may there be a spate of this kind of soul saving!

He also should risk all the people who had a divorce. And those who work on a Saturday.

*risk = ban

Just to be consistent, you know, with the book he claims he values.

rolandhesz: neither divorce, nor working on a Saturday constitute "grave sin"

working on a Saturday?

"Thou shallt keep the Sabath" and divorce? Divorce is a grave sin. It's just convenient to forget it.

Jesus never says that being divorced is a sin. Being divorced and remarrying is because in Jesus economy once married always married. The Church can inspect the conditions in which a person was married

and declare it nullified, if the conditions were not correct

In other words, if you are not living in adultery, you can go to communion, working on Sunday is not a sin.

Ah, well, if we selectively ignore half the Bible, then sure. However, divorce, according to the Catholic church is a sin.

According to Cherry Pick Christians, of course it is not.

But if you look at ONLY Jesus, then gay marriage is not a sin, abortion is never mentioned by him and never said a word against women being priests. That was Leviticus in the Old Testament.

Wow, you need to learn about the Bible and Christianity. No, divorce is not a sin. Not in the Old Testament, not in the New Testament.

If you look ONLY at Jesus, gay marriage IS a sin.

I see, lol. A cherry Christian. Have a fun day.

rolandhesz: So, do you keep the 613 laws of the Old Covenant?

What the heck is a "cherry Christian"?

I don't but I don't even claim to be Christian. I have a different hobby.

Cherry Christian, sorry Cherry Picking Christian. People who ignore inconvenient parts of the Bible, like Matthew (for example 5:32) and most of Leviticus but quotes the same people when it is convenient.

Points to Timothy about women: I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.) but ignores Timothy about politicians:

Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,

So basically cherry picking whatever they like.

Btw, Adultery is a grave sin and "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery." Matthew 19:9 - so I guess reading the bible would be

useful.

So let me get this straight - you don't live the faith, but you call those who do hypocrites because of your own shallow reading of a book tha tyou don't believe in or understand in the slightest?

Perhaps you should read Matthew 7:5

What Jesus says in Matthew 5 is that divorce doesn't undo a marriage. That is what Catholics believe. Saying "divorce is a sin" is different from saying "who divorces and enters into another relationship

commits a sin."

You need to understand the language and culture in which a book is written to understand what it means.

Accusing people who actually study the Bible of not reading the Bible, when you yourself don't study the Bible is a bit like trying to school the physics teacher because you once read a science article.

It's arrogance.

mikel1 I just say if you pick a game then follow the rules, don't twist them every witch way whenever it's more convenient. Period. You can defend your "selective" and "studied" reading. But be consistent.

And you can go to "oh, you don't understand!" but be honest with yourself at least. You are reading it selectively and work really, really hard to find a reading to justify what you want.

You pick Matthew 7:5 and say Matthew 19:9 is invalid. Is it? Or is it just a self-contradiction. And no, it's not the same as with physics. In physics they don't say "oh, well, gravity works on Earth except

sometimes it doesn't, whichever is most convenient for me"

Don't even try to bring the Bible to the same level as science

So you are saying people who have spent years, and indeed a whole collected work of research over hundreds of years, is all invalid because of your opinion?

Ignorance or arrogance? I don't know and I don't care.

And no, I would not bring the Bible to the same level as science. But logic is logic and history is history and your understanding of both in terms of the Bible is...well... missing.

I would try to explain it to you but (1) this is a limited medium and (2) I doubt you are actually interested in understanding another's position.

Peace out

rolandhesz: I'm totally peaceful.

I always enjoy it when someone tries to bring cherry picked data into a discussion with no interest in the greater whole and then acts as if those few pieces are some sort of trump card. Typical, but funny.

I don't think anyone brought any data here. There were some examples, and some confirmation of those examples.

Data, no, none of those things. Neither trump cards.

