The Hazards of Belief

Banbh

Yes you definitely win the prize. Congratulations!

A plenary indulgence* has been despatched and you should receive it within 24 hours.

*Terms and conditions apply.

Brian Shanahan

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Is this a ticket only event or does one just turn up?

Remember to buy your false beard.


No wimmin allowed!

Bannasidhe

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Remember to buy your false beard.


No wimmin allowed!

I am an expert in false beards - this is actually true.

robroy1234

Life of Brian - arguably one of the best, if not, the best film of all time. That and the Holy Grail.

robindch

Church opposes legislation to protect women from violence. Way to go, er, boys!

http://www.religionnews.com/2013/03/07/lesbian-provisions-prompt-catholic-bishops-to-oppose-violence-against-women-act/

Religion News Service wrote:

(RNS) Five key Catholic bishops are opposing the newly authorized Violence Against Women Act for fear it will subvert traditional views of marriage and gender, and compromise the religious freedom of groups that aid victims of human trafficking. The act, which was signed into law by President Obama on Thursday (March 7), is intended to protect women from domestic violence, sexual assault and human trafficking, and allows the federal government to spend money to treat victims and prosecute offenders.

But for the first time since the original act became law in 1994, it spells out that no person may be excluded from the law’s protections because of “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” — specifically covering lesbian, transgender and bisexual women. That language disturbs several bishops who head key committees within the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that deal with, among other issues, marriage, the laity, youth and religious liberty.

“These two classifications are unnecessary to establish the just protections due to all persons. They undermine the meaning and importance of sexual difference,” the bishops said in a statement released by the USCCB on Wednesday. “They are unjustly exploited for purposes of marriage redefinition, and marriage is the only institution that unites a man and a woman with each other and with any children born from their union,” the statement continued.

The bishops also take issue with the lack of “conscience protection” for faith-based groups that help victims of human trafficking, an addition they sought after the Obama administration decided in 2011 to discontinue funding for a Catholic group that works with trafficking victims, many of whom were forced to work as prostitutes. The administration instead funded other groups that, according to the Department of Health and Human Services, could provide a full range of women’s health services, including referrals for contraception or abortion, both of which the Catholic Church opposes.

“Conscience protections are needed in this legislation to ensure that these service providers are not required to violate their bona fide religious beliefs as a condition for serving the needy,” reads the statement of the bishops, who have supported previous versions of the act.

The statement was signed by:

– Bishop Stephen E. Blaire of Stockton, Calif., chairman of the Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development
– Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone of San Francisco, chairman of the Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage
– Bishop Kevin C. Rhoades of Fort Wayne-South Bend, Ind., chairman of the Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth
– Archbishop William E. Lori of Baltimore, chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty
– Archbishop Jose H. Gomez of Los Angeles, chairman of the Committee on Migration

The bill passed the Senate 78 to 22 on Feb. 12, and the House passed it on Feb. 28 on a vote of 286 to 138, with no Democrats in opposition. Some Republicans objected to the bill for reasons similar to the bishops’.

Links234

How very compasionate of them

the_eman

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

oldrnwisr wrote: »

OK, I'll give it a shot.

"Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."
Matthew 24:34

So, do I win?

How many times does this same line get churned up in a typically literal fashion and refuted again and again. Maybe you should think a little deeper about the word generation and again not so literally. Think of it as a race of people or class of man. It seems your take on Christianity comes very much from an evangelical protestant view point. I note this especially when you say "failed rapture". Which is a modern theory of very much evangelical Christians and has no backing from the early church fathers and again presented by people who read sacred scripture in a completely literal fashion.

Being such a learned Bible scholar I ask you to explain the meaning of these

Isaiah 7:14:
“Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”


Or even this, yes please take note of this one.

Revelation
12:1 A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. 2 She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth. 3 Then another sign appeared in the sky;

Can you give your take on which bible passages relate to St Faustina's devine mercy message? Which are very apt for this era of mercy we are living in.

Give us a few lines on your favorite parable.

I don't mean to take jabs at you and I appreciate and admire your knowledge of the Bible. On that note I fully accept the jabs in my direction coming in to this forum and squaring up against a multitude, but when you walk with Christ you tend to fear less than most. Oh and the Bible becomes a pleasant read.

5uspect

the_eman wrote: »

I don't mean to take jabs at you and I appreciate and admire your knowledge of the Bible. On that note I fully accept the jabs in my direction coming in to this forum and squaring up against a multitude, but when you walk with Christ you tend to fear less than most. Oh and the Bible becomes a pleasant read.

TBH, I mostly feel sorry for you.

Gordon

the_eman wrote: »

Maybe you should think a little deeper about the word generation and again not so literally.

You're right, it is difficult to take the bible literally as it's literarily complete bullcrap.

the_eman wrote: »

2 Peter

"Knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires."

Don't take that so literally, by "scoffers" Peter means "eaters" and "eating" and "sinful" isn't what you think of sinful, but instead "chocolaty". "last days" of course doesn't mean days as you know it, but instead "the 20th of January 2002".

the_eman

Gordon wrote: »

"last days" of course doesn't mean days as you know it, but instead "the 20th of January 2002".

When has the Catholic church or the Orthodox churches mentioned the 20th of January 2002 or any such date? I don't think so. Don't be deceived by false prophets.

Gordon

the_eman wrote: »

When has the Catholic church or the Orthodox churches mentioned the 20th of January 2002 or any such date? I don't think so. Don't be deceived by false prophets.

I'm glad you don't discount chocolate scoffery, but I'm wondering if you have proof of your wild claim regarding literal/non literal usage of "generation"? I would imagine that if you base your life following an old collection of stories, you must have a reference dictionary that points you to the real meanings of words if indeed you aren't meant to take the bible literally.

Could you point me to the papal edict that defines 'generation' as you describe as opposed to its literal meaning? You live your life by this, so I can only presume you don't fit a random meaning onto this book's words. Please point me to the official definition, thanks.

oldrnwisr

the_eman wrote: »

How many times does this same line get churned up in a typically literal fashion and refuted again and again. Maybe you should think a little deeper about the word generation and again not so literally. Think of it as a race of people or class of man.

