"I Care about Civil Rights... but not that much"

[Wong & Owens]

That's not to say religious or family centric Americans don't practice birth control.  They do.  But I doubt very much that condoms are the norm.  Natural methods & the pill are more common.  There's a moral reason behind this.  There is no desire for a full proof method.  The idea of there being a chance of conception is something that makes them feel really good.  Believe it or not it feels like a miracle or blessing from God when it happens against the odds.

 

Where do you come up with this? "the idea of there being a chance of conception is something that makes them feel really good?" Just from what I hear from the Christians on this board they dont want you speaking for them, so I'm sure Christianity as a whole has no need for your services as spokesman. People, whether they be catholic, atheist, jewish, etc. all take birth control because they DONT WANT KIDS. Maybe it's a temporary situation, maybe something more permanent, but I believe your theory that religious Americans secretly hope that their birth control will fail is utter nonsense.

 

 

I've made several generalizations here & no doubt there are exceptions to them.  But I hope it gives a better understanding of why most religious & family centric Americans seem adamantly against gay marriage.

 

Again, since none of the Christians on this board will claim you as their representative, I'm taking your belief that you can honestly stand for what most American Christians believe with a grain of salt the size of a '77 Buick.

[kapkomet]

Yep, yep.

 

Although, I would like to take this moment to say. . .

 

Biblical translations have ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS been manipulated to reflect current religious tone and opinion. (I think in this respect the Muslims may be onto something: allowing the Koran to be read only in its native Arabic.) So, although the Bible may be divinely inspired (not saying either way on that) the translation of the Bible is, shall we say, guided by the hand of men. From the stupid taking of Noah's rejection of his son Ham (although, hmmmm, maybe that's why Jews can't eat pork. . .) to be a rejection of people of color and a rationalization for doing so (still scrathing my head at that one) to flat out mistranslations there are some problems with a lot of translations. So, sadly, I don't speak Hebrew or Greek, but I always, on those really tricky passages check out a bible or Greek/Hebrew dictionary to make sure I'm getting the real Bible's view--not some monk or translator.

 

I can think of some examples, but without my trusty NRSV Oxford Bible, I think I'll refrain.

 

ABSOLUTELY correct. Great post.

[Balta1701]

Didn't Gray Davis just compare favorably to Arnold in someone's poll?

 

Arnold's over, it doesn't matter what he spews.  You know you're done when the public starts considering how much more dignified was the political career of Jesse Ventura.

Right now out here, Arnold is polling at about a 36% approval rating in field polls...which I believe is slighlty below what Gray Davis was polling when he was recalled. And that was before he decided to veto this bill...that was entirely due to his special election and his poor performance as governor this year.

[JUGGERNAUT]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Your post appears as bating, offensive & a personal attack & since I choose to follow the guidelines of the forum I will not resort to making generalizations of yourself.

 

The 7 major groups of Catholics:

* ULTRATRADITIONALIST : orthodox - resistant to Vatican changes

* TRADITIONALIST : backbone - critical of liberalism & modernism in the Church

* CHARISMATIC / EVANGELICAL : born-again - scripture > Vatican.

* POPULAR FOLK (1) : Latin American - worshipping of saints & Mary. Paganistic flavor.

* CULTURAL : Family Catholics - social connection > spiritual connection.

* LIBERAL : modernists - human reasoning (material machines) > Bible & Vatican

* POSTMODERNIST : moral-relativists - no objective truths

 

These classifications apply to other Christian groups as well.

 

In terms of size within the Catholic population:

* ULTRATRADITIONALIST : < 10%

* TRADITIONALIST : > 25% & < 35%

* CHARISMATIC / EVANGELICAL : < 25%

* POPULAR FOLK (1) : 25%

* CULTURAL : > 70%

* LIBERAL : < 25 %

* POSTMODERNIST : < 10%

 

There is cross-over which is why it doesn't add up to 100%. It's pretty obvious what groups best represent most Christian members (who actually write religious oriented posts) of this forum. You can see that in their posts.

 

The mainstream Christians (the top 5) do not hope their birth control fails. That's not only illogical but a distortion of what I wrote earlier. What I stated was that they view conception in the midst of birth control as a miraculous event & blessing of God. It's a well known fact that natural methods are the most commonly used form of birth control in the top 4 & the pill when you include the top 5.

[JUGGERNAUT]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Which is why most evangelical Christians refer to the KJV as the best Bible source.

 

To illustrate your point:

 

There is reference of a huge army in the book of Revelations.

KJV: 9:16: And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand.

 

In a Vatican II bible in the late 60's that was translated as 200,000. Years later it was changed to 2,000,000.

 

For your reading pleasure: http://www.cforc.com/kjv/index.html

Edited September 9, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[Wong & Owens]

Your post appears as bating, offensive & a personal attack & since I choose to follow the guidelines of the forum I will not resort to making generalizations of yourself. 

 

The 7 major groups of Catholics:

* ULTRATRADITIONALIST : orthodox - resistant to Vatican changes

* TRADITIONALIST : backbone - critical of liberalism & modernism in the Church

* CHARISMATIC / EVANGELICAL : born-again - scripture > Vatican.

* POPULAR FOLK (1)  : Latin American - worshipping of saints & Mary.  Paganistic flavor.

* CULTURAL : Family Catholics - social connection > spiritual connection.

* LIBERAL : modernists - human reasoning (material machines) > Bible & Vatican

* POSTMODERNIST : moral-relativists - no objective truths

 

These classifications apply to other Christian groups as well.

 

In terms of size within the Catholic population:

* ULTRATRADITIONALIST :

* TRADITIONALIST : > 25% &

* CHARISMATIC / EVANGELICAL :

* POPULAR FOLK (1)  : 25%

* CULTURAL : > 70%

* LIBERAL :

* POSTMODERNIST :

 

There is cross-over which is why it doesn't add up to 100%.  It's pretty obvious what groups best represent most Christian members (who actually write religious oriented posts) of this forum.  You can see that in their posts. 

 

The mainstream Christians (the top 5) do not hope their birth control fails.  That's not only illogical but a distortion of what I wrote earlier. What I stated was that they view conception in the midst of birth control as a miraculous event & blessing of God.  It's a well known fact that natural methods are the most commonly used form of birth control in the top 4 & the pill when you include the top 5.

 

There is no attack, just a simple observation which I will re-state. You continue to speak as being representative of "Mainstream Christians" and since not one fellow Christian seems to agree with you, I am hard-pressed to believe anything you post that claims to be what "they" want or "they" believe. I personally don't think you have the slightest clue what mainstream Christians think or believe. I also made no distrotion of your post-- but if you can find anyone else on this board to honestly agree with you, I'll take it back.

[JUGGERNAUT]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Again you are personalizing the post & bating me into an argument on a personal level. It's up to a mod to stop it. In the past I would follow up with harsh rhetoric ripping you & your assertions to pieces at a personal level. I'm not going to do that any more.

 

What is or is not representative of mainstream Christianity is not going to be found in the the small sample of Christian members here at SOXTALK. It's going to be found in credible sources of information on the subject. Since this is a sports messageboard first & foremost those sources are best found outside the SOXTALK community.

Edited September 9, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[Soxy]

Which is why most evangelical Christians refer to the KJV as the best Bible source.

 

To illustrate your point:

 

There is reference of a huge army in the book of Revelations.

KJV: 9:16: And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand.

 

In a Vatican II bible in the late 60's that was translated as 200,000.  Years later it was changed to 2,000,000.

 

For your reading pleasure: http://www.cforc.com/kjv/index.html

Actually, the KJV is one of the politically motivated translations. I would say for pure scholarly translation the only version is the NRSV.

[JUGGERNAUT]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There is a non-Christian interpretation of the Old Testament in the RSV which is unacceptable to most evangelical Christians. From an evangelical perspective the KJV is the most complete non-tainted widely available version.

 

On the subject of birth control among Catholics:

http://www.answers.com/topic/birth-control

Couples seeking marriage in the Catholic Church are required to undergo counseling by a Catholic priest (pre-Canna). In the past priests led couples seeking to delay children to rhythm, today they are instructed to point new couples toward the more effective natural family planning.

[kapkomet]

From an evangelical perspective the KJV is the most complete non-tainted widely available version.

 

 

Juggs, that is YOUR OPINION. It is NOT fact. KJV... who translated it and why?

 

After you answer yourself that question, you'll surely see that the translation was one of the most "political" in history.

 

Really, even the "greek version" was politically motivated, as the history of that time says that as the Romans adopted greek as their language that they wanted to spread over the land, the Hebrew text was translated so that everyone could be in "greekspeak". Since the Greek text was so close to the time period that the original Hebrew was written, the likelyhood of translation errors were a lot less, meaning they translated the original source, and there was less room for error there.

 

On the subject of evengelical Christianity, "go forth into the world and spread the word" is indeed one of the great commandments we are instructed to do. But I will offer there are many ways to "evangelicalize".

 

Shoving Jesus and God down someone's throat is not evengelical at all. In fact, it's nauseating.

[Rex Kickass]

The concept of the Trinity didn't make its first appearance in the bible until the fifth century. The bible is CONSTANTLY being changed - sometimes in small, seemingly inconsequential ways today that turn out to be huge years and years from now.

[kapkomet]

The concept of the Trinity didn't make its first appearance in the bible until the fifth century. The bible is CONSTANTLY being changed - sometimes in small, seemingly inconsequential ways today that turn out to be huge years and years from now.

I'll have to research that but I was thinking that the Holy Spirit was discussed in first Century writings... but your point is also true. Just look at the canonization of the bible itself... that's a huge change.

Edited September 9, 2005 by kapkomet

[Wong & Owens]

Again you are personalizing the post & bating me into an argument on a personal level.  It's up to a mod to stop it. In the past I would follow up with harsh rhetoric ripping you & your assertions to pieces at a personal level.  I'm not going to do that any more.

 

What is or is not representative of mainstream Christianity is not going to be found in the the small sample of Christian members here at SOXTALK.  It's going to be found in credible sources of information on the subject.  Since this is a sports messageboard first & foremost those sources are best found outside the SOXTALK community.

 

There is no attack, and I'm not bating you into anything, maybe you should re-read some of southsider2k5's posts directed at you recently.

 

As far as "ripping you & your assertions to pieces at a personal level. I'm not going to do that any more." you can keep deluding yourself, but veering off-topic, ignoring valid points and disregarding requests to back up opinions you post as fact with any kind of proof is hardly ripping anything apart other than your own credibility.

[JUGGERNAUT]

http://www.twopaths.com/faq_kjv.htm

This is a good discussion of KJV in relation to the others.  It was the standard English translation of the Bible from the late 17th century until the early 20th century.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have been instructed to ignore you. Good day.

[Queen Prawn]

I swear I was told that the King James Bible was more of a Protestant translation - is that correct? I am a little out of it on sinus meds so my memory might be tainted.

[Soxy]

I swear I was told that the King James Bible was more of a Protestant translation - is that correct?  I am a little out of it on sinus meds so my memory might be tainted.

Good question, I'm not sure.

 

I know it's names after King James I, who was Elizabeth I's second cousin (the son of her cousin Mary Queen of Scots, who was Catholic). But I don't know for certain either way.

 

Either way it came about during some of the most turbulent religious times I can think of. . .

 

EDIT: After Mary's execution, James was raised Protestant--so your memory serves you correctly.

Edited September 10, 2005 by ChiSoxyGirl