Okay let me put it another way. You tried to cherry pick a few items based on an incomplete reading and understanding of both the Bible and Tradition and then play it off as if it demonstrates your position

in a way that is unassailable. Yet when the someone else provides counterpoints to them you toss them off as insufficient and incomplete without even engaging them. Gratis asseritur, gratis negatur isn't

really a way to try to debate, and I believe that's part of the reason mikel1 made the statement about the honesty of your interest. You might find that your strategy of tossing a few hand grenades in and

looking for casualties won't work when people actually know the Bible and Tradition. Or, in other words, don't bring eggs to a logic fight. If you want to discuss or debate, do so honestly.

If you want to just hurl a few insults and feel better about yourself, well, that's your prerogative, but all it does is highlight your lack of understanding.

It's your choice: play square, or be shown a fool.

frival: Well done!

No need for the applause, it's a pretty standard fare attack. I could almost tell how it was going to play out from the first comment. You almost want to say, "tell ya what, you stop typing and I'll write up

everything you're about to say, then let me know if I missed anything." But that would be disrespectful, so, well, hey I'm a nice guy. Sort of. Sometimes.

I brought logic, and got back a "you can't understand it". I don't want to hurl insults. I asked a question as they were applauding a very selective attack on someone. Gloating I would say.

And of course I can't understand it, because you say so And everything I said was basically confirmed by the responses.

So now we can both go away happily, you won, I won, everyone won and we all can get a prize.

Can we have ice cream now?

Maybe you should reread how you introduced yourself to this conversation which included hurling multiple insults right off the bat. If you want honest discussion and to ask questions why start like that?

Just a couple of reminders: "Just to be consistent, you know, with the book he claims he values." <-- allegation of moral and intellectual inconsistency amounting to hypocrisy

"Divorce is a grave sin. It's just convenient to forget it." <-- allegation of duplicity and hypocrisy

I also notice a distinct lack of question marks in those early statements. If those were intended as interrogatives that might be the most oblique way of doing so I've ever seen.

How to put it. I see a man robbing a house. I will tell him "Hey, robbing is not nice" I won't start with "oh, hey, it's ok, it's not yours but sure, take it"

And well, selective reading was demonstrated above. Even justified. "We studied it so we can find the best reading of it". But, you are right, it's your book, you read it as you wish. Sometimes people will

point out the inconsistency,the double standards, and so on, but you can ignore that. That's their right and ignoring it is your right. It's simple. It is not even that important as long as it stays within the

church and doesn't try to sneak into the laws and rules of the land. Definitely won't make bread more expensive.

Sorry, I just noticed a mistake: I didn't ask a question. I answered a question. My bad that one.

So you are comparing Christianity with robbing a house and you claim NOT to be hurling insults

When you find out that the person you publicly accused of robbery was actually the owner of the house the proper thing to do isn't to say "hey I was just asking a question", the proper thing is to apologize.

What you think is a double standard stems from your apparently willfully incomplete knowledge. There are times even in civil law where what would appear to be a double standard is not only allowed but enforced

The proper thing to do when it has been shown that you've scurrilously falsely accused another of impropriety is to apologize and correct your statements and make an effort to learn the truth of the matter.

Your insistence that you need not do so shows you have no interest in being fair, only in being seen as right. If you'd like to understand the issues at question you might try leading with questions rather

than accusations. But as you've repeatedly stated, you don't see any value in actually being right, only in being able to perceive yourself as right. That is very, very sad indeed.

Let me offer this much. If you're interested in learning the truth of these matters there are several here who can help get past the surface understanding. It's an honest offer if the interest is honest.

mikel1 interesting reading - try again. I am comparing hypocrisy an double standards with robbing a house

frival no, what I think comes from actual observation of double standards. Simple as that. I never said every Christian has double standards - that's mikel1 putting words in my mouth, but, I guess it comes

from a big practice of properly reading and interpreting what others write.

I will be honest with you. I have read the Bible several times. Attended Sunday school - well, it was on Saturdays, but that's irrelevant - been visited by lots of friendly old ladies and young men trying to

convert me. I definitely didn't go to seminars. But when I read the Bible I noticed some verses that are usually ignored by the same people who quote from the same person from another page. And when asked

"hey, what's with verse X" they say "Oh, that doesn't matter, they didn't mean it" - really? Then why is it there?