Ah, the courtier's reply, you just never get tired of hearing it. It doesn't matter what some person or some church interprets this passage to mean, it matters what the text actually says and what the author could and could not have meant to imply.

First of all, the term "this generation" is almost exclusively used by Jesus in the NT. Whenever you find a reference to this generation it is almost certainly being used by Jesus.

Secondly, there is no indication in any of the passages that generation refers to anything other than the established meaning of a period of about 40 years. The length of a generation is 40 years as mentioned by God in Numbers 32:13 and Hebrews 3:8-10. Later on in the NT, we see that this definition has remained. In Matthew 1:17 we see a genealogical table which tells us that there are fourteen generations from the Babylonian captivity to the birth of Jesus. This period is approximately 586 years or 41 years per generation.

Finally, the argument about generation referring to a period longer than 40 years or so rests on an a priori assumption. The reason for this interpretation is that a more literal reading implies that Jesus made a prophecy which failed to come true. Since Jesus is an aspect of God, then he couldn't possibly be wrong, could he? The answer is of course he could. If you discard your preconceptions about the bible the answer becomes apparent.

the_eman wrote: »

Being such a learned Bible scholar I ask you to explain the meaning of these

Isaiah 7:14:
“Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”

Ah, the Immanuel prophecy, I was wondering when this would pop up.

The first problem with this "prophecy" is something that really irritates me about Christians. You constantly complain about atheists cherry-picking quotes and taking passages out of context but yet you have no qualms about doing the same to support your religion, for shame.

If you read the rest of Isaiah chapter 7 you will see your mistake. In this chapter Isaiah is speaking to Ahaz, king of Judah. God instructs Isaiah to tell Ahaz that he will destroy Judah's enemies. As a confirmation, Isaiah tells Ahaz to ask God for a sign that what he has said was true. The sign is outlined in the passage you quoted. There's no point asking for a sign that God was going to destroy his enemies if the sign wouldn't arrive for another 700 years. It's pretty useless to Ahaz as a sign at that point.

Secondly, there is the problem of the language. This may come as a surprise to you but the bible wasn't written in English. Something so monumental as a virgin birth should make you think translation mistake, and this is indeed what we find. The word used in the original Hebrew version of Isaiah is almah. This word refers to a young girl and carries no specific meaning of virgin, except by implication. Secondly, the Hebrews already had a word which specifically meant virgin which is bethulah.

The problem is created when the book is translated and added to the Septuagint, the Greek version of the OT. The Septuagint was translated about 250BCE but the book of Isaiah wouldn't be added to it for about 100 years or 150BCE. This means that the Greek word parthenos, which early (and modern) Christians consider to mean virgin, was a pretty controversial translation even by the time Matthew's gospel is written. In fact Justin Martyr's work Dialogue with Trypho shows that early Christians had to defend this controversial translation against Jewish scholars.

Finally, even if we take parthenos to be a suitable translation for almah in Isaiah above, there is no indication that parthenos is so rigidly defined as Christians would have us believe. The word which means young woman only means virgin by implication. In fact, throughout Greek writing there are instances where parthenos is used to refer to a young woman who is not a virgin. Homer uses it in such a sense in The Iliad.

the_eman wrote: »

Or even this, yes please take note of this one.

Revelation
12:1 A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. 2 She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth. 3 Then another sign appeared in the sky;

Well this is a new take on replacement theology.

While Catholics typically believe that Revelation 12 refers to the church, there aren't that many who specifically identify it with marian apparitions. Either way, you're wrong.

The woman in Revelation 12 is Israel.

The first indications that this is the case is in Revelation 11. In particular Revelation 11:19 mentions the ark of the covenant which even by Catholic theology is not associated with the Church. See, there's that Christian cherry-picking again.

Secondly, Israel is commonly represented as a woman throughout the OT e.g. Isaiah 26:18, Jeremiah 4:31, Lamentations 1:1 etc.

Also, if the reference to the male child is a reference to Jesus which seems to be the case given the connection between Revelation 12:5 and 2:27 and 19:15.

This makes the passage in Revelation more likely to be a nod to Micah 5 than anything else.

As for Our Lady of Guadalupe, when you've got an independent study using current techniques of the artifact which shows that it's anything other than a 16th century sarga painting, I'll be waiting.

the_eman wrote: »

Give us a few lines on your favorite parable.

I don't know that I have a a favourite parable but certainly one of the more interesting parables because of its message is The Parable of The Ten Talents in Luke 19. Particularly, I find the last sentence, Luke 19:27 quite telling:

"But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."

Although the story is told as a parable, the rest of the chapter makes it clear that the parable is self-referential. Luke points this out in 19:38:

"Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord"

I find this interesting because it's one of the more disturbing places in the Bible where Jesus reveals his nature as a sociopathic, manipulative cult leader.

Brian Shanahan

the_eman wrote: »

Revelation
12:1 A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. 2 She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth. 3 Then another sign appeared in the sky;

I'm sorry but quoting one man's bad 'shroom trip does not lend your argument any credibility.

In fact it detracts from it, in the sense that sensible people will notice your inability to spot a nightmare.

legspin

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Ah, the courtier's reply...., ....manipulative cult leader.

As always, a fantastic answer Sir.

PopePalpatine

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Ah, the courtier's reply, you just never get tired of hearing it. It doesn't matter what some person or some church interprets this passage to mean, it matters what the text actually says and what the author could and could not have meant to imply.

First of all, the term "this generation" is almost exclusively used by Jesus in the NT. Whenever you find a reference to this generation it is almost certainly being used by Jesus.

Secondly, there is no indication in any of the passages that generation refers to anything other than the established meaning of a period of about 40 years. The length of a generation is 40 years as mentioned by God in Numbers 32:13 and Hebrews 3:8-10. Later on in the NT, we see that this definition has remained. In Matthew 1:17 we see a genealogical table which tells us that there are fourteen generations from the Babylonian captivity to the birth of Jesus. This period is approximately 586 years or 41 years per generation.

