Canada's own Unhinged Catholic gets all relativistic and selective with her own Good Book:
Earl, guess what: that stuff in Deuteronomy? That's in the Old Testament. Therefore everything in it comes under two categories: the time bound and the eternal. There is stuff in it that applies to us always. Then there is stuff that was intended for the Jews 5,000 years ago when they were in various states of disarray and sinfulness. Jesus brought the New Dispensation.
And that's how one weasels out of the undeniably batshit-crazy idiocy in the Old Testament -- just claim that some of it (the batshit crazy stuff, I'm guessing) doesn't apply anymore.
Sadly, Kathy's lord and saviour already has an opinion on the subject (emphasis added):
Matthew 5:17-18 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
Jesus: 1. Kathy: 0.
9 comments:
But CC, ol' boy, dontcha know...?
Jesus' birth, life, death, and resurrection DID fulfill the whole damn Law & the Prophets.
Of course, this should mean that NONE of the Old Testament stuff applies now. And Kathy hasn't yet explained how she decides which stuff is "time-bound" and which stuff is "eternal."
(For example -- prohibitions against homosexuality can't be eternal! Because there's no sex or marriage in heaven, right? So that's a "time-bound" one, and I suspect, therefore, that Christ did away with that prohibition when he fulfilled all the law. If Kathy has information to the contrary, she'd better explain where she got it and why she believes it.)
So, since she's contradicting Jesus here, I'd say it's still Jesus: 1. Kathy: 0.
I think Kathy Hatele needs to re-re-lapse, or lapse back or something. She's never been particularly coherent, but lately, she's just sounding moronic.
Biblical "stuff?"
Just to make a further complication of things, one would have to ask what the Catechism says - since that is the "interpretative guide" that the R/C's rely upon for handling scriptural questions.
To be fair to Kathy (and I do hate being fair to Kathy), she's not making that distinction up. It's been operative in Western Christianity for about 1500 years now, ever since Augustine.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/12/13/bakker.brown.commentary/index.html
Seems like some Christians aren't too happy either....
Chester, you're right, of course. I believed the same way when I was a fundie.
The point really is that it makes no sense, for starters. And it's oh-so-incredibly-convenient too. And oh-so-coincidentally always just happens to back up the person's own beliefs. Imagine that!
I'd like Kathy to tell us if she keeps her mouth shut in church, and dutifully wears a hat. Because those, too, are biblical commandments, and by golly, they're in the NEW Testament -- not the old.
We had no problem, in my fundie church, explaining all THAT away. 'Cause we women weren't going to shut up, and by golly, we weren't going to wear hats either. So imagine our joy that the "explanation" of those things just happened to coincide with our own feelings on the matter.
Whew!
Wanna really see them twitch? Try to present evidence to a fundie that their so-called 'religion' is nothing other than a death cult.
I have yet to hear back from Jinx on this one:
http://shockandblog-exposed.blogspot.com/
Perhaps that's the way to get WB and others like him to fuck off...force them to take a good hard look at their 'good book' and realize it's anything but.
What's with those tittles, anyway? Is a tittle bigger or smaller than a jot?
sounds like scoville is the only one of you that actuall yhas any working knowledge of the history of the christian movement. CC- I have to say piss off, not cuz your opinion is not amusing ( you are a good one to laugh at), but you are in this case (and in general) un-researched and unknowledgable of the topic of which you incessantly whine.
Post a Comment