OT: Didn't Jesus say 'Love your enemies'?

[Mark Buchanan]

Some Christians didn't get the memo:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1158206--ban-on-gideon-bible-handout-at-public-schools-sparks-torrent-of-hate-mail?bn=1

Normally one thinks of Canada as more secular than the US. Handing out Bibles in a public school would be a constitutional violation south of the 49th. Alas, there is no law in Canada to clarify such situations.

Mark

[wiki trix]

On Apr 8, 10:59 am, Mark Buchanan <marklynn.bucha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Some Christians didn't get the memo:
>

> http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1158206--ban-on-gideon-bib...

>
> Normally one thinks of Canada as more secular than the US. Handing out Bibles in a public school would be a constitutional violation south of the 49th. Alas, there is no law in Canada to clarify such situations.

As long as the bibles being given out to students are not a cost to
the taxpayer, I have no problem with it. Except perhaps a bit of
concern for the trees that were consumed to create the books. And
perhaps a bit of worry over the toxicity that may have resulted from
the manufacturing of the ink that was used to print the books. And
maybe a bit regarding the pollution caused by the transportation of
the bibles, etc. However, I do wish that all people would read the
bible, and other insane religious scriptures, and critically think
about it. Perhaps then we would have fewer religious people to deal
with.

[Mike L]

The Gideons' Bibles don't seem to have made my four children any less
anti-religious than they are (well, one of them didn't get one,
because she went to the convent, which had an even more theologically
rebarbative effect).

--
Mike.

[wiki trix]

Well, I noticed that the Catholic Church never felt comfortable about
members actually reading the bible. Been that way for centuries.
Slightly less so now though...

[Devils Advocaat]

I often hear this thing about the alleged reluctance of the RCC in
letting ordinary people read the Bible, but where does this story
originate, what evidence is there to support it? Just curious you see.

[timoth...@gmail.com]

Th

I think the received wisdom would be that the pre-reformation church clung to using a latin bible (which virtually nobody outside of the clergy could read) way beyond the point when a literate middle class started to emerge (literate in their native-country languages). It was mostly "heretics" and religious rebels who provided local translations (Wyclif, Tyndale). I would say it was a combination of church persecution of heretical ideas, emerging literacy and printing technology that drove the process.

[Kleuskes & Moos]

The bible was translated into Gothic and Syriac in the 5th century, in
French in the 13th century so the received wisdom got it wrong.

> It was
> mostly "heretics" and religious rebels who provided local translations
> (Wyclif, Tyndale).

And the Cathar, Waldensics, Hussites (Hungary)... Strange as it may sound,
not ALL the medieval period took place in Brittain.

> I would say it was a combination of church
> persecution of heretical ideas, emerging literacy and printing
> technology that drove the process.

The printing process certainly had a large influence, by driving down the
cost of a copy rather sharply.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_________________________________________
/ I just got my PRINCE bumper sticker ... \
\ But now I can't remember WHO he is ... /
-----------------------------------------
\
\
___
{~._.~}
( Y )
()~*~()
(_)-(_)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[timoth...@gmail.com]

It was the Latin version, not the Gothic or Syriac translations, that was adopted by the politically predominant Roman church (I daresay there were other translations made during the early years, which also failed to make the cut).

The point of the received wisdom is that the Latin Bible required an "intermediary" to read it in a language that the common folk couldn't follow. The heretical idea of the Reformation was **not** that you didn't need an intermediary (that came later), but that you could hear the Bible in a language that you could understand directly.

> > It was
> > mostly "heretics" and religious rebels who provided local translations
> > (Wyclif, Tyndale).
>
> And the Cathar, Waldensics, Hussites (Hungary)... Strange as it may sound,
> not ALL the medieval period took place in Brittain.
>

Agreed. I couldn't think of any non-English Reformation examples other than Jan Hus, and he based his teaching on Wyclif, though presumably not in Wyclif's language.

> > I would say it was a combination of church
> > persecution of heretical ideas, emerging literacy and printing
> > technology that drove the process.
>
> The printing process certainly had a large influence, by driving down the
> cost of a copy rather sharply.

Winston Churchill has an interesting passage in The History of The English-speaking Peoples regarding this process. Typical Whig progressivist nonsense, but not entirely.