Finally, the argument about generation referring to a period longer than 40 years or so rests on an a priori assumption. The reason for this interpretation is that a more literal reading implies that Jesus made a prophecy which failed to come true. Since Jesus is an aspect of God, then he couldn't possibly be wrong, could he? The answer is of course he could. If you discard your preconceptions about the bible the answer becomes apparent.




Ah, the Immanuel prophecy, I was wondering when this would pop up.

The first problem with this "prophecy" is something that really irritates me about Christians. You constantly complain about atheists cherry-picking quotes and taking passages out of context but yet you have no qualms about doing the same to support your religion, for shame.

If you read the rest of Isaiah chapter 7 you will see your mistake. In this chapter Isaiah is speaking to Ahaz, king of Judah. God instructs Isaiah to tell Ahaz that he will destroy Judah's enemies. As a confirmation, Isaiah tells Ahaz to ask God for a sign that what he has said was true. The sign is outlined in the passage you quoted. There's no point asking for a sign that God was going to destroy his enemies if the sign wouldn't arrive for another 700 years. It's pretty useless to Ahaz as a sign at that point.

Secondly, there is the problem of the language. This may come as a surprise to you but the bible wasn't written in English. Something so monumental as a virgin birth should make you think translation mistake, and this is indeed what we find. The word used in the original Hebrew version of Isaiah is almah. This word refers to a young girl and carries no specific meaning of virgin, except by implication. Secondly, the Hebrews already had a word which specifically meant virgin which is bethulah.

The problem is created when the book is translated and added to the Septuagint, the Greek version of the OT. The Septuagint was translated about 250BCE but the book of Isaiah wouldn't be added to it for about 100 years or 150BCE. This means that the Greek word parthenos, which early (and modern) Christians consider to mean virgin, was a pretty controversial translation even by the time Matthew's gospel is written. In fact Justin Martyr's work Dialogue with Trypho shows that early Christians had to defend this controversial translation against Jewish scholars.

Finally, even if we take parthenos to be a suitable translation for almah in Isaiah above, there is no indication that parthenos is so rigidly defined as Christians would have us believe. The word which means young woman only means virgin by implication. In fact, throughout Greek writing there are instances where parthenos is used to refer to a young woman who is not a virgin. Homer uses it in such a sense in The Iliad.




Well this is a new take on replacement theology.

While Catholics typically believe that Revelation 12 refers to the church, there aren't that many who specifically identify it with marian apparitions. Either way, you're wrong.

The woman in Revelation 12 is Israel.

The first indications that this is the case is in Revelation 11. In particular Revelation 11:19 mentions the ark of the covenant which even by Catholic theology is not associated with the Church. See, there's that Christian cherry-picking again.

Secondly, Israel is commonly represented as a woman throughout the OT e.g. Isaiah 26:18, Jeremiah 4:31, Lamentations 1:1 etc.

Also, if the reference to the male child is a reference to Jesus which seems to be the case given the connection between Revelation 12:5 and 2:27 and 19:15.

This makes the passage in Revelation more likely to be a nod to Micah 5 than anything else.

As for Our Lady of Guadalupe, when you've got an independent study using current techniques of the artifact which shows that it's anything other than a 16th century sarga painting, I'll be waiting.




I don't know that I have a a favourite parable but certainly one of the more interesting parables because of its message is The Parable of The Ten Talents in Luke 19. Particularly, I find the last sentence, Luke 19:27 quite telling:

"But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."

Although the story is told as a parable, the rest of the chapter makes it clear that the parable is self-referential. Luke points this out in 19:38:

"Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord"

I find this interesting because it's one of the more disturbing places in the Bible where Jesus reveals his nature as a sociopathic, manipulative cult leader.

*awaits eventual "that's out of context!" post* :rolleyes:

the_eman

PopePalpatine wrote: »

awaits eventual "that's out of context!" post* :rolleyes:

Is it?

Sorry for keeping you waiting.

the_eman

Gordon wrote: »

Could you point me to the papal edict that defines 'generation' as you describe as opposed to its literal meaning? You live your life by this, so I can only presume you don't fit a random meaning onto this book's words. Please point me to the official definition, thanks.

Gordon wrote: »

Please point me to the official definition, thanks.

This excerpt is from the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible:

"24:34 this generation: The expression in Greek can mean "this race" or "these contemporaries of mine". The latter meaning best fits this context, not only because Jesus envisions his initial coming within the lifetime of his first disciples (16:28), but also because he often addresses his unbelieving contemporaries with the same term (11:16), either contrasting them with an earlier generation that responded to God's message (12:4142) or implicitly comparing them with the faithless generation of Israel that failed to enter the Promised Land (12:39, 45; 16:4; 17:17; cf. Deut 1:35; 32:5)."

the_eman

oldrnwisr wrote: »

First of all, the term "this generation" is almost exclusively used by Jesus in the NT. Whenever you find a reference to this generation it is almost certainly being used by Jesus.

Finally, the argument about generation referring to a period longer than 40 years or so rests on an a priori assumption. The reason for this interpretation is that a more literal reading implies that Jesus made a prophecy which failed to come true. Since Jesus is an aspect of God, then he couldn't possibly be wrong, could he? The answer is of course he could. If you discard your preconceptions about the bible the answer becomes apparent.

From Haydock commentry

This generation; i.e. the nation of the Jews shall not cease to exist, until all these things shall be accomplished: thus we see the nation of the Jews still continue, and will certainly continue to the end of the world. T. — Then the cross, which has been a scandal to the Jew, and a stumbling-block to the Gentile, shall appear in the heavens, for the consolation of the good Christian. Hoc signum crucis erit in cœlo, cum Dominus ad judicandum venerit. — If it be to be understood of the destruction of Jerusalem, the sense may be, this race of men now living; if of the last day of judgment, this generation of the faithful, saith Theophylactus,[4] shall be continued: i.e. the Church of Christ, to the end of the world. Wi. — This race, I tell you in very truth, shall not pass away till all this be finally accomplished in the ruin of Jerusalem, the most express figure of the destruction and end of the world. V. — By generation, our Saviour does not mean the people that were in existence at that time, but the faithful of his Church; thus says the psalmist: this is the generation of them that seek the Lord. Ps. xxiii, v. 6. S. Chrys. hom. lxxvii.