Or they go - well, you have to read this one in context of the ages. And that one? Oh, no, that one you take literally. Really?

And that's what I call cherry picking. Simple as that. And of course when a priest bans one person for sin A but curiously doesn't ban other people for the same sin, or a similar one.That I call double standard

Also, never said I don't see value in being right. You think you are right. Fair enough, that's your right. Also, no one actually shown me anything. All that was told is that "you are not trained to read it

the right way"

And what you're describing is precisely the problem with individuals reading the Bible in solo and thinking they've come up with something no one has seen before. It's a common self-deception that stems

from a faulty premise - that the Bible is a book designed for self-study. Yes, self-study is a part of it, but the Bible is intended to be used within a community and within the Tradition of that community.

Without that you're going to miss inferences, references, and cultural expectations to the point that something will seem obviously intended one way when it in fact means precisely the opposite.

The problem you're having, whether you're willing to admit it or not, is one of humility. You think you've found things others can't see but yet are uninterested in finding out whether what you think you've

found is actually true.

Further, your understanding of "one sin vs. another" is incredibly, how shall we say, egalitarian. That has never been the understanding of how sin works from the time of the Jews to now - some sins are indeed

more serious than others, and even some "serious" sins are more serious than other "serious" sins. Just because you don't see, don't understand, or don't agree with the hierarchy as it is doesn't mean there

hasn't been serious, honest work put in to establish that hierarchy. Brilliant people for hundreds and indeed thousands of years have wrestled with these kinds of questions and what we have now is the

You mean, misinterpret when people say Leviticus is valid, except half of it? Or when I read a clear statement, but you mean they "didn't mean it?"

result of that multi-millenia-long sifting and sorting. It's the height of hubris to think that one can just walk in, read the Bible several times, and think that's all there is to it.

Oh, I don't think others didn't find it. After all, loads of people found the contradictions and "well, Jesus here says A but what he really means ..." so no, I am not alone.

I would say that the 10 commandments in theory are grave sins. Unless you claim that A) it didn't happen like that or God didn't mean it that way.

Maybe you really are smarter than all the people who have come before you and thought and pondered and studied these issues in the past. Maybe you're not. It's incredibly presumptuous to just assume

As you said people studied it for hundreds of years. And then just sticking to divorce for a moment you end up with the Anglican church because the Pope said divorce is a grave sin.

that you are and everything that has come before is simply wrong. But, I suppose, that's part of the way of the world today. If you'd like to actually get into this, let's pick one small topic and pry it

And when you order the sins that always comes from a personal,subjective valuation. Divorce today can't be a grave sin as it happens every day. But does it mean that the meaning of the Bible changes as the

culture and habits of the people are changing?

apart and see if your insight really is as new and revealing as you think it is. Maybe you can teach us something, maybe we can teach you something. That's being honest and open. What say you?

And here we arrive to my point: there are people who identify themselves as Christians and themselves subjectively interpret the Bible. Which is my problem. It's not how you interpret it.

It's the "well, everyone interprets it differently".

Pick something. Let's do this.

As I said and you continuously jump around it: my problem is exactly that people interpret it subjectively.

Um, the Pope never said divorce is a grave sin, and neither did Jesus. They both said divorce AND REMARRIAGE is adultery, which is a grave sin. Again, your interpretation is your own, but just because

you misinterpreted the passage doesn't make you right.

My problem is not how you interpret the Bible. My problem is that there are people, sometimes very loud and influential people, who interpret it differently, depending on the day of the week

rolandhesz: actually no, not everyone interprets it differently. That is a cop out for people who want to disregard moral teachings base don the fact that not everyone has the same understanding.

Ok, how come that when it comes to the female priests some extremely male people immediately quote the Bible that no female can be priest. Usually they drag up Timothy. The next day when someone says:

Ok, but then what about the corrupt, adulterous politicans they immediately go "oh well, you see, it's all relative, and you have to understand the Bible needs to be read in context" - so what's your take on

this one frival - are they right? Are these people wrong?

As you asked it's just one, simple example.

Which one, divorce or women priests?

No, the approach. Case A, women priests: the word of the Bible must be taken literally and no no no. Case B: well, you see, you can't take it literally.

As I said,time and again and again. My problem is with the approach.

Well, for a simple start, you have to realize that the Bible isn't a single type of literature or even a single book, it's a collection of books all written with different audiences and purposes.

Just a ferinstance, Leviticus is written largely as a priestly instruction manual; Revelation is apocalyptic literature. Trying to read the two with in the same way will result in a wildly inaccurate

Both cases are verses from Timothy. Same book. Is it right to interpret it literally when that supports my goal - no female priests allowed - and go "well, you have understand the context" when that supports

my goal.

understanding of one or both.

I'm trying to work while doing this, mind giving me the precise quotations you're talking about?

And, yes, in short, sometimes a literal statement and a culturally-affected reference can be made in the same book. Sometimes in the same sentence.

Sure. Timothy about women: I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 2:12

And on politicians: Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach 3:2

So basically what you say is, that it is perfectly acceptable that some people read it the way it is most convenient to them.

I know, in theory they shouldn't do that, and should adhere to an official interpretation rule, but in the end it is acceptable.

1 Tim 3:2 is about bishops, not politicians. The word in the original greek is "episkopos" from which our English "episcopate" (i.e. the office of Bishop) is derived.

I fail to see where one is literal and the other conditioned.

Or are you talking about the "faithful to his wife" part (which is also a poor translation) vis a vis priests / bishops being celibate?

I am talking about the "overseer" - see even the translation is playing around. And no, mostly about the above reproach, respectable, hospitable.

But the gist is, that you say: it's perfectly acceptable to read and interpret the Bible in different ways, depending on the topic. Is that a correct statement?

Sometimes literally, sometimes allegorically, sometimes in historical context. Except if you are a fundamentalist who believes it's the unchangeable word of God.

The old saying in Italy is "every translator is a traitor". That's just the problem you face every time you translate from one language to another, it's nothing specific to the Bible.

The Bible, perhaps, has a higher density of these issues because it brings together writings covering a vast amount of time as well as a rather large number of human authors, not to mention having the originals

written in multiple languages.

I am well aware of that, I live my life in 3 languages - translation of a translation of a translation is very tricky. Especially if one or two of the languages are dead ones.

That's why when you see something curious one of the best things you can do is to go back to the original.

Out of curiosity, to which translation are you referring that has "overseer"? That sounds like someone went out of their way to avoid the word "bishop", probably because it sounded too Catholic.

New International Version, English Standard Version, Berean Study Bible, Berean Literal Bible, New American Standard Bible , Holman Christian Standard Bible, New Heart English Bible, New American Standard 1977

Darby Bible Translation, World English Bible, Young's Literal Translation

These use the word 'overseer'. There are translations that use the word 'elder' and some use 'bishop'

and the Webster uses the word 'minister'

The Aramaic Bible in Plain English uses the world Elder.

*word. Duh

My Bible is in Hungarian, small print and as I am moving currently in a box.

Okay good to know, that helps with translation perspective.

Back to the original question, why do you consider these two verses to be problematic? I must be missing your illustration. Perhaps these are more problematic in Protestant churches, which also suffer from

the problems inherent in Sola Scriptura to which I alluded earlier? I'm not sure what you're trying to point out as I'm not seeing a contradiction.

Ok, you are missing the whole point. I don't consider the verses problematic. I consider the "sometimes we interpret things this way and sometimes that way as befits our goal" behaviour that some people

express. That's why they are called cherry picking Christians. And if you look back that was the whole topic. Not the interpretation of the verses. The way some people flip flop.

Apparently no matter how many times I write "I have a problem with this behaviour of some people" this is completely ignored.

And we go into scripture analysis. Which is not the point.

And I stress the some. Jesuits for example are very consistent in my experience.

