Suscipe Domine Traditional Catholic Forum

The Parish Hall => Arts and Leisure => Topic started by: Philip G. on January 28, 2022, 01:03:07 PM

Title: Reading the Bible Fun Thoughts Thread
Post by: Philip G. on January 28, 2022, 01:03:07 PM
A month or so ago I decided to read the bible again from beginning to end.  I have done it at least twice already.  And, although I am already almost done with exodus, I got the idea that commenting about what stands out to me as a I read in a thread would be fun.  Because, every time you read the bible anew there is always something new that stands out to you.

I ask that this not be a thread for any and all to jump in at any point in their reading of the bible to post their own interesting bible snippit.  I want there to be a semblance of chronological order to this.  Of course, if I post something I find interesting, and a conversation ensues, and other bible quotes from other parts of the bible are relevant and therefore brought into the conversation, that is good. 

Title: Re: Reading the Bible Fun Thoughts Thread
Post by: Philip G. on January 28, 2022, 01:22:06 PM
Exodus 21:6. "His master shall bring him to the gods, and he shall be set to the door and the posts, and he shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his servant for ever." 

My thoughts, it is very normal for women to have ear rings.  But, I wonder if the though of being "forever changed by it" as this passage indicates, enters the mind of those get them?  I don't think those who pierce their ears think in this manner, about making a decision that will alter them forever.  I have never had a body piercing, so I cannot say.  But, do you think those who get a mere ear piercing think about?  And, even more so, do you think there are those who do it precisely for this reason?

The spiritually side of the discussion would be evident in the scripture passage.  Whether there is any truth to it in a culturally accepted practice such as simple ear rings is debatable.  But, take the practice piercings to the extreme, and I think one can definitely associate it with something not good. 

There are the five senses.  You often see ear rings, nose rings, eye brow rings, tongue rings, and emphasis on rings on the most sensitive parts of the body to parallel the sense of "touch".  It seems there is more significance to the practice, that even ear rings may not be able to escape as a result of its common use.  Biblically speaking, it seems to imply a state of subjection.  And, women are to be subject to their husbands.  But, perhaps the practice is designed to make women subject to someone/something else?  Are they subject to those who take peircings to the extreme?  If so, that would be bad. 
Title: Re: Reading the Bible Fun Thoughts Thread
Post by: TerrorDæmonum on January 28, 2022, 02:13:39 PM
I ask that this not be a thread for any and all to jump in at any point in their reading of the bible to post their own interesting bible snippit.  I want there to be a semblance of chronological order to this.

Have you derailed threads for pages of your own rants before?

Your personal interpretations of scripture are often wrong, and it is very unwise.

I don't think this forum is a place for your own personal published commentary on the scriptures. That would be very unCatholic.

And don't you have some unfinished business (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=27358.0) to address?

Title: If you buy a slave?
Post by: TerrorDæmonum on January 28, 2022, 02:19:51 PM
The spiritually side of the discussion would be evident in the scripture passage.  Whether there is any truth to it in a culturally accepted practice such as simple ear rings is debatable.  But, take the practice piercings to the extreme, and I think one can definitely associate it with something not good.

That chapter is clearly treating slavery as a practice (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=27135.0) that is not condemned. Read the first two verses...you can buy people to serve you.

You are not fit to comment on scripture: it is very dangerous and bad for you and anybody who reads it.

Quote from: 2 Peter 1:20
Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.

You are using your personal hidden revelations (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=27335.msg565476#msg565476) to make judgements and have "insights" that nobody else has. Mental illness (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=27283.msg565611#msg565611) leads to such clear and convincing thoughts.

And your own convictions are disordered and inconsistent (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=27358.0). If you cannot even explain your own statements, how can you ever hope to make any sensible commentary on any other writings?
Title: Re: Reading the Bible Fun Thoughts Thread
Post by: red solo cup on January 28, 2022, 05:42:39 PM
Exodus 21:6. "His master shall bring him to the gods, and he shall be set to the door and the posts, and he shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his servant for ever." 

My thoughts, it is very normal for women to have ear rings.  But, I wonder if the though of being "forever changed by it" as this passage indicates, enters the mind of those get them?  I don't think those who pierce their ears think in this manner, about making a decision that will alter them forever.  I have never had a body piercing, so I cannot say.  But, do you think those who get a mere ear piercing think about?  And, even more so, do you think there are those who do it precisely for this reason?

The spiritually side of the discussion would be evident in the scripture passage.  Whether there is any truth to it in a culturally accepted practice such as simple ear rings is debatable.  But, take the practice piercings to the extreme, and I think one can definitely associate it with something not good. 

There are the five senses.  You often see ear rings, nose rings, eye brow rings, tongue rings, and emphasis on rings on the most sensitive parts of the body to parallel the sense of "touch".  It seems there is more significance to the practice, that even ear rings may not be able to escape as a result of its common use.  Biblically speaking, it seems to imply a state of subjection.  And, women are to be subject to their husbands.  But, perhaps the practice is designed to make women subject to someone/something else?  Are they subject to those who take peircings to the extreme?  If so, that would be bad.
This is as I  understand it. The ear piercing was a ceremony a slave underwent when he wished remain in his masters service...it was considered an act of love. It harkens to Psalm 40:6 "my ears you have opened."  The awl is a nail of Christ's crucifiction. Paul said he was a slave of Christ.
Title: Re: Reading the Bible Fun Thoughts Thread
Post by: Philip G. on January 28, 2022, 08:06:42 PM
Exodus 21:6. "His master shall bring him to the gods, and he shall be set to the door and the posts, and he shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his servant for ever." 

My thoughts, it is very normal for women to have ear rings.  But, I wonder if the though of being "forever changed by it" as this passage indicates, enters the mind of those get them?  I don't think those who pierce their ears think in this manner, about making a decision that will alter them forever.  I have never had a body piercing, so I cannot say.  But, do you think those who get a mere ear piercing think about?  And, even more so, do you think there are those who do it precisely for this reason?

The spiritually side of the discussion would be evident in the scripture passage.  Whether there is any truth to it in a culturally accepted practice such as simple ear rings is debatable.  But, take the practice piercings to the extreme, and I think one can definitely associate it with something not good. 

There are the five senses.  You often see ear rings, nose rings, eye brow rings, tongue rings, and emphasis on rings on the most sensitive parts of the body to parallel the sense of "touch".  It seems there is more significance to the practice, that even ear rings may not be able to escape as a result of its common use.  Biblically speaking, it seems to imply a state of subjection.  And, women are to be subject to their husbands.  But, perhaps the practice is designed to make women subject to someone/something else?  Are they subject to those who take peircings to the extreme?  If so, that would be bad.
This is as I understand it. The ear piercing was a ceremony a slave underwent when he wished remain in his masters service...it was considered an act of love. It harkens to Psalm 40:6 "my ears you have opened."  The awl is a nail of Christ's crucifixion. Paul said he was a slave of Christ.