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <fa4d04f2-162d-4151...@x5g2000pbl.googlegroups.com>,

wiki trix <wiki...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 8, 10:59 am, Mark Buchanan <marklynn.bucha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Some Christians didn't get the memo:
>>
>> http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1158206--ban-on-gideon-bib...
>>
>> Normally one thinks of Canada as more secular than the US. Handing out
>Bibles in a public school would be a constitutional violation south of
>the 49th. Alas, there is no law in Canada to clarify such situations.
>
>As long as the bibles being given out to students are not a cost to
>the taxpayer, I have no problem with it.

The more egregious cases in the US have involved various degrees of
coercion, such as handing them out with dimplomas at graduation (so
you don't have the option of *not* picking it up) or penalizing
students for throwing the unwanted bibles in the trash.

--
Please reply to: | "We establish no religion in this country, we
pciszek at panix dot com | command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor
Autoreply is disabled | will we ever. Church and state are, and must
| remain, separate." --Ronald Reagan, 10/26/1984

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <4c9f5d93-72fa-4a0a...@w5g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,

Devils Advocaat <manky...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>I often hear this thing about the alleged reluctance of the RCC in
>letting ordinary people read the Bible, but where does this story
>originate, what evidence is there to support it? Just curious you see.

I have heard it from older catholics a lot. I believe that it may be
one of the Vatican II reforms. I think the NAB was started around the
same time--a translation from the original languages to English with
no invervening langauges, and the whole thing Imprimatured and Nihil
Obstated by the Church so that Catholics would have an "acceptable"
version to read from.

[Devils Advocaat]

On Apr 9, 2:55 pm, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> In article <4c9f5d93-72fa-4a0a-8a9b-aa566abc5...@w5g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,

> Devils Advocaat  <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >I often hear this thing about the alleged reluctance of the RCC in
> >letting ordinary people read the Bible, but where does this story
> >originate, what evidence is there to support it? Just curious you see.
>
> I have heard it from older catholics a lot.  I believe that it may be
> one of the Vatican II reforms.  I think the NAB was started around the
> same time--a translation from the original languages to English with
> no invervening langauges, and the whole thing Imprimatured and Nihil
> Obstated by the Church so that Catholics would have an "acceptable"
> version to read from.

Why would the Catholic Church start a story like that?

It doesn't make sense.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 14:57:54 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by wiki trix
<wiki...@gmail.com>:

>Well, I noticed that the Catholic Church never felt comfortable about
>members actually reading the bible.

....for values of "uncomfortable" sufficient to get offenders
severely punished, up to (I've read) being executed for
heresy.

> Been that way for centuries.
>Slightly less so now though...

A bit more than "slightly"...
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

[David Canzi]

I suspect the storm of criticism the school board experienced as
a result of forbidding a Christian organization from handing out
Bibles is nothing compared to the storm they would experience as
a result of allowing a Muslim organization to hand out Qurans.

There is a Muslim organization that will give a free Quran to
anybody who asks. (I no longer remember their name.) I was
tempted to contact them, a couple years ago, after a local school
allowed the Gideons to hand out Bibles.

If the school board allows Christians to hand out religious
literature they will have no credible grounds to forbid it for
Muslims. Or ISKCON.

--
David Canzi | TIMTOWWTDI (tim-toe-woe-dee): There Is More Than One
| Wrong Way To Do It

[Walter Bushell]

But did Jesus add the important caveat, "Don't get caught."?

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

[John S. Wilkins]

Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:

> But did Jesus add the important caveat, "Don't get caught."?

Almost. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" is an
injunction to let people do what they do, privately.
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

[timoth...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, April 10, 2012 2:53:33 AM UTC+10, Devils Advocaat wrote:
> On Apr 9, 2:55 pm, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> > In article <4c9f5d93-72fa-4a0a-8a9b-aa566abc5...@w5g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
> > Devils Advocaat  <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > >I often hear this thing about the alleged reluctance of the RCC in
> > >letting ordinary people read the Bible, but where does this story
> > >originate, what evidence is there to support it? Just curious you see.
> >
> > I have heard it from older catholics a lot.  I believe that it may be
> > one of the Vatican II reforms.  I think the NAB was started around the
> > same time--a translation from the original languages to English with
> > no invervening langauges, and the whole thing Imprimatured and Nihil
> > Obstated by the Church so that Catholics would have an "acceptable"
> > version to read from.
>
> Why would the Catholic Church start a story like that?
>
> It doesn't make sense.

Perhaps to keep hold of the power that Constantine granted the hierarchy.