It's not a matter of cherry picking, it's a matter of accuracy. You can't assume that every verse must be interpreted the same way even within a single book. Name me any other type of literature where

that's done. Poetry, maybe, but even then there are different types of allusions, illustrations, etc.

That's just an artifact of how humans communicate. I do agree it can be maddeningly difficult to work through, but I disagree with your conclusion that verses are interpreted through different lenses

solely because it "befits our goal". That's a hermeneutic of suspicion and can only result in the very bias confirmation you're complaining about.

I think you purposefully misinterpret what I am saying, as I am pretty sure you have seen a few of these people yourself. I myself seen this behaviour where the same situation, same topic applied, the only

difference was the gender and the race of the participants. And the exact same person felt for some weird reason different interpretation of the Bible applied to the otherwise same situation.

I am happy we had this conversation.

It was a bit pointless I think, you firmly believe that nothing like this can happen, I saw it happen with my own eyes. I could quote you "standard fare" but we all know the Nile is just a river in Egypt.

Have a great evening and hopefully a good dinner with your family

No I'm just disagreeing that it has to be or even ought to be the default interpretation. Just because people abuse a thing doesn't mean the thing itself is wrong.

And what I said: "I don't consider the verses problematic. I consider the behaviour problematic"

The whole discussion, every time I repeated it "behaviour, behaviour". I never once said your verse is wrong. I said "some people's behaviour is wrong"

and finally, you admit that some people's behaviour is wrong. It was a very, very, very long way to finally you actually realise what I'm talking about. And who I am calling "cherry picking Christians".

Which was the question posed to me ages ago.

Sure, people are wrong all the time. Some people will misinterpret the Bible for their own ends. Heck we have politicians who misinterpret the Constitution all the time, we don't throw that baby out with the

bath water either though.

I never denied that people do misinterpret the Bible. I denied that their misinterpretation either invalidates the Bible or the Church or that their misinterpretation can in any way stand as a standard for

judgement.

You keep flipping between very narrow definitions and broad applications. Exceptions are exceptions and not the rule, and error even if broadly accepted is still error.

And I never said it invalidates the Bible. It was asked of me: Who do you call cherry picking Christians.

If you want to say there are some Christians who do it for bad reasons, that's perfectly fine. Your initial comments however attempt to broad brush paint large swaths of people as cherry picking is still

inaccurate.

If you look back I even emphasised the some and used a very specific term originally for them.

"According to Cherry Pick Christians" - very much in the beginnings if you look back. Which had a typo admittedly. But specified a very clear group. Not everyone

Actually that was very non-specific as given the tenor of your surrounding comments it led to the interpretation as most Christians being of the cherry pick variety.

oh, ok. very non-specific. So saying "people belonging to a specific group" is non-specific. I understand.

And, frankly, "Cherry Pick Christians" is an incredibly unhelpful term as all it does is slap a pejorative on a random group of undefined people that can be applied to anyone with whom you disagree.

If you think you can out-sarcasm me, heh, you've missed a lot in this conversation.

I love the internet because both party can safely believe that he was the most sarcastic and smartest in the conversation. I think it helps a lot of people build confidence.

I've tried very hard to be civil about this despite your rather rude introduction. Your continued need to be insulting only displays your rather weak arguments.

No, you were trying very hard to be sarcastic and insulting without appearing so. A for effort though.

You don't know me very well. I'm far more sarcastic than smart. Do you really now want to find out how far both of those extend or should we remain at least partially civil?

And now we've descended into name calling. Good night, sweet prince, you've hit my trolling limit.

I don't know you at all. You don't know me at all. It's the internet.

Indeed. Next time try opening with humility instead of bile and this conversation would go far, far better.

Repeating your own words is "descending"? Really? You are funny. Especially when you do the name calling

Agreed. Next time you don't open with a badly hidden "you're dumb man" statement

But have a great night and sleep tight.

Oh too funny. Argumentum ad "I'm rubber and you're glue". And we'd gotten so close to an actual discussion. Oh well. Enjoy your night good sir.