In a broader sense the word generation refers to the period from his first coming to his second coming. This was the interpretation of the saint from Spain, St. Josemaria Escriva which the Navarre Bible commentary had picked up. The Orthodox Study Bible also intreprets this in the same manner saying that generation refers to all believers at all times and not particularily to the people of Jesus days on earth.

From Catena Aurea

Jerome: Or, by “generation” here He means the whole human race, and the Jews in particular. And He adds, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away,” to confirm their faith in what has gone before; as though He had said, it is easier to destroy things solid and immovable, than that aught should fail of my words.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Ah, the Immanuel prophecy, I was wondering when this would pop up.

You are probably trying to steer me down one of your favorite rat holes here but let me try and veer you back on course.

Conservative estimates based on only eight prophecies fulfilled by the life, death and resurrection of Christ

Suppose that we take 10 to power of 17 silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas. They will cover all of the state two feet deep. Now mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly, all over the state. Blindfold a man and tell him that he can travel as far as he wishes, but he must pick up one silver dollar and say that this is the right one. What chance would he have of getting the right one? Just the same chance that the prophets would have had of writing these eight prophecies and having them all come true in any one man, from their day to the present time, providing they wrote using their own wisdom.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

While Catholics typically believe that Revelation 12 refers to the church, there aren't that many who specifically identify it with marian apparitions.

The woman in Revelation 12 is Israel.

On the basis of the “corporate personality” model—in keeping with biblical thought—the early Church had no difficulty recognizing in the Woman, on the one hand, Mary herself and, on the other hand, transcending time, the Church, bride and mother, in which the mystery of Mary spreads out into history [Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth 2:222].

On another occasion, Pope Benedict said:
This Woman represents Mary, the Mother of the Redeemer, but at the same time she also represents the whole Church, the People of God of all times, the Church which in all ages, with great suffering, brings forth Christ ever anew [General Audience, Aug. 23, 2006].

As Pope Benedict shows us, we don’t have to make a forced choice between the possible meanings of what the Woman represents. In keeping with the richness of the way Revelation uses symbolism, to use Pope Benedict’s phrases, she can be Mary and “all Israel” and “the whole Church” in different ways.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Either way, you're wrong.

Letter on the Blessed Virgin Mary His Holiness Pope Paul VI

THE GREAT SIGN which the Apostle John saw in heaven, "a woman clothed with the sun," [1] is interpreted by the sacred Liturgy, [2] not without foundation, as referring to the most blessed Mary, the mother of all men by the grace of Christ the Redeemer.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

As for Our Lady of Guadalupe, when you've got an independent study using current techniques of the artifact which shows that it's anything other than a 16th century sarga painting, I'll be waiting.

Did you not watch the 22 min video I posted?

Image has remained for 479 years with no fading or hair line cracking, the cactus fibre cloth normally disintegrates after 15-30 years.

An explosion of a bomb near the Tilma in 1921. Dr. Orozco recalled that the explosion broke the marble floor and widows 150 meters from the explosion, but “unexpectedly, neither the Tilma nor the normal glass that protected the Tilma was damaged or broken.” The only damage near it was a brass crucifix that was twisted by the blast. “There are no explanations why the shockwave that broke windows 150 meters afar did not destroy the normal glass that protected the image.

The image, imprinted on the tilma of a 16th-century peasant, led millions of indigenous Indians in Mexico to convert to the Catholic faith. Last week in Rome, results of research into the famed image were discussed by engineer José Aste Tonsmann of the Mexican Center of Guadalupan Studies during a conference at the Pontifical Athenaeum Regina Apostolorum.

He insists that the image "that has not been painted by human hand." As early as the 18th century, scientists showed that it was impossible to paint such an image in a fabric of that texture. The "ayate" fibers used by the Indians, in fact, deteriorated after 20 years. Yet, the image and the fabric it is imprinted on have lasted almost 470 years ago.

Evidence

In 1789, Dr. José Ignácio Bartolache had two copies of the image painted on an identical piece of maguey cloth using the best techniques of that time and placed them in the same salty and humid environment around the Basilica. After several decades, the two replicas disintegrated. An attempt to "embellish" the Tilma was made which also proved futile: a crown was painted on Our Lady’s head and angels in the clouds. However, unlike the Tilma, these additions have faded away and are no longer visible. The rays of the sun, for example, were coated with gold and the moon plated with silver, but these embellishments also worn away. In fact, the silver-plated moon turned black.

In August 7, 2009, researcher and physicist Dr. Aldofo Orozco told participants at the International Marian Congress on Our Lady of Guadalupe in Glendale, Arizona that there is no scientific explanation for the 478 years of high quality-preservation of the Tilma, or for the miracles of its preservation.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

I don't know that I have a a favourite parable but certainly one of the more interesting parables because of its message is The Parable of The Ten Talents in Luke 19.

In this parable, as always, charity (or love) is what Christ calls us to.

SebBerkovich

A nasty little nutter from Ecuador called Nelson Zavala who went about claiming that gay people "sinners", "immoral" and that he could "cure" them, while running for president has got himself a little slap on the wrist.
$3000 in fines and suspended from politics for a year.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-21750105

I think its important to note that this happened in Ecuador where in truth i wouldn't have expected such a positive response.

oldrnwisr

the_eman wrote: »

In a broader sense the word generation refers to the period from his first coming to his second coming. This was the interpretation of the saint from Spain, St. Josemaria Escriva which the Navarre Bible commentary had picked up. The Orthodox Study Bible also intreprets this in the same manner saying that generation refers to all believers at all times and not particularily to the people of Jesus days on earth.

Look, by all means please post a rebuttal with references to the text itself showing how it supports your position but posting other people's opinions and interpretations of the text (The Courtier's Reply) doesn't help. Firstly, because it is an appeal to authority and secondly because there are just as many, if not more, scholarly commentaries who hold to the 40 year definition of generation.

There aren't any other instances of "generation" in the Bible which lend support for your position and plenty which oppose it. As I posted previously both the OT and Matthew's genealogy hold to a definition of approximately 40 years. Furthermore, the prophecy spoken by Jesus in the preceding chapter (Matthew 23:36) is held to represent the destruction of the Temple in 70CE. There is no evidence that the author of Matthew's gospel intended generation to mean anything other than 40 years. Even the other evangelists support such a defintion (e.g. Mark 8:12, Luke 17:25).

the_eman wrote: »

You are probably trying to steer me down one of your favorite rat holes here but let me try and veer you back on course.

Conservative estimates based on only eight prophecies fulfilled by the life, death and resurrection of Christ

There are about 60 messianic "prophecies" claimed by Christians to be predictions about the life of Jesus. If we have to go through each one individually we'll be here all day, so let's not.

Instead, let me summarise how these "prophecies" occur. If we put the canonical gospels in their correct chronological order we see that they become increasingly complex and verbose as they go on, particularly among the synoptics.

Take the nativity of Jesus for example. The earliest gospel, Mark doesn't feature a nativity narrative. It is introduced in Matthew and changed/embellished in Luke (and absent in John). Now, we know from textual scholarship that Matthew and (to a lesser extent) Luke copy a great deal of their narratives from Mark (and another gospel Q). The stories presented in the synoptic gospels are added to between the writing of Mark's gospel in 70CE and Luke's gospel c.85CE. The principal reason for this is that the original core story of Jesus which had been doing the rounds, as it were, between 33 and 70CE was the passion and death of Jesus. This kernel story was built upon by Mark taking heavy influence from Homeric epics to create a hero story using Jesus as the protagonist. Mark also uses stories from the Septuagint to build up the image of Jesus as a prophet. Matthew further embellishes this story by taking old Jewish messianic prophecies and creating a backstory of Jesus to fit these prophecies. The only problem is that Matthew really sucked at reading Greek.

Just two examples of this from the Messianic prophecies show how Matthew's misreading of the Septuagint hampers his efforts to fulfill the prophecies in Jesus.

In Micah 5:2 we have the line:

"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times."

This is then apparently fulfilled in Matthew 2:1-2,

"After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”

However, Matthew makes a clear mistake, by taking Bethlehem to mean in a city or town while the original quote means Bethlehem to be a clan or tribe.

Similarly, there is the prophecy of Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem in Zechariah 9:9,

"Rejoice greatly, Daughter Zion! Shout, Daughter Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and victorious, lowly and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey."

which in Matthew's gospel becomes:

"As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage on the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, “Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me. If anyone says anything to you, say that the Lord needs them, and he will send them right away.” This took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet:
“Say to Daughter Zion, ‘See, your king comes to you, gentle and riding on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.’” The disciples went and did as Jesus had instructed them. They brought the donkey and the colt and placed their cloaks on them for Jesus to sit on."


Here Matthew's mistake is made all the more plain by his inclusion of the original (or at least his misread version of) prophecy. The mistake derives from Matthew's misreading of one animal in Zechariah as two. The mistake becomes apparent when he speaks of Jesus sitting on both animals.

Of course both of these prophecies are cherry-picked, out-of-context quote mines in the first place which a fuller reading of the rest of the chapters (i.e. Micah 5:6, Zechariah 9:10) reveals.

So, like I said, there is a simple explanation for these messianic prophecies, they are later additions, creations of the gospel writers to fit the propheices of the OT and construct a backstory for Jesus.

the_eman wrote: »

On the basis of the “corporate personality” model—in keeping with biblical thought—the early Church had no difficulty recognizing in the Woman, on the one hand, Mary herself and, on the other hand, transcending time, the Church, bride and mother, in which the mystery of Mary spreads out into history [Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth 2:222].

On another occasion, Pope Benedict said:
This Woman represents Mary, the Mother of the Redeemer, but at the same time she also represents the whole Church, the People of God of all times, the Church which in all ages, with great suffering, brings forth Christ ever anew [General Audience, Aug. 23, 2006].

As Pope Benedict shows us, we don’t have to make a forced choice between the possible meanings of what the Woman represents. In keeping with the richness of the way Revelation uses symbolism, to use Pope Benedict’s phrases, she can be Mary and “all Israel” and “the whole Church” in different ways.

Like I said at the start, an appeal to authority is a bad way to argue. Who cares what the pope thinks the text says. It matters what the text actually says. Anyway, as I posted previously, Benedicts interpretation still doesn't explain away references to the Ark in Revelations 11:19 or the other evidence which points to the fact that the author intends the woman to mean Israel.

Oh, and one other point. There isn't a plurality of thought among early or modern church thinkers. There have been separate camps of catholic and other christian thinkers who hold to one of the three interpretations but there is rarely overlap and no argument for context-dependent interpretation.

the_eman wrote: »

Did you not watch the 22 min video I posted?

I did, however I'm still waiting for you to answer my last question.

Do you have any evidence to support your claims which is a) independent and b) utilises current conservationist techniques.

You see, there have been four studies conducted on the artifact since the 1700s with the most recent in 1982, all of which have been sponsored and paid for by the church and the most significant finding of any of the studies has been that the artifact has been remarkably well preserved. So what? That's evidence of what exactly? It's merely evidence that the church has very carefully preserved something which they consider to be important. Not exactly an earth shattering revelation.

Nodin

Amazing they couldn't make a prophecy about a sex offender repeating the offence....

The Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles is to pay out nearly $10m (£6.7m) to settle four cases of sexual abuse by a former priest, Father Michael Baker.
Recently released files show Cardinal Roger Mahony knew the priest had abused but put him back into ministry, where he is alleged to have abused again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21765850

joseph brand

Pat Robertson predicts 'correctly' that someone will receive a million dollars, courtesy of jesus. Makes sense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odUbjOY0Dd8

seamus

MEGA WARNING:
This page has a link to images which may be NSFW, but someone people may find distressing, especially if you've ever suffered a miscarriage or stillbirth. This is the discussion page, so this link itself is OK:

Reddit: Religious woman has preterm miscarriage - keeps it, brings it home, treats it as a live child

Summary of the images; woman has a very preterm miscarriage, very much in foetal stage, probably about twenty weeks. So features and shape in place, but clearly a red mass of incomplete human being. Images of the "child" on her chest, wrapped in a blanket, photographed with the other kids, with a knitted hat on it.

Disturbing, to say the least. Not that I would say it's totally down to her religious belief, but I would say it definitely has a part to play in her treating it like a full human.

Penn

Saw that earlier alright. Horrible stuff. To be fair, I don't think too much of it is down to religion, as the foetus is dead. It would be the equivalent of giving birth to a full-term baby who died, and still treating it like it was still alive. There has to be some psychological issues there having more of an effect than any religious issues.

PopePalpatine

I think I remember that Rick Anal Sex Aftermath brought home a miscarried foetus to his family too. :eek:

kylith

I've heard of women doing that, but they've been women who have miscarried at home. I really think it has more to do with the trauma of losing a wanted child than with religion.

Dades

I am NOT clicking that link.

(And I agree it's probably not a belief thing but a emotional trauma thing...)

robindch

seamus wrote: »

Images of the "child" on her chest, wrapped in a blanket, photographed with the other kids, with a knitted hat on it.

Whatever about doing that to work through her own grief, inviting in who I presume are her other kids to hold the dead foetus, and to judge from the expressions on their faces, against their wishes, is really uncalled for.

the_eman

oldrnwisr wrote: »

There aren't any other instances of "generation" in the Bible which lend support for your position and plenty which oppose it. As I posted previously both the OT and Matthew's genealogy hold to a definition of approximately 40 years.

Thats not true, I posted this already, its from Psalm 24, Seeking the Lord.

”This is the generation of those who seek Him, who seek Thy face – even Jacob” (vs.6).

Excerpt from Commentary by Art Katz

The word “generation” typically means a forty-year span. But in this context, it means a certain type or a particular quality of individual. The one who will ascend is the same one who is going to seek the Lord.

When you state "There aren't any other instances.." you are wrong.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Do you have any evidence to support your claims which is a) independent and b) utilises current conservationist techniques.

I'm sure you are aware scientists from NASA have investigated this and the results prove without a shadow of a doubt the validity of the miracle. There is a bunch of scientific evidence about this miracle. Are NASA a Catholic organization?

oldrnwisr wrote: »

You see, there have been four studies conducted on the artifact since the 1700s with the most recent in 1982, all of which have been sponsored and paid for by the church and the most significant finding of any of the studies has been that the artifact has been remarkably well preserved. So what? That's evidence of what exactly? It's merely evidence that the church has very carefully preserved something which they consider to be important. Not exactly an earth shattering revelation.

So what if they were sponsored by the Church, who do you expect to sponsor this? Richard Dawkins, no, I don't think so, that would not be good for business.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

the most significant finding of any of the studies has been that the artifact has been remarkably well preserved.

NASA engineers have also stated the paint with which the image was made does not exist on Earth and has never existed

NASA HAS CALLED THE IMAGE OF THE VIRGIN OF GUADALUPE LIVING

Some more references

~ Philip S. Callahan, "The Tilma Under Infa-Red Radiation," CARA Studies on Popular Devotion, Volume II: Guadalupan Studies, No 3 (Washington, 1981) pp. 9-15.

"The mantle is a dark torquois blue . . This presents an inexplicable phenomenon because all such pigments are semi-permanent and known to be subject to considerable fading with time, especially in hot climates. The Indian Maya blue wall paintings are already badly faded. The blue mantle, however, is bright enough to have been laid last week.

One of the truly marveous and inexplicable tecniques utilized to give realism to the painting is the way it takes advantage of the unsized tilma to give it depth and render it lifelike. This is particularly evident in the mouth, where the coarse fiber of the fabirc is raised above the level of the rest of the weave and follows perfectly the ridge at the top of the lip.

Dr. Philip S. Callahan
Why not send him an email.


More findings

According to Kodak of Mexico, the image is smooth and feels like a
modern day photograph. (Produced 300 years before the invention of
photography.)

Contrary to what you may say it takes a lot of scientific analysis for the Church to approve miracles and apparitions, most are not approved for a long time and many do not get approval at all. The church does not want to be seen approving false miracles and apparitions.

Many scientific studies have been done and there is much data available if you seek it out. There are links to such data off this site:
http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/F034_OLGuadalupe.html

"And the temple of God was opened in heaven: and the ark of his testament was seen in his temple. And there were lightnings and voices and an earthquake and great hail. And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars."

start at 8m24s

I want to comment on a quote from skeptiod.com on Our Lady of Guadaulupe

A red flag that a number of historians have put forth is that Bishop Zumárraga was a prolific writer. Yet, in not a single one of his known letters, is there any mention of Juan Diego, his miraculous apparition, the roses, or the cloak bearing the image, or any other element of the story in which Zumárraga was alleged to have played so prominent a role.

This is a fallacy in logic called argumentum e silentio or argument from silence. Read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence

Proponents of the above fallacy should read some of Zumárraga's history, he had a lot of enemies because he tried to protect the Native Americans, and his letters were often censored.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Like I said at the start, an appeal to authority is a bad way to argue. Who cares what the pope thinks the text says. It matters what the text actually says. Anyway, as I posted previously, Benedicts interpretation still doesn't explain away references to the Ark in Revelations 11:19 or the other evidence which points to the fact that the author intends the woman to mean Israel.

There is an absolute raft of commentaries with OT and NT references placing Mary as the new Ark of the covenant the New Covenant. If you knew the teachings of the largest bodies of Christian churches that uphold the apostolic succession you would find these references. Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and probably Church of England and Lutheran.

Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant

Catholics also view Mary as the New Testament Ark of the Covenant. The Old Testament Ark of the Covenant contained three items – The Word of God in the form of stone tablets (the 10 Commandments), manna (bread) from Heaven, and the rod of Aaron that resprouted and came back to life (Hebrews 9:4). Just so, the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary contained Jesus Christ – The living Word of God (John 1:1), the bread of life (John 6:48), and the ruler with a rod of iron who also came back to life (Rev.12:5).

The New Ark the New Covenant

Also remember, the chapter and verse numbers were added to the Bible in the Middle Ages by monks to make reading and copying the Bible easier. So in the original writing of Revelation, there is no separation of ch.11 verse 19, and ch.12 verse 1. (12:1 A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, ..., ...)

the_eman

joseph brand wrote: »

Pat Robertson predicts 'correctly' that someone will receive a million dollars, courtesy of jesus. Makes sense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odUbjOY0Dd8

Come one lets face it, this is not Christianity, This is not Christs message, These are fat ass southern baptist prosperity gospel false prophets.

Matthew 19
24 Yes, I tell you again, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for someone rich to enter the kingdom of Heaven.'


There is not much time for vows of poverty in those particular religions.

the_eman

Nodin wrote: »

Amazing they couldn't make a prophecy about a sex offender repeating the offence....


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21765850

Well in fact there has been warnings and prophecies.

June 18th 1965, Garabandal, Spain.

Many cardinals, many bishops, and many priests are on the road to perdition and are taking many souls with them. Less and less importance is being given to the Eucharist. You should turn the wrath of God away from yourselves by your efforts. If you ask His forgiveness with sincere hearts, He will pardon you. I, your mother, through the intercession of Saint Michael the archangel, ask you to amend your lives. You are now receiving the last warnings. I love you very much and do not want your condemnation. Pray to us with sincerity and we will grant your requests. You should make more sacrifices. Think about the passion of Jesus.

There has been other warnings and prophecies about evil entering the Church and a great falling away. What has happened has saddens us believers greatly, it takes great faith to keep on going.

Hotblack Desiato

seamus wrote: »

Reddit: Religious woman has preterm miscarriage - keeps it, brings it home, treats it as a live child

Obviously not atheists.

Otherwise it'd be the starter...

Sarky

the_eman wrote: »

There has been other warnings and prophecies about evil entering the Church and a great falling away. What has happened has saddens us believers greatly, it takes great faith to keep on going.

It looks far more like a pig-headed unwillingness to face anything within sniffing distance of a fact. But hey, I'm sure this pope is squeaky clean. I mean, apart from the homophobia and the dictatorship support and all that. That's just being a good Catholic.

PopePalpatine

Well, considering that Jugendschutzstaffel want a mini-dictatorship when it comes to legislating for X (and beyond), perhaps supporting a dictatorship IS being a good Catholic.

Hotblack Desiato

Only if it's a 'pro-family' right wing dictatorship, not an evil godless communist dictatorship :rolleyes:
The fact that both are equally shit as far as the population is concerned is no matter to them.
Incidentally isn't it interesting how in their ascent to power and early years the Nazis used religion-like ritual and iconography so assiduously?

the_eman

Sarky wrote: »

It looks far more like a pig-headed unwillingness to face anything within sniffing distance of a fact. But hey, I'm sure this pope is squeaky clean. I mean, apart from the homophobia and the dictatorship support and all that. That's just being a good Catholic.

The Telegraph, 16-3-13

Before he left Buenos Aires for Rome, Cardinal Bergoglio, as he was before his election on Wednesday, was wearing a pair of shoes so shabby that friends insisted on buying him a new pair.
"The day he was departing for the conclave, a couple of friends brought him a pair of shoes. He's always very humbly dressed and the shoes he was wearing were not in very good shape," a pair of South American priests told Vatican Radio.

He also had a return ticket booked from Rome to Buenos Aires.

Quote from Pope Francis, On unmarried mothers

"In our ecclesiastical region there are priests who don't baptize the children of single mothers because they weren't conceived in the sanctity of marriage. These are today's hypocrites. Those who clericalize the church. Those who separate the people of God from salvation. And this poor girl who, rather than returning the child to sender, had the courage to carry it into the world, must wander from parish to parish so that it's baptized!"

Here he is with homeless people in Buenos Aires



So far AFAICT he seems quite humble.

recedite

the_eman wrote: »

..........context...............

the_eman wrote: »

..........Did you not watch the 22 min video I posted?.......

:pac: :pac: :pac: afraid not......

Sarky

the_eman wrote: »

So far AFAICT he seems quite humble.

I'll be wheeling your responses out the day he's implicated in a scandal*. Just so you know.




*That is, of course, besides the scandals of supporting murderous dictators and hating gay people, which more or less seem to be par for the course in Christianity, and which followers seem intent on ignoring.

MrPudding

Sarky wrote: »

I'll be wheeling your responses out the day he's implicated in a scandal*. Just so you know.




*That is, of course, besides the scandals of supporting murderous dictators and hating gay people, which more or less seem to be par for the course in Christianity, and which followers seem intent on ignoring.

I can see the headlines... "Foot fetishist pope takes advantage of the homeless."

Some Homeless Man wrote:

It starting innocently enough, with him offering me food and shelter. Then he wanted to bathe me, what could I say, I needed food and shelter. Then he started rubbing my feet and kissing them... It was really uncomfortable.but I felt like there was nothing I could do, I felt so powerless. He violated me..

MrP

the_eman

Sarky wrote: »

I'll be wheeling your responses out the day he's implicated in a scandal*. Just so you know.

I've no doubt he will be embroiled in scandals, I also have no doubt there will be many lies involved perpetrated by the Media that has convinced so many there is no God and everything exists by pure chance.

Sarky wrote: »

*That is, of course, besides the scandals of supporting murderous dictators and hating gay people, which more or less seem to be par for the course in Christianity, and which followers seem intent on ignoring.