[Mark Buchanan]

That may be why the school board made the decision to ban all religious material - to avoid confrontations with multiple religious groups.

And that's why it would make life easier if there was a clear separation of church (all churches) and state. Some religious organization would strongly agree. Even Jesus would, "Give to Caesar what is Ceasar's and to god what is god's".

Mark

[Walter Bushell]

In article <1kicah0.3dkwia1xbjpasN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,

jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > But did Jesus add the important caveat, "Don't get caught."?
>
> Almost. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" is an
> injunction to let people do what they do, privately.

But Jesus ended by telling her to "Go and sin no more."

I think story was a late addition among people who devote much more
time to scholarly criticism of the Christian scriptures than I do.

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <proto-BF439D....@news.panix.com>,

It's one of the passages that the Conservative Bible Project would like
to exclude as being "too liberal", if that's what you mean.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:41:15 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by nos...@nospam.com (Paul
Ciszek):

>
>In article <proto-BF439D....@news.panix.com>,
>Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>>In article <1kicah0.3dkwia1xbjpasN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
>> jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>>
>>> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > But did Jesus add the important caveat, "Don't get caught."?
>>>
>>> Almost. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" is an
>>> injunction to let people do what they do, privately.
>>
>>But Jesus ended by telling her to "Go and sin no more."
>>
>>I think story was a late addition among people who devote much more
>>time to scholarly criticism of the Christian scriptures than I do.
>
>It's one of the passages that the Conservative Bible Project would like
>to exclude as being "too liberal", if that's what you mean.

Ah, reinterpretation of the Bible by fundies...

Sort of makes one long for the Inquisition.

[Paul J Gans]

timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
>On Tuesday, April 10, 2012 2:53:33 AM UTC+10, Devils Advocaat wrote:
>> On Apr 9, 2:55 pm, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
>> > In article <4c9f5d93-72fa-4a0a-8a9b-aa566abc5...@w5g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
>> > Devils Advocaat  <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > >I often hear this thing about the alleged reluctance of the RCC in
>> > >letting ordinary people read the Bible, but where does this story
>> > >originate, what evidence is there to support it? Just curious you see.
>> >
>> > I have heard it from older catholics a lot.  I believe that it may be
>> > one of the Vatican II reforms.  I think the NAB was started around the
>> > same time--a translation from the original languages to English with
>> > no invervening langauges, and the whole thing Imprimatured and Nihil
>> > Obstated by the Church so that Catholics would have an "acceptable"
>> > version to read from.
>>
>> Why would the Catholic Church start a story like that?
>>
>> It doesn't make sense.

>Perhaps to keep hold of the power that Constantine granted the hierarchy.

As I recall, the Roman Catholic position is that scripture is
hard to understand without proper training. Parts are poetic,
part parable, part seemingly injunctive, and so on.

In addition to the Bible, the Church also relies on the writings
of the Church Fathers and upon custom.

The greatest fear was that some bunch of folks would start reading
the Bible for themselves and misinterpret what they read. One only
need watch the current state of affairs in the US to see that in
action.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[AGWFacts]

It is evil to give children Bibles for the exact same reason it is
evil to give children cocaine.

> Mark


--
"Schools are to teach children what their parents don't know." -- Robert Carnegie

[Rodjk #613]

Well, it also seems that the church has realized that people want to
be allowed to read the bible; that does not mean they will actually
read it. Since so few will read it anyway, what is the point of
discouraging it?

Note: owning a bible and displaying it does not mean that it has been
read.

Rodjk #613

[Perseus]

yeah, most atheist had read some fractions of the Bible at least.
Mostly the most significant parts of it, as recommended by some people
who knows. Then, to read the bible can be productive to understand
the book is about hate and fanaticism in the name of god.

Perseus

[Perseus]

they realize that most people do not read bible; not even the famous
preachers.
Unless we are talking of some chose fragments.
Perseus

[Perseus]

I was educated in a catholic school and they were against common
people to read it. The reason, being free to roam where to read,
people can find undesirable fragments to read, and nobody near to
explain to him, the exact meaning of the fragment in question.

Then, the idea of RCC is to let you read the bible just if you are
supervised by a person with knowledge over some controversial
matters.

Perseus

[Perseus]

that was clear.
Only those who wanted to compete with the priests of RCC could be
interested in reading the Bible. They wanted to find arguments
against the authority of RCC priests.

Perseus