I have no difficulty interpreting the passage.  What is to confuse?  My interest was its potential application in the modern world in regards to ear rings and body piercings. 

Psalm 40:6 in my douay reads, "my enemies have spoken evils against me, when shall he de and his name perish?"

Quite frankly, you can't just put forward an interpretation like that and not expect it to be shot down.  It is not believable in the slightest.  God does not open up our ears by striking a hole through them. That is in fact contrary to what Jesus did when he "plugged" a deaf man's ears and said "ephrata", which means "be thou opened", as the womb of one of the old testament wives was opened at a place called "ephrata"/"bethlehem".  That is how God works.  The new becomes old, and the old becomes new.  This sort of approach happens to be my interest in the original passage as it is. 
Title: Re: If you buy a slave?
Post by: Philip G. on January 28, 2022, 08:36:33 PM
The spiritually side of the discussion would be evident in the scripture passage.  Whether there is any truth to it in a culturally accepted practice such as simple ear rings is debatable.  But, take the practice piercings to the extreme, and I think one can definitely associate it with something not good.

That chapter is clearly treating slavery as a practice (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=27135.0) that is not condemned. Read the first two verses...you can buy people to serve you.

You are a judaizer, and a stranger in the land.  Jeremias 34:4, which is a footnote citation of the passage you are referring to says, "At the end of seven years, let ye go every man his brother being a hebrew, who hath been sold to thee, so he shall serve thee six years, and thou shalt let him go free from thee, and you fathers did not hearken to me, nor did they incline their ear.  And, you turned to day, and did that which was right in my eyes, in proclaiming liberty every one to his brother, and you made a covenant in my sight in the house upon which my name is invocated.  And you are fallen back, and have defiled my name, and you have brought back again every man his manservant, and every maid his maidservant, whom you had let go free, and set t liberty.  And you have brought them into subjection to be your servants and handmaids.  Therefore thus saith the Lord, you have not hearkened to me, in proclaiming liberty to very man to his broher and every man to his friend.  Behold I proclaim a liberty for you, saith the lord , to the sword, to the pestilence, and to the famine, and I will cause you to be removed to all the kingdoms of the earth."

It apparently didn't work among the "fathers", and it didn't work among the jews of this time.  Jesus said of the old covenant law elsewhere, that it was because of the hardness of their hearts that moses allowed the putting away of a wife, but in the "beginning it was not so".  The same is to be said here.  Jesus said to his apostles "do not Lord it over each other".  Meaning, there is to be no slavery among Christians.  There is to be no buying and selling of Christians.  And, if there is to be no buying or selling of Christians, there is to be no buying or selling of any human, because all humans are called to be Christian.   

Jeremias 34:9 "That every man should let his manservant, and every man his maidservant, being a hebrew man or a hebrew woman go free.  And that they should not lord it over them, to wit, over the jews their brethren. 
Title: Re: Reading the Bible Fun Thoughts Thread
Post by: Philip G. on January 28, 2022, 09:05:41 PM
Exodus 21:16 "He that shall steal a man, and sell him, being convicted of the guilt, shall be put to death." 

My take on the concept of the allowance of bondmen and bondwomen in a temporary and limited fashion(six years maximum) is that it is theoretically not all that offensive as a result of the "theocracy" of the old law.  There was no separation of powers.  Moses became the religious leader after slaying a man.  Moses was the church and the state.  As a result, there is really a singular direction the community as a whole takes.  Whether you are subject to your neighbor doesn't matter all that much because all are significantly more subject to Moses/the Judges/the Prince than any of us are in the age of the new covenant in Christ.   There is no comparison between the two.  There is a world of difference.  The new covenant under Christ is comprised of a separation of powers.  There is the secular power, and there is the religious power.  This allows for a greater degree of freedoms, for better and for worse.  Slavery, even mild, simply cannot coexist with this model/life in Christ.

Title: Slave of Christ
Post by: TerrorDæmonum on January 29, 2022, 01:13:11 AM
You are a judaizer, and a stranger in the land.

What kind of stranger (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=27358.0)? You make these statements about me, but you have to explain them. I explain what I claim. Do the same.

Slavery, even mild, simply cannot coexist with this model/life in Christ.

Onesimus was a slave and remained a slave. Was St Paul a "judaizer"?

This statement of yours seems to deny Catholic spiritual devotion:

Quote from: True Devotion to Mary
These words of the Holy Spirit show that Jesus is the sole source and must be the sole end of all our good works, and that we must serve him not just as paid servants but as slaves of love. Let me explain what I mean.

There are two ways of belonging to another person and being subject to his authority. One is by ordinary service and the other is by slavery. And so we must use the terms "servant" and "slave". Ordinary service in Christian countries is when a man is employed to serve another for a certain length of time at a wage which is fixed or agreed upon. When a man is totally dependent on another for life, and must serve his master without expecting any wages or recompense, when he is treated just like a beast of the field over which the owner has the right of life and death, then it is slavery.

Now there are three kinds of slavery; natural slavery, enforced slavery, and voluntary slavery. All creatures are slaves of God in the first sense, for "the earth and its fullness belong to the Lord". The devils and the damned are slaves in the second sense. The saints in heaven and the just on earth are slaves in the third sense. Voluntary slavery is the most perfect of all three states, for by it we give the greatest glory to God, who looks into the heart and wants it to be given to him. Is he not indeed called the God of the heart or of the loving will? For by this slavery we freely choose God and his service before all things, even if we were not by our very nature obliged to do so.

There is a world of difference between a servant and a slave.

...

No other human state involves belonging more completely to another than slavery. Among Christian peoples, nothing makes a person belong more completely to Jesus and his holy Mother than voluntary slavery. Our Lord himself gave us the example of this when out of love for us he "took the form of a slave". Our Lady gave us the same example when she called herself the handmaid or slave of the Lord. The Apostle considered it an honour to be called "slave of Christ". Several times in Holy Scripture, Christians are referred to as "slaves of Christ".

Granting this, I say that we must belong to Jesus and serve him not just as hired servants but as willing slaves who, moved by generous love, commit themselves to his service after the manner of slaves for the honour of belonging to him. Before we were baptized we were the slaves of the devil, but baptism made us the slaves of Jesus. Christians must be either the slaves of the devil or the slaves of Jesus Christ.

Are you denying Saint Louis-Marie Grignion de Montfort and the Catholic devotions (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=27288.0) he promoted?
Title: Re: Reading the Bible Fun Thoughts Thread
Post by: Miriam_M on January 29, 2022, 03:49:09 PM
Philip,
I appreciate that you have a different point of view regarding slavery, but remember that slavery among equals (equals as creatures) has no bearing on "slavery" of human beings to our God on whom we are dependent in every way -- for every grace, for every blessing, for circumstances positive and negative He allows, and for life itself.  There is an infinite inequality between us and God. 

I understand the distinctions you are making between the Old and New Covenants, but the NT writer who best articulated the paradoxes of a Life in Christ was Paul, especially in Romans Chapter 6. True Christian freedom lies in conformity to Christ, who allowed Himself to become a slave to the will of His Father.  We must think of spiritual (not physical or legal) slavery as a metaphor for abandonment to God's Will, rather than captivity or passivity -- which I agree, the Christian life is not. 
Title: Re: Reading the Bible Fun Thoughts Thread
Post by: Philip G. on January 30, 2022, 12:20:07 AM
Philip,
I appreciate that you have a different point of view regarding slavery, but remember that slavery among equals (equals as creatures) has no bearing on "slavery" of human beings to our God on whom we are dependent in every way -- for every grace, for every blessing, for circumstances positive and negative He allows, and for life itself.  There is an infinite inequality between us and God. 

I understand the distinctions you are making between the Old and New Covenants, but the NT writer who best articulated the paradoxes of a Life in Christ was Paul, especially in Romans Chapter 6. True Christian freedom lies in conformity to Christ, who allowed Himself to become a slave to the will of His Father.  We must think of spiritual (not physical or legal) slavery as a metaphor for abandonment to God's Will, rather than captivity or passivity -- which I agree, the Christian life is not.

Miriam, your post "who allowed Himself to become a slave to the will of his Father", is an old law application.  The old covenant is no longer.   Christ said, "I am alpha and omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.  Blessed are they that wash their robes in the blood of the lamb, that they may have a right to the tree of life, and may enter in by the gates into the city". 

"Christ said, the first shall be last, and the last shall be first".  Let us look at some of the "last" in Christ's kingdom.  Christ gave us the parable of the good samaritan.  It spoke of a man robbed and beaten and left for dead.  It does not speak of a man robbed, beaten, and sold into slavery.  Christ heals lepers, another "last" in his kingdom.  Christ tells the cripple to "rise and take up thy bed".  The demoniac, who dwelt among the graves, cutting himself with stones, and could not be bound in chains like a slave could, is healed by Christ.  There are many examples, and no slaves or bondmen are found among them.  Christ's "last" are rejected by the slavemasters/lords.  Slave masters/"Lords" do not want them.  It is these "last" that we are in the new covenant permitted to draw a spiritual parallel with.  I do not use the word "encouraged", because in Christ's Father's house, "there are many rooms". 

Spiritual slavery is seemingly the inverse of martyrdom.  Christ was scourged and crucified "like a slave", but if he had not "died a martyr", it would be all for not.  Recall those tempting Christ with "if thou be the son of God, come down from the cross".  St. Paul says in Hebrews, "And, without shedding of blood there is no remission."  Martyrdom is the glorious gift that we cannot merit quite frankly.  It is interesting that spiritual slavery is so desirous of not having " personal merit".  Yet, Jesus said, "if you give someone a cold class of water, you shall not lose your reward".  Clearly, this manufactured approach will never rise to the level of martyrdom, despite the appearance of its image/intention.  The church teaches that we should not pursue martyrdom.  Because, only God knows if and when one is truly prepared to suffer such a fate.  "For who hath known the mind of the Lord..."?  "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." 

"But Ananias answered Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints in Jerusalem... And, the Lord said to him, go thy way, for this man is to me a vessel of election, to carry my name before the gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel."  Christ named twelve apostles.  Christ elected one St. Paul.  St. Paul is an exception, St. Paul is not a rule.  St. Paul is ironically known for this passage for a reason.  "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I indeed am of Paul, and I am of Apollo, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ.  Is Christ divided?  Was Paul then crucified for you?  Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?"

Title: Re: Reading the Bible Fun Thoughts Thread
Post by: Philip G. on January 30, 2022, 03:37:13 AM
"I am alpha and omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. Blessed are they that wash their robes in the blood of the lamb, that they may have a right to the tree of life, and may enter in by the gates into the city".

This is an interesting passage indeed. For within the context of alpha and omega/first and last, an analogy of clothing is referenced.  Apply that to a lord/slave narrative, and it doesn't work.  Because, a slave does not own the clothes on their back.  The fact that lots were cast for Christ's garments is evidence of this.  If we are to wash "our robes" in the blood of the lamb", what good would that do a slave?  Christ was not crucified in a robe. This is just another example of how the slavery in christendom narrative doesn't align with Christian redemption. 

Think of the saying "the emperor has no clothes".   Contextually, you are not supposed to say that even when true.  Now, how about this one?  "The slave is the food".  Soylent green is people! 

Christ is Alpha and Omega.  As omega, Christ is our food, but under the species of bread and wine, and only because he died for us.  As alpha, Christ is not butt naked before our eyes as baby Jesus, or as crucified Christ on the cross.  Christ is clothed in majesty, reigning in heaven for all eternity. 

Just as the beatific vision is seeing God as he is, on earth the parallel of this is covering of the "secrets" as scripture calls it.  We will see God's face in heaven, and we will not see man's, or God's for that matter in the man of Christ's private parts.   Shame on those catholics who promote naked baby Jesus and naked Jesus on the Cross.  It is a perversion of the truth.

 
 




Title: Mental Disorder
Post by: TerrorDæmonum on January 30, 2022, 05:19:11 AM
Think of the saying "the emperor has no clothes".   Contextually, you are not supposed to say that even when true.  Now, how about this one?  "The slave is the food".  Soylent green is people! 

Christ is Alpha and Omega.  As omega, Christ is our food, but under the species of bread and wine, and only because he died for us.  As alpha, Christ is not butt naked before our eyes as baby Jesus, or as crucified Christ on the cross.  Christ is clothed in majesty, reigning in heaven for all eternity. 

Just as the beatific vision is seeing God as he is, on earth the parallel of this is covering of the "secrets" as scripture calls it.  We will see God's face in heaven, and we will not see man's, or God's for that matter in the man of Christ's private parts.   Shame on those catholics who promote naked baby Jesus and naked Jesus on the Cross.  It is a perversion of the truth.

Get professional help.
Title: Re: Reading the Bible Fun Thoughts Thread
Post by: Bernadette on January 30, 2022, 09:38:53 AM
Philip, I think you need a good commentary.
Title: Re: Reading the Bible Fun Thoughts Thread
Post by: Jayne on January 30, 2022, 09:44:34 AM
Philip, I think you need a good commentary.

I don't think he wants a good commentary.  His goal does not appear to be discovering the Catholic understanding of Scripture.  He seems to be claiming that it is "fun" to make up interpretations as an exercise in creativity.  This is a deeply anti-Catholic approach to Scripture.
Title: Re: Reading the Bible Fun Thoughts Thread
Post by: Bernadette on January 30, 2022, 10:45:05 AM
Philip, I think you need a good commentary.

I don't think he wants a good commentary.  His goal does not appear to be discovering the Catholic understanding of Scripture.  He seems to be claiming that it is "fun" to make up interpretations as an exercise in creativity.  This is a deeply anti-Catholic approach to Scripture.

I can't make heads or tails of this thread. It just confuses me.
Title: Re: Reading the Bible Fun Thoughts Thread
Post by: Miriam_M on January 30, 2022, 12:02:44 PM
Philip, I think you need a good commentary.

Yes, especially Philip, because you think that Paul is limiting slavery to the Old Covenant, when rather he is explaining the liberating and voluntary slavery, metaphorically, to the cross of Christ.  He is contrasting two radically different kinds of slavery, elaborating on why the New Covenant frees us from slavery to sin because Christ defeated sin and thus broke mankind's chains.
Title: Re: Reading the Bible Fun Thoughts Thread
Post by: Philip G. on January 30, 2022, 01:33:14 PM
but remember that slavery among equals (equals as creatures) has no bearing on "slavery" of human beings to our God on whom we are dependent in every way -- for every grace, for every blessing, for circumstances positive and negative He allows, and for life itself.

If slavery among equals has no bearing on slavery of human beings to God, then find another word to use. 
Title: Re: Reading the Bible Fun Thoughts Thread
Post by: TerrorDæmonum on January 30, 2022, 01:53:07 PM
but remember that slavery among equals (equals as creatures) has no bearing on "slavery" of human beings to our God on whom we are dependent in every way -- for every grace, for every blessing, for circumstances positive and negative He allows, and for life itself.

If slavery among equals has no bearing on slavery of human beings to God, then find another word to use.

On the contrary, it is you who must change. The use of the word slave and its meanings are perfectly suitable for spiritual discussions and the Church has affirmed this from the beginning:

Quote from: True Devotion to Mary
These words of the Holy Spirit show that Jesus is the sole source and must be the sole end of all our good works, and that we must serve him not just as paid servants but as slaves of love. Let me explain what I mean.

There are two ways of belonging to another person and being subject to his authority. One is by ordinary service and the other is by slavery. And so we must use the terms "servant" and "slave". Ordinary service in Christian countries is when a man is employed to serve another for a certain length of time at a wage which is fixed or agreed upon. When a man is totally dependent on another for life, and must serve his master without expecting any wages or recompense, when he is treated just like a beast of the field over which the owner has the right of life and death, then it is slavery.

Now there are three kinds of slavery; natural slavery, enforced slavery, and voluntary slavery. All creatures are slaves of God in the first sense, for "the earth and its fullness belong to the Lord". The devils and the damned are slaves in the second sense. The saints in heaven and the just on earth are slaves in the third sense. Voluntary slavery is the most perfect of all three states, for by it we give the greatest glory to God, who looks into the heart and wants it to be given to him. Is he not indeed called the God of the heart or of the loving will? For by this slavery we freely choose God and his service before all things, even if we were not by our very nature obliged to do so.

There is a world of difference between a servant and a slave.

...

No other human state involves belonging more completely to another than slavery. Among Christian peoples, nothing makes a person belong more completely to Jesus and his holy Mother than voluntary slavery. Our Lord himself gave us the example of this when out of love for us he "took the form of a slave". Our Lady gave us the same example when she called herself the handmaid or slave of the Lord. The Apostle considered it an honour to be called "slave of Christ". Several times in Holy Scripture, Christians are referred to as "slaves of Christ".

Granting this, I say that we must belong to Jesus and serve him not just as hired servants but as willing slaves who, moved by generous love, commit themselves to his service after the manner of slaves for the honour of belonging to him. Before we were baptized we were the slaves of the devil, but baptism made us the slaves of Jesus. Christians must be either the slaves of the devil or the slaves of Jesus Christ.
Title: Re: If you buy a slave?
Post by: Philip G. on January 30, 2022, 01:58:32 PM
The spiritually side of the discussion would be evident in the scripture passage.  Whether there is any truth to it in a culturally accepted practice such as simple ear rings is debatable.  But, take the practice piercings to the extreme, and I think one can definitely associate it with something not good.

That chapter is clearly treating slavery as a practice (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=27135.0) that is not condemned. Read the first two verses...you can buy people to serve you.

You are not fit to comment on scripture: it is very dangerous and bad for you and anybody who reads it.

Quote from: 2 Peter 1:20
Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.

You are using your personal hidden revelations (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=27335.msg565476#msg565476) to make judgements and have "insights" that nobody else has. Mental illness (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=27283.msg565611#msg565611) leads to such clear and convincing thoughts.

And your own convictions are disordered and inconsistent (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=27358.0). If you cannot even explain your own statements, how can you ever hope to make any sensible commentary on any other writings?

BUMP.  This coward says such hasty things about me, and then doesn't have the integrity to back up his claim.  It is not like I had to scour the scriptures for this, it is the direct footnote reference to the passage he tried to whack me over the head with.  He says because one was allowed to buy a hebrew servant, Moses locuta, causa finita. 

However, Jeremias 34:4, which is a footnote citation of the passage he is referring to tells us a different story about the virtue of that passage/mosaic law.  "At the end of seven years, let ye go every man his brother being a hebrew, who hath been sold to thee, so he shall serve thee six years, and thou shalt let him go free from thee, and you fathers did not hearken to me, nor did they incline their ear.  And, you turned to day, and did that which was right in my eyes, in proclaiming liberty every one to his brother, and you made a covenant in my sight in the house upon which my name is invocated.  And you are fallen back, and have defiled my name, and you have brought back again every man his manservant, and every maid his maidservant, whom you had let go free, and set t liberty.  And you have brought them into subjection to be your servants and handmaids.  Therefore thus saith the Lord, you have not hearkened to me, in proclaiming liberty to very man to his brother and every man to his friend.  Behold I proclaim a liberty for you, saith the lord , to the sword, to the pestilence, and to the famine, and I will cause you to be removed to all the kingdoms of the earth."

The reason why buying and selling of humans in any manifestation is a mistake is because the proof is in the pudding.  The old covenant approved/tolerated practice was harmful to the superiors/slave owners.  Because, when the time came for them to honor God's commands of limiting the practice to six years, they all failed the test.  They failed to comply.

There are numerous examples in sacred scripture where the master of another does not honor the terms of service/God's conditions, and becomes abusive when the time comes for them to be made "an equal".  Think of pharoah.  God hardened his heart over an over again, and drowned him in the depths of the sea to illustrate God's displeasure with slavery.  Like the giants preceding and warranting the deluge, the evil dominating all the earth warranting the flood was most likely slavery.  God's mini deluge the Egyptians is likely the testament to this. 

Think of Jacob(I think) it was who had to serve his uncle for a certain amount of time to receive his uncle's daughter to be his bride.  When the years of servitude were up, his uncle did not honor the contract. 

The Lord/slave relationship harms both parties.  No surprise.
Title: Re: Reading the Bible Fun Thoughts Thread
Post by: Miriam_M on January 30, 2022, 02:58:23 PM
but remember that slavery among equals (equals as creatures) has no bearing on "slavery" of human beings to our God on whom we are dependent in every way -- for every grace, for every blessing, for circumstances positive and negative He allows, and for life itself.

If slavery among equals has no bearing on slavery of human beings to God, then find another word to use.

The contrast and comparison is made by St. Paul, not I.
 ;)
I wouldn't dream of rewriting either Scripture or great literature.

St. Paul finds the analogy useful, both theologically and spiritually.  If the metaphor were heretical or scandalous, his writings would not have been included in the Canon.

That's fine if you wish to discuss human-to-human slavery alone, and it that case I will bow out of this discussion if you wish me to, and I apologize if I misinterpreted.  It's just that I thought that originally, you had wished to discuss what is to you an inappropriate metaphor in Louis de Montfort (and perhaps in the Apostle Paul's Letter to the Romans?), when the metaphors being used on the spiritual, not concrete, plane are merely paradoxes.
 :)
Title: Re: If you buy a slave?
Post by: TerrorDæmonum on January 30, 2022, 05:07:53 PM
BUMP.  This coward says such hasty things about me, and then doesn't have the integrity to back up his claim.

I am a coward? I repeated asked you to explain what you wrote about me (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=27358.0) and you did not do it.

As for hasty, do you forget?

Slavery and Catholics (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=26965.0) and Morality of Slavery (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=27135.0) are two different threads where you repeated posted and I responded. And I made this thread for historical slavery (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=27164.0).

What did I ever write in haste on this matter? What claim have I never explained? When did I refuse citations?

You accuse me of random things, but you don't explain it (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=27358.0).
Title: Re: Reading the Bible Fun Thoughts Thread
Post by: Philip G. on January 30, 2022, 10:59:10 PM

St. Paul finds the analogy useful, both theologically and spiritually.  If the metaphor were heretical or scandalous, his writings would not have been included in the Canon.
 :)

St. Paul also drew an analogy with boxing.  I spent many years of my life boxing.  And, even I can recognize that there is an element of scandal in it, which is why you do not find me salivating over the threads on this forum discussing it.  Boxing is in many if not most respects a brutal blood sport.  But, it is in my blood, and that is not insignificant.  Riding dirt bikes is in my blood.  The culture is quite base, but riding is in my blood.  You don't see me forming sacred analogies from these, because I don't want to take the name of the Lord in vain. 

The same is to be said of any potential slavery analogy.  If st paul used an endorsing analogy of slavery, which I don't believe he did as you and others interpret, as a result of cultural and contextual influence, it still doesn't sanctify it.  An action doesn't become sacral because a fallible man who became a saint drew an analogy from it or wrote a book about it.  Even if it is in the canon, it doesn't raise it to that stature.  Divine revelation is not sourced from the canon/scripture alone, it is sourced from the canon/scripture, and sacred tradition.  What is sacred tradition?  In contrast with it's partner in determining divine revelation, which is scripture, we know what sacred tradition is by what it is not. 

Only Christ's parables are significant and unique in this respect.  Everything else takes on at the very least a twofold relationship.  The tunnel vision of trads in this regard is their flaw, and their undoing.



Title: Re: Reading the Bible Fun Thoughts Thread
Post by: Miriam_M on January 31, 2022, 02:13:38 AM
Long before Vatican II, when the men in Rome running the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith could be counted on for their orthodoxy in matters theological and liturgical, the Roman Catholic Church interpreted all of the works within the Scriptural Canon and recommended all of them to the faithful for our spiritual edification and catechesis.  Now, I will grant you that some symbols in both the OT and NT, as well as some ancient figures of speech and cultural contexts may be less appealing to some of us than other ways of speaking and other comparisons, but the same can be said of some of the sayings of Our Lord Jesus Christ -- some of the language He uses, forms of address, etc., that can be off-putting when we read them through Western eyes, a couple of millenia later. 

Louis de Montfort's theology in itself is less important, even though he was canonized before the Council, in the old and more reliable process of canonization, so there is no reason for us to doubt his sainthood.  However, Louis relied for his own theology on orthodox scripture, and if he consciously or unconsciously drew from St. Paul in his own use of metaphors, that would not be terribly surprising. Like Paul, he was a product of his time, and in Louis's case, that meant vigorously opposing an anti-Marian trend in Christianity, to which he was reacting. 

Paul was opposing quite a bit, too!  His letters are filled with accounts of contention in the early Church and his defenses of his positions on some of the controversies therein. Yet the Church long ago and through today recognizes all of the human writers of the Bible as instrument's of divine authorship, and clearly that would include Paul.  He is so revered by the Church that he is considered inseparable from Peter:  Where Peter is, there is Paul. 

That does not mean that you or I have to like Paul's style.  Style is very different from message, and from the early Church on, the hierarchy has exhorted the faithful to read all of the books of the Bible for the messages.  If you prefer the Epistles of Peter and James, being that they lack metaphors like boxing and slavery --I'm not a runner, for example, so I can't relate to Paul's running a race metaphor -- then you should follow your inclinations. (The Church also exhorts the individual Catholic to be guided by the Holy Spirit in what we read more of and less of.)

But what cannot be true is that the early Church somehow got it wrong when establishing the Canonical books in the 5th century because of some way you, today, disapprove of Paul's language in his epistles. Those books are part of the permanent deposit of faith.
Title: Expect the Inquisition
Post by: TerrorDæmonum on January 31, 2022, 02:22:54 AM
Long before Vatican II, when the men in Rome running the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

Considering the "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" did not exist under that name until after Vatican II, that would have been quite tricky!

Pre-Vatican II, it would be The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office (after 1908), and previously Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition (since 1542, when it was founded).
Title: Re: Reading the Bible Fun Thoughts Thread
Post by: Severinus on January 31, 2022, 08:41:07 AM
Greater love has no man than this, that he give up his life for his slaves?
Title: Re: Expect the Inquisition
Post by: Miriam_M on January 31, 2022, 09:14:29 AM
Long before Vatican II, when the men in Rome running the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

Considering the "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" did not exist under that name until after Vatican II, that would have been quite tricky!

Pre-Vatican II, it would be The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office (after 1908), and previously Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition (since 1542, when it was founded).

Yes, I often forget the technical name change.  I should have simply referred to the doctrinal offices and functions, pre-V2 !
Title: Re: Reading the Bible Fun Thoughts Thread
Post by: Philip G. on January 31, 2022, 11:37:15 AM

I wouldn't dream of rewriting either Scripture or great literature.


Scripture says "and your young men shall dream dreams".  Women aren't the "dreamers" Miriam.  Women are the ones that "dare".  I am not dreaming when I say that if you translate "slave" across the board in all contexts from the word "servant", you are daring to rewrite scripture. 
Title: Re: Reading the Bible Fun Thoughts Thread
Post by: Philip G. on January 31, 2022, 11:38:42 AM
Greater love has no man than this, that he give up his life for his slaves?

Exactly, we know what Tradition is by what it is not.  And, that has never been translated or interpreted as what Jesus said or meant.
Title: Re: Reading the Bible Fun Thoughts Thread
Post by: TerrorDæmonum on January 31, 2022, 11:39:14 AM
Greater love has no man than this, that he give up his life for his slaves?

Quote from: Philippians 2:5-9
Hoc enim sentite in vobis, quod et in Christo Jesu qui cum in forma Dei esset, non rapinam arbitratus est esse se aequalem Deo sed semetipsum exinanivit, formam servi accipiens, in similitudinem hominum factus, et habitu inventus ut homo. Humiliavit semetipsum factus obediens usque ad mortem, mortem autem crucis. Propter quod et Deus exaltavit illum, et donavit illi nomen, quod est super omne nomen ut in nomine Jesu omne genu flectatur caelestium, terrestrium et infernorum,

Were we not told to follow Him?
Title: Slave
Post by: TerrorDæmonum on January 31, 2022, 11:46:01 AM
I am not dreaming when I say that if you translate "slave" across the board in all contexts from the word "servant", you are daring to rewrite scripture.

The Greek and Latin texts which form the basis for translations all use the word "slave". Different translations can use other words for literary reasons, but the word is the same as "slave".

δούλος and servus mean "slave" and can be translated as such (and usually are).

"Christians must be either the slaves of the devil or the slaves of Jesus Christ". Which are you?
Title: Slave to Christ
Post by: TerrorDæmonum on January 31, 2022, 11:52:43 AM
Greater love has no man than this, that he give up his life for his slaves?

Exactly, we know what Tradition is by what it is not.  And, that is not what Jesus said.

Right, He said:

Quote from: John 15:20
Mementote sermonis mei, quem ego dixi vobis : non est servus major domino suo. Si me persecuti sunt, et vos persequentur; si sermonem meum servaverunt, et vestrum servabunt.

It is the same discourse. He said we are His "friends" if we do what He commands us! This is why the slavery to Christ is voluntary.

It is our purpose:

Quote from: Baltimore Catechism
Q. 126. What do we mean by the "end of man"?

A. By the "end of man" we mean the purpose for which he was created: namely, to know, love, and serve God.




Title: Re: Reading the Bible Fun Thoughts Thread
Post by: Severinus on January 31, 2022, 12:17:44 PM
Our Slave Master, who art in Heaven?
Title: Re: Reading the Bible Fun Thoughts Thread
Post by: Miriam_M on January 31, 2022, 12:17:51 PM

I wouldn't dream of rewriting either Scripture or great literature.


Scripture says "and your young men shall dream dreams".  Women aren't the "dreamers" Miriam.  Women are the ones that "dare".  I am not dreaming when I say that if you translate "slave" across the board in all contexts from the word "servant", you are daring to rewrite scripture.

I’m not doing anything “across the board,” Philip. Rather, it is you who are extending a metaphor inappropriately, out of context. No one in this thread asserted that Jesus Christ called humanity “slaves.” This is a straw man, as well as other logical fallacies. You are trying to disprove spiritual advice from a premier saint of the Catholic Church by asserting that you have superior understanding of what Paul must have meant by particular terms he used, and that your private interpretation can exceed the authority of (pre-V2) understanding of Pauline and de Montfort metaphors for the attitude of submission of one’s will to the Will of God and the imitation of Christ’s obedience to the will of His Father.
Title: Slave of Christ
Post by: TerrorDæmonum on January 31, 2022, 12:21:56 PM
Our Slave Master, who art in Heaven?

If you wish to discuss the topic, do so. That form of rhetoric is most ill-suited for rational discourse. As for God, we owe God absolute obedience in all things (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=27435.msg566731#msg566731).

If you want to see previous discussions, consider this one (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=26965.0):

Quote from: True Devotion to Mary
These words of the Holy Spirit show that Jesus is the sole source and must be the sole end of all our good works, and that we must serve him not just as paid servants but as slaves of love. Let me explain what I mean.

There are two ways of belonging to another person and being subject to his authority. One is by ordinary service and the other is by slavery. And so we must use the terms "servant" and "slave". Ordinary service in Christian countries is when a man is employed to serve another for a certain length of time at a wage which is fixed or agreed upon. When a man is totally dependent on another for life, and must serve his master without expecting any wages or recompense, when he is treated just like a beast of the field over which the owner has the right of life and death, then it is slavery.

Now there are three kinds of slavery; natural slavery, enforced slavery, and voluntary slavery. All creatures are slaves of God in the first sense, for "the earth and its fullness belong to the Lord". The devils and the damned are slaves in the second sense. The saints in heaven and the just on earth are slaves in the third sense. Voluntary slavery is the most perfect of all three states, for by it we give the greatest glory to God, who looks into the heart and wants it to be given to him. Is he not indeed called the God of the heart or of the loving will? For by this slavery we freely choose God and his service before all things, even if we were not by our very nature obliged to do so.

There is a world of difference between a servant and a slave.

...

No other human state involves belonging more completely to another than slavery. Among Christian peoples, nothing makes a person belong more completely to Jesus and his holy Mother than voluntary slavery. Our Lord himself gave us the example of this when out of love for us he "took the form of a slave". Our Lady gave us the same example when she called herself the handmaid or slave of the Lord. The Apostle considered it an honour to be called "slave of Christ". Several times in Holy Scripture, Christians are referred to as "slaves of Christ".

Granting this, I say that we must belong to Jesus and serve him not just as hired servants but as willing slaves who, moved by generous love, commit themselves to his service after the manner of slaves for the honour of belonging to him. Before we were baptized we were the slaves of the devil, but baptism made us the slaves of Jesus. Christians must be either the slaves of the devil or the slaves of Jesus Christ.
Title: Domine, nos servi tui
Post by: TerrorDæmonum on January 31, 2022, 12:32:22 PM
From the traditional Roman Rite, we call ourselves slaves of the Lord:

Quote
Unde et mémores, Dómine, nos
servi tui
, sed et plebs tua sancta,
ejúsdem Christi Fílii tui Dómini nostri
tam beátæ passiónis, nec non et ab
ínferis resurrectiónis, sed et in cælos
gloriósæ ascensiónis: offérimus
præcláræ majestáti tuæ de tuis donis,
ac datis, hóstiam puram, hóstiam
sanctam, hóstiam immaculátam,
Panem sanctum vitæ ætérnæ, et
Cálicem salútis perpétuæ.

We only "dare to say" Our Father because of Christ's commands:

Quote
Præcéptis salutáribus
móniti, et divína institutióne formáti,
audémus dícere:

Pater noster...
Title: Domine, nos servi tui
Post by: TerrorDæmonum on January 31, 2022, 12:33:56 PM
Those who resist this must take notice of our options:

Christians must be either the slaves of the devil or the slaves of Jesus Christ.

Title: Re: Reading the Bible Fun Thoughts Thread
Post by: coffeeandcigarette on January 31, 2022, 12:51:32 PM
If anyone cares, I think the OP was a great idea and really neat! I would love an ongoing chronological scripture discussion in the forum! So maybe if everyone could stop this bickering we could enjoy that.
Title: Involved
Post by: TerrorDæmonum on January 31, 2022, 01:02:40 PM
So maybe if everyone could stop this bickering we could enjoy that.

Are you aware of the context? Are you aware of the OP's views on matters?

Do you think jumping in without contextual understanding and telling others what to do makes sense? You are now a part of the "bickering" and you have apparently picked a side. Did you mean to do that?

If you want to be on the side of heretics and blasphemers, that is your call, but if you did not examine the context of this discussion, you might want to think about exactly what is being discussed before dismissing it as "bickering". Your posting on the forum is not privileged: you are a poster making comments just like us.
Title: Re: Reading the Bible Fun Thoughts Thread
Post by: Severinus on January 31, 2022, 01:40:46 PM
If anyone cares, I think the OP was a great idea and really neat!

I don't mind hearing people's personal thoughts on scripture passages either, whether Philip's, yours, Paeniteo's, or those of any other poster here. I don't see how laymen seeking to gain and share personal insight from Scripture reading could be construed as a non-Catholic activity, so long as it is done with a Catholic rule of faith. It's the opposite, in my opinion, and I think if Catholics are to regain a mystical ferment it will have to involve engaging more deeply in subjective (too often thoughtlessly levied as an insult) activities like lectio divina.
Title: Blasphemers United
Post by: TerrorDæmonum on January 31, 2022, 03:05:37 PM
If anyone cares, I think the OP was a great idea and really neat!

I don't mind hearing people's personal thoughts on scripture passages either, whether Philip's, yours, Paeniteo's, or those of any other poster here.
I see he has found some allies.

Quote
I don't see how laymen seeking to gain and share personal insight from Scripture reading could be construed as a non-Catholic activity, so long as it is done with a Catholic rule of faith.

You don't see, but what you don't see is what I tried to point out by linking to previous issues. Lending support to this person is sharing in his activity.

You and another are teamed up with him now. Did you mean to do that?

Regardless, I shared the links and explained the errors already, and if you want to be allied with him, so be it. His errors are now yours if that is what you want.
Title: Re: Blasphemers United
Post by: Severinus on January 31, 2022, 03:34:45 PM
If anyone cares, I think the OP was a great idea and really neat!

I don't mind hearing people's personal thoughts on scripture passages either, whether Philip's, yours, Paeniteo's, or those of any other poster here.
I see he has found some allies.

Quote
I don't see how laymen seeking to gain and share personal insight from Scripture reading could be construed as a non-Catholic activity, so long as it is done with a Catholic rule of faith.

You don't see, but what you don't see is what I tried to point out by linking to previous issues. Lending support to this person is sharing in his activity.

You and another are teamed up with him now. Did you mean to do that?

Regardless, I shared the links and explained the errors already, and if you want to be allied with him, so be it. His errors are now yours if that is what you want.

Don't impute anything to me that I don't want imputed to me. I'm responding to this thread, not to other threads that you may have linked to or that may be on your mind. That's your business. If that's the thread you want to post in, please post in that one instead of derailing this one, which is against the forum rules. Let's get back on topic. Thank you.
Title: Re: Blasphemers United
Post by: TerrorDæmonum on January 31, 2022, 03:38:55 PM
Don't impute anything to me that I don't want imputed to me.
Explain your posts then.

Our Slave Master, who art in Heaven?

Quote
I'm responding to this thread, not to other threads that you may have linked to or that may be on your mind. That's your business. If that's the thread you want to post in, please post in that one instead of derailing this one, which is against the forum rules. Let's get back on topic. Thank you.

Go see those threads and see how they were derailed by the OP of this thread. They provide a context for this thread.

If you want to join him: you should know what you are joining. His posts do not exist in a vacuum.

But instead of opposing blasphemies and other things worthy of rebuke, you'll oppose my efforts to help people who may not be aware of the basis for his current posts.

And on this thread, he writes this about me and you say nothing but support him and oppose me:

You are a judaizer, and a stranger in the land.

BUMP.  This coward says such hasty things about me, and then doesn't have the integrity to back up his claim.

I showed where I backed it up (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=27410.msg566672#msg566672) to show who was right, and you are not interested in this.

I am Catholic: blasphemies and Protestantism and related heresies do not interest me. I'll oppose them when I am in a position to do so.
Title: Re: Blasphemers United
Post by: Severinus on January 31, 2022, 03:55:47 PM
Don't impute anything to me that I don't want imputed to me.
Explain your posts then.

Our Slave Master, who art in Heaven?

Quote
I'm responding to this thread, not to other threads that you may have linked to or that may be on your mind. That's your business. If that's the thread you want to post in, please post in that one instead of derailing this one, which is against the forum rules. Let's get back on topic. Thank you.

Go see those threads and see how they were derailed by the OP of this thread. They provide a context for this thread.

If you want to join him: you should know what you are joining. His posts do not exist in a vacuum.

But instead of opposing blasphemies and other things worthy of rebuke, you'll oppose my efforts to help people who may not be aware of the basis for his current posts.

I'm not interested in reading an older argument you had with someone. It feels like being dragged into a personal feud. Jayne has done the same thing to me, getting me to pass opinions on a personal feud of hers that had nothing to do with me. I don't like it. Let's stick to the topic, or just move on.
Title: Madness Reigns
Post by: TerrorDæmonum on January 31, 2022, 04:03:28 PM
I don't like it. Let's stick to the topic, or just move on.

The topic is personal interpretation of scripture from somehow who has some very bizarre and disordered views.

I don't know how you are going to discuss that and maintain a Catholic identity given that you are willing to post these:

Greater love has no man than this, that he give up his life for his slaves?

Our Slave Master, who art in Heaven?

If you want to entertain his views and support them and make a mockery of those who try to warn of errors, so be it.

I am not going to discuss that topic. I am Catholic and I will only post what is agreeable to Catholics. Protestantism, madness, and blasphemies are not anything I can support in any way.

(Heresies and blasphemies are sins. Madness is not.)
Title: Re: Reading the Bible Fun Thoughts Thread
Post by: Severinus on January 31, 2022, 04:49:15 PM
Alright then. Philip, feel free to post your thoughts.
Title: Re: Reading the Bible Fun Thoughts Thread
Post by: Jayne on January 31, 2022, 06:10:57 PM
Alright then. Philip, feel free to post your thoughts.

Just remember, you were warned and dismissed it as a "personal feud".
Title: Re: Involved
Post by: coffeeandcigarette on January 31, 2022, 06:43:59 PM
So maybe if everyone could stop this bickering we could enjoy that.

Are you aware of the context? Are you aware of the OP's views on matters?

Do you think jumping in without contextual understanding and telling others what to do makes sense? You are now a part of the "bickering" and you have apparently picked a side. Did you mean to do that?

If you want to be on the side of heretics and blasphemers, that is your call, but if you did not examine the context of this discussion, you might want to think about exactly what is being discussed before dismissing it as "bickering". Your posting on the forum is not privileged: you are a poster making comments just like us.

As a matter-of-fact I am well aware of the context of this. You decided to barge into this thread and bring all your baggage with you. You couldn't just enjoy this thread as a stand alone, oh no, it was far to tempting to bring all your angst here and start in on Phillip. You never even gave him a chance to start something neat for us, you decided to ruin it with your pettiness. You complain about other people not posting, but when they try, you pull this crap. Get over yourself. He was not even trying to start a thread in which he "interprets scripture"
on some kind of soap box. He was trying to start a thread where people can simply comment and discuss various passages. I can see how this would offend you, seeing as the only scripture you like is the gospel of Paeniteo.

Now then...
Title: Slanderer
Post by: TerrorDæmonum on January 31, 2022, 07:37:26 PM
As a matter-of-fact I am well aware of the context of this.
If you really are, then you were silent in the face of blasphemy and false accusations, and are supporting them and contributing your own. Those are grave sins by their nature.

Quote
You decided to barge into this thread and bring all your baggage with you.
What baggage? I am not the one posting blasphemies and novelties  on the forum.

Quote
You couldn't just enjoy this thread as a stand alone, oh no, it was far to tempting to bring all your angst here and start in on Phillip.
Start in? Do you see what he has written? You said you did, and you apparently support it. That is disgusting.

Quote
You never even gave him a chance to start something neat for us, you decided to ruin it with your pettiness.
Pettiness?

Quote
You complain about other people not posting, but when they try, you pull this crap.
What are you talking about?

Quote
I can see how this would offend you, seeing as the only scripture you like is the gospel of Paeniteo.
How dare you write this.

If you truly are fine with blasphemies and false accusations and you are willing to do such things yourself, I can only denounce the grave sins I see and not commit them myself.
Title: Re: Reading the Bible Fun Thoughts Thread
Post by: Christina_S on January 31, 2022, 10:39:59 PM
Good thing GiftofGod and Boniface VIII aren't around at the moment. I think they'd have a stroke or their heads would blow off if they saw this thread topic...

If we're trying to go chronologically, I've been going through Genesis lately with Fr. Mike Schmitz's Bible in a Year podcast. I've always found it funny how in the story of Joseph and his brothers, it gets rolling in Genesis 37, then in chapter 38 it cuts to Judah and Tamar's drama, and then chapter 39 continues the story. It makes me think, "We interrupt this broadcast to bring you our latest breaking story..."
Title: The Jewish War
Post by: TerrorDæmonum on January 31, 2022, 11:24:01 PM
've always found it funny how in the story of Joseph and his brothers, it gets rolling in Genesis 37, then in chapter 38 it cuts to Judah and Tamar's drama, and then chapter 39 continues the story. It makes me think, "We interrupt this broadcast to bring you our latest breaking story..."

Not that I am an expert on the text, but it is very common for ancient writers to write this way. They often wrote chronologically (events told in order) regardless of how continuous the narrative is in other senses.

This can result in massive "tangents" in ancient writers who seem to be distracted by events unrelated to what they were writing about, but it is very deliberate. There were other conventions, but this was extremely common.

There is also the issue of ancient texts not having footnotes, due to how they were written, so commentary is inserted into the text directly. You can get a very good example of both of these ways of writing by reading the The Jewish War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jewish_War). It has a single author and it is a more modern text so you don't have to worry about redaction and style changes. Josephus is telling the events of a single war, with background information, but reading it straight through results in very gripping military events being interrupted by things that are hardly relevant to the story (mostly a lot of details about Herod and his family and other political tidbits). If one sees them as inserted "footnotes", and the order of events being told as chronologically as possible, it all makes sense.

Of course, it does look very disjointed if one is not used to it.
Title: Re: Reading the Bible Fun Thoughts Thread
Post by: Jayne on February 01, 2022, 05:20:14 PM
Good thing GiftofGod and Boniface VIII aren't around at the moment. I think they'd have a stroke or their heads would blow off if they saw this thread topic...

They may have somewhat overstated their case, but they made some good points about how laity can abuse Scripture.  This thread is a good example in support of that position.

Scripture is the Word of God in which he reveals Himself to us.  It is not for "fun".  It is not a game to amuse us.

He was trying to start a thread where people can simply comment and discuss various passages. I can see how this would offend you, seeing as the only scripture you like is the gospel of Paeniteo.

One does not simply "comment and discuss various passages".  Understanding Scripture with the mind of the Church requires skills and knowledge (which, due to his posting history, we have no reason to think that Philips has.)  Personal interpretation of Scripture can very easily go wrong, even in good conditions.  It is highly imprudent to do it for "fun".

Paeniteo is exemplary for his ability to summarize Catholic teaching without interjecting his personal opinions.  He cites authoritative sources and gives clear explanations.  His posts on doctrine are one of the best aspects of this forum. 

For some reason, coffeeandcigarettes rejects what is good and encourages what is bad.   
Title: Re: Reading the Bible Fun Thoughts Thread
Post by: coffeeandcigarette on February 02, 2022, 04:35:32 PM

For some reason, coffeeandcigarettes rejects what is good and encourages what is bad.


Firstly ma'am, "fun" is used colloquially as something that is enjoyable. I find scripture study to be very enjoyable and therefore fun. I did not mean anything else. Secondly, how do you know we would not be citing good sources, and encouraging traditional understandings of scripture? You are just pulling a bunch of crap out of nowhere and slinging it at people. I have never in my life encouraged what is bad, what an insane thing to say. I have never done so on this forum, and I certainly have not done so in life either. Nor have I ever rejected what is good. I think this post was really quite uncalled for and extremely rude.

I am going to quote you to end this post, ironically:

"Why do you have to twist everything to see evil in people you don't get along with?  Why do you keeping making up bad things about people even when there is no evidence?"
Title: Re: Reading the Bible Fun Thoughts Thread
Post by: Jayne on February 02, 2022, 05:06:51 PM

For some reason, coffeeandcigarettes rejects what is good and encourages what is bad.


Firstly ma'am, "fun" is used colloquially as something that is enjoyable. I find scripture study to be very enjoyable and therefore fun. I did not mean anything else. Secondly, how do you know we would not be citing good sources, and encouraging traