

Unless you are Conservative and want to rewrite the Bible and take out all that liberal bias.

Or Catholic, and actually know it was your religion who had a hand in it's creation.

Dec 18, 2009#31

Iaculus

Dave said:
It's impossible to misunderstand the Word of God. As the Bible was written by Him and not man it doesn't matter what we think because the text is perfect.

Unless you are Conservative and want to rewrite the Bible and take out all that liberal bias.

Dec 18, 2009#32

Covar

Iaculus;317610][quote=Dave said:
It's impossible to misunderstand the Word of God. As the Bible was written by Him and not man it doesn't matter what we think because the text is perfect.

Unless you are Conservative and want to rewrite the Bible and take out all that liberal bias.

Dec 18, 2009#33

sixpackshaker

Covar;317618][quote=Iaculus;317610][quote=Dave said:
It's impossible to misunderstand the Word of God. As the Bible was written by Him and not man it doesn't matter what we think because the text is perfect.

Unless you are Conservative and want to rewrite the Bible and take out all that liberal bias.

Last I checked, it was just the Koran that was seen by its adherents as the absolute Word of God.

Apart from a few quotes from the Big G, it's pretty commonly accepted that the Bible was written by humans, for humans.[/QUOTE]
not by quite a few Protestant denominations sadly. Then again some of the same people who told me the Bible was infallible because it was written by and given to us by God also told me that wine back in the biblical times was actually grape juice and that Catholics are not Christians.[/QUOTE]

I was at a Christian conference while in high school. We were doing a bible reading, the one I was reading from was a newer translation with more modern words. And after a few questions I told them it was a new Catholic Bible.

Then a kid made that similar statement, "I did not know Catholics were Christian.."

I had to tell him, "Well, who do you think wrote it in the first place?"

Dec 18, 2009#34

@Li3n

Covar;317602][quote=Dave said:
It's impossible to misunderstand the Word of God. As the Bible was written by Him and not man it doesn't matter what we think because the text is perfect.

Unless you are Conservative and want to rewrite the Bible and take out all that liberal bias.

Or Catholic, and actually know it was your religion who had a hand in it's creation.[/QUOTE]

Keep telling yourself that... i mean really, papal infallibility...

The gospels and the letters of Paul were mostly written in Greek.

You mean the guy who called himself the "Apostle to the Gentiles"?! Now why would he do that?

As i recall the earliest books found/known about were indeed in greek, but they're like from the 3rd century, and it's not unlikely that some hebrew text existed before that (look at the Septuagint).

Dec 18, 2009#35

JCM

Dave said:
It's impossible to misunderstand the Word of God. As the Bible was written by Him and not man it doesn't matter what we think because the text is perfect.

Unless you are Conservative and want to rewrite the Bible and take out all that liberal bias.

Dec 19, 2009#36

@Li3n

JCM;317962][quote=Dave said:
It's impossible to misunderstand the Word of God. As the Bible was written by Him and not man it doesn't matter what we think because the text is perfect.

Unless you are Conservative and want to rewrite the Bible and take out all that liberal bias.

Technically, part of it was written by man, but dictated by God, and the other parts were 4 guys writing about him.

Imagine Stephen King dictating stories to some of his fans, and then 4 followers of his writing about his life and what he says.[/quote]

eh... i'm pretty sure even the protestants, who need the Bible to be inerrant to justify sola scritura only say that God just made sure the writers didn't make mistakes (where divinely inspired about what to include), not that God wrote anything.

Dec 19, 2009#37

Rob King

@Li3n;318051][quote=JCM said:
Technically, part of it was written by man, but dictated by God, and the other parts were 4 guys writing about him.

Imagine Stephen King dictating stories to some of his fans, and then 4 followers of his writing about his life and what he says.

eh... i'm pretty sure even the protestants, who need the Bible to be inerrant to justify sola scritura only say that God just made sure the writers didn't make mistakes (where divinely inspired about what to include), not that God wrote anything.[/QUOTE]

Nobody needs the bible to be inerrant to justify sola scriptura. They need it to be infallible. There is a difference.

Inerrant: there are no mistakes, inaccuracies or contradictions between the first and last pages of the bible.

Infallable: the bible is the one stop shop for Cristian doctrine. Whether samson killed 499, or 501 philistines with the jawbone of an ass is immaterial. The gist of what the message is is what's important.