Why not mention Pope Francis's statements on human trafficking, on the poor on child abuse. I do not think he is homophobic. I do believe he feels the importance of the traditional family of a father and mother and how it has been an important part of the good things about our civilization up to now. He may see the death of the traditional family as being a turn for the worst for human civilization. A gay hater, I seriously think not, I would certainly believe he is a strong adherent of one of the commandments Christ wants us to focus on the most "Love your neighbor as yourself". He teaches that homosexuals should be treated with respect.

I assume Pope Francis feels that every child deserves to have a mother’s love, and every child needs to have the love of a father. That’s the natural way that God set it up. To change the very nature of marriage is to tell God that He is wrong in the way He set it up, from the very beginning. So because he is of this opinion does that make him a Gay hater? Has he been involved in name calling or other hate activities? I doubt it.

I originally posted in this forum about Prophecy being fulfilled right now in our world and signs in the sky, then I got dumped out of the way into this waste basket called 'The Hazards of belief' which well is fine really. But getting rat holed down a debate on Gay Marriage I would rather not, I have utmost respect for Gay people, I have Gay friends and feel Gay people have every right to love one another as do straight people. But, regarding marriage I have similar opinions as Pope Francis.

Anyway, can we get back to earthquakes and meteors please?

The Black Oil

The same 'media' that gave enormous amounts of coverage to the conclave, etc?

the_eman

MrPudding wrote: »

I can see the headlines... "Foot fetishist pope takes advantage of the homeless."


MrP

St Francis is known for hugging the leper which calls to mind Cardinal Bergoglio’s washing and kissing the feet of dying AIDS patients at a hospice in Argentina. See insert picture back a few posts.

Francis of Assisi is renowned for his humility and simplicity which is a hallmark of Pope Francis’ spirituality. Already he has refused to get into the papal limousine choosing instead to ride in the shuttle bus with the other Cardinals. He turned down the elevated chair in which a new Pope meets the Cardinals who elected him. And he selected a simple rather than an ornate cross as his own.

recedite

the_eman wrote: »

I originally posted in this forum about Prophecy being fulfilled right now in our world and signs in the sky, then I got dumped out of the way into this waste basket called 'The Hazards of belief' ...........
Anyway, can we get back to earthquakes and meteors please?

We sure can. These are natural events, and they happen all the time, and always did. You would have to be either a religious fruitcake or an insurance company, to say that they are "Acts of God". Sometimes people die in these events, sometimes they don't.
BTW this thread is not a waste basket. In your case, think of it more as a diagnostic tool. Some of your beliefs may be a hazard to your own health.

Brian Shanahan

Sarky wrote: »

It looks far more like a pig-headed unwillingness to face anything within sniffing distance of a fact. But hey, I'm sure this pope is squeaky clean. I mean, apart from the homophobia and the dictatorship support and all that. That's just being a good Catholic.

Hey, don't be knocking poor Pope-Emeritus Nazi. The Hitler Jugend was a good Christian, god fearing, catholic organisation.

Just because their Fuhrer ordered the deaths of a few million Jews doesn't lessen the Christianity of the National Socialist message.


Come to think of it, it probably reinforced it.

Brian Shanahan

ninja900 wrote: »

Incidentally isn't it interesting how in their ascent to power and early years the Nazis used religion-like ritual and iconography so assiduously?

Only if you consider the period between 31 Jan. 1933 and 30 Apr. 1945 to be the early years of the Nazis. Not alone did they use religious iconography to big up themselves, they were also very interested in bigging up god himself.

Regarding the "non christian" nature of Nazism, it is fitting to remember that the most important non-christian Nazi was Alfred Rosenberg, a big-mouthed pretenious nobody.

Brian Shanahan

the_eman wrote: »

The Telegraph, 16-3-13

You see that's where you went wrong, you believed the Torygraph. The only paper less likely to tell you the truth is the Maily Heil.

He also had a return ticket booked from Rome to Buenos Aires.

So he's prudent enough to plan for when things go wrong, so what?

Also I expect that he's already submitted the ticket for exes.

Nodin

Singer-songwriter Michelle Shocked has shocked fans after launching an anti-gay rant onstage in San Francisco on Sunday night. The singer – who became a favourite of leftwing music fans with early albums such The Texas Campfire Tapes and Short Sharp Shocked, but who is now a born-again Christian – began telling the crowd her views of Proposition 8, California's legal definition of marriage being a union between a woman and a man.

"When they stop Prop 8 and force priests at gunpoint to marry gays, it will be the downfall of civilisation, and Jesus will come back,"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2013/mar/19/michelle-shocked-anti-gay-rant

This is the problem when they find Jesus...you're always wondering which Jesus it is that they've found. Well, this is one where the mystery is over.

Banbh

I too have decided to become humble.

I will be kissing the well-washed feed of selected 'poor people' in my village on Saturday, wearing only a stunning white full-length gown with matching accessories. (It is a well-observed fact that the poor and needy like having their feet washed almost as much as they like eating - though tea and cake will be provided afterwards).

I have notified the press to come and record this humble photo opportunity.

Bannasidhe

Nodin wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2013/mar/19/michelle-shocked-anti-gay-rant

This is the problem when they find Jesus...you're always wondering which Jesus it is that they've found. Well, this is one where the mystery is over.

Meh - she started off as a Mormon so crazy was there from the beginning and, imho having met her back in the day, was only courting the Sapphic set to further her career by pretending to be down with the Lesbos while secretly shagging her male manager - and The Campfire Tapes are a fake - they were recorded in a studio with ye authentic campfire sounds over dubbed.

seamus

Nodin wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2013/mar/19/michelle-shocked-anti-gay-rant

I do agree in part though. When anyone is forcing priests at gunpoint to marry anyone, something has gone seriously wrong.

Bit of a non-sequitur though. It's very much like anti-abortion activists saying that abortion legislation will cause women to be strapped down and forcibly have children removed from their wombs.