And regarding what the bible is, someone has already cleared up that it's Muslims who believe their scripture is the literal word of God. Christians ... yes there are some nutjobs, but on the whole we're sensible. It's easy to see what the bible actually is.

Old Testament:
Collection of Israelite History, Myths, and Wisdom, with some prophecy thrown in there.

New Testament:
Biography of Jesus, and letters between different pastors and churches trying to sort out exactly what the implications of the life of Jesus are, and sending encouragement to each other because their sect is under heavy persecution at the time of writing.

---------- Post added at 11:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:00 AM ----------

Bowielee said:
That was one of the things that always floored me about images of Mary and Jesus in America. They're always portrayed as Caucasian when there's so obviously no way they could have been.

It's not just America. We visited a catholic church when I was down in Haiti last, and they had a big ole carving of Jesus on the cross. In a 98% black culture, Jesus was whiter than me.

Dec 19, 2009#38

Silver Jelly

Dave said:
It's impossible to misunderstand the Word of God.

¿What, He doesn't speak even when His mouth is full anymore?

Dec 19, 2009#39

Hailey Knight

Silver Jelly;317438][quote=North_Ranger;317427][quote=JONJONAUG;317410][quote=Silver Jelly;316725][quote=North_Ranger said:
Bah, someone has their cilice on way too tight.

Also, heareth ye wordes of Rufus, the Thirteenth Apostle:

Bethany: Jesus didn't have any brothers or sisters. Mary was a virgin.
Rufus: Mary gave birth to CHRIST without having known a man's touch, that's true. But she did have a husband. And do you really think he'd have stayed married to her all those years if he wasn't getting laid? The nature of God and the Virgin Mary, those are leaps of faith. But to believe a married couple never got down? Well, that's just plain gullibility.

Dogma is one of the best films about religion I've ever seen.[/QUOTE]

Way to pick the worst scene from it though. In a movie that lampoons religious dogma it makes it come off as stupid when it jokes about Mary remaining a virgin when it is explicitly stated in the Bible that Jesus had younger brothers and sisters.[/QUOTE]

Umm... It was picked because it was relevant to the conversation in question, maybe?[/QUOTE]

Also, most people could care less about what is said in the bible: (at least in catholicism), Mary was a virgin PERIOD.[/QUOTE]

I'm pretty sure it was only developed that way out of a point in Catholicism for worship of Mary, stemming to draw in the goddess quotient of European heathens (along with Christmas and Easter), not because it was factual or even important. If she was a virgin at conception, and sex is original sin, then she can't be worshipped if she was a married woman having sex with her husband.

They had beds like Lucy and Ricky Ricardo, dammit.

Dec 19, 2009#40

fade

Wildsoul said:

There was a CD of South Park songs that included one where Kenny mumbles something, and then Stan or Kyle sings "and still be a virgin, Mary!". If you listen, you can make out that Kenny is singing "You can suck all the dick you want".

Dec 19, 2009#41

@Li3n

@fade

I always thought that was more like "you can take it up the %^&*"...

EDIT: and seems i was wrong:

Rob King said:
Nobody needs the bible to be inerrant to justify sola scriptura. They need it to be infallible. There is a difference.

Inerrant: there are no mistakes, inaccuracies or contradictions between the first and last pages of the bible.

Infallable: the bible is the one stop shop for Cristian doctrine. Whether samson killed 499, or 501 philistines with the jawbone of an ass is immaterial. The gist of what the message is is what's important.

Dude, it took me 10 minutes to figure out how inerrant was spelled... and infallible literally means "can't fail", they're close enough for posting on a forum...

I'm pretty sure it was only developed that way out of a point in Catholicism for worship of Mary, stemming to draw in the goddess quotient of European heathens (along with Christmas and Easter), not because it was factual or even important.

It was before Catholicism... though catholics did run wild with the whole Mary worship.

Dec 19, 2009#42

Rob King

@Li3n;318236][quote=Rob King said:
Nobody needs the bible to be inerrant to justify sola scriptura. They need it to be infallible. There is a difference.

Inerrant: there are no mistakes, inaccuracies or contradictions between the first and last pages of the bible.

Infallable: the bible is the one stop shop for Cristian doctrine. Whether samson killed 499, or 501 philistines with the jawbone of an ass is immaterial. The gist of what the message is is what's important.

Dude, it took me 10 minutes to figure out how inerrant was spelled... and infallible literally means "can't fail", they're close enough for posting on a forum... [/QUOTE]

Please tell me you're being facetious ... because there is a major distinction between the two of them. And I need that distinction to put some distance between myself and them damn seven day creationists

Dec 19, 2009#43

@Li3n

Rob King;318239][quote=@Li3n;318236][quote=Rob King said:
Nobody needs the bible to be inerrant to justify sola scriptura. They need it to be infallible. There is a difference.

Inerrant: there are no mistakes, inaccuracies or contradictions between the first and last pages of the bible.

Infallable: the bible is the one stop shop for Cristian doctrine. Whether samson killed 499, or 501 philistines with the jawbone of an ass is immaterial. The gist of what the message is is what's important.

Dude, it took me 10 minutes to figure out how inerrant was spelled... and infallible literally means "can't fail", they're close enough for posting on a forum... [/quote]

Please tell me you're being facetious ... because there is a major distinction between the two of them. And I need that distinction to put some distance between myself and them damn seven day creationists

[/QUOTE]

Yeah, yeah, i was just saying you know damn well what i meant, and this isn't an ecumenical council, you don't get to split off because you felt the wording condemning a heresy isn't strong enough and leaves too much space open for another.

Dec 19, 2009#44

Rob King

Amorous Vyxen said:
Not everyone is a native English speaker, Rob. And even those that talk English every day on an internet forum might not have the same vocabulary you do. I certainly don't use "inerrant" in every day talk. In fact, I had never heard of it before until this very post.

No, I understand that, although I thought @lin was a native speaker. Even so, I get that not everyone would understand the distinction, which is why I explained them. And I thought I explained them politely.

I was just trying to disagree with the notion that the two are 'close enough,' while also informing those interested that it's an important distinction (implying that the 'close enough' statement is hopefully facetious), and at the same time keep it all a bit lighthearted (a reference to the seven day creationist folks). I even included a colon and a capital P!

Sorry if I came off as a zealot. But make no mistake: it's actually a pretty big deal. And not even in a metaphysical sense. Infallibility vs. Inerrancy is a fundamental worldview issue which makes debate across the divide very difficult.

---------- Post added at 08:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:23 PM ----------

@Li3n;318243][quote=Rob King said:
Please tell me you're being facetious ... because there is a major distinction between the two of them. And I need that distinction to put some distance between myself and them damn seven day creationists

Yeah, yeah, i was just saying you know damn well what i meant, and this isn't an ecumenical council, you don't get to split off because you felt the wording condemning a heresy isn't strong enough and leaves too much space open for another.[/QUOTE]

I actually honestly thought you meant the other thing. Sorry to have doubted you!

Dec 19, 2009#45

@Li3n

Actually the part where i said i looked for the spelling for 10 minutes was meant to imply i didn't really think about the actual meaning the word had in religious circles. But i'm pretty sure there are denominations out there that see it as inerrant too.

I would have just said "Oh, right!" if you had just said "I think you meant infallible!"

But the words themselves can easily be used as synonyms... they just have a certain history in this case.

Dec 19, 2009#46

Rob King

@Li3n said:
Actually the part where i said i looked for the spelling for 10 minutes was meant to imply i didn't really think about the actual meaning the word had in religious circles. But i'm pretty sure there are denominations out there that see it as inerrant too.

I would have just said "Oh, right!" if you had just said "I think you meant infallible!"

But the words themselves can easily be used as synonyms... they just have a certain history in this case.

Tell me about it. Another great example: "Evangelical" churches aren't necessarily evangelical. I had a half hour conversation with my mother about that a few months ago, when I told her I didn't like "Evangelical" churches that much.

Back to Inerrant vs. Infallible though, they both do have a definition "incapable of being wrong." But again, since the discussion began with sola scriptura, I presumed that we were discussing the theological positions involved. And as for why I didn't say "I think you meant infallible!" it's because I didn't think you meant infallible. I thought you were making a mistake, and I was trying to inform you of the difference.

So ... are we cool? I realize text is a poor way to convey tone, and despite my attempts to keep this light, I fear that my misunderstanding may have caused me to offend someone. It's fine if we don't want to get into theology here, but I thought that was where the conversation was going so I assumed you had the same lexicon I was using.

Dec 20, 2009#47

@Li3n

Relax, i was just ranting at the stuff in general, not you.

Dec 20, 2009#48

RocketGirl

Silver Jelly said:
Dogma is one of the best films about religion I've ever seen.

S'got Carlin; automatic win.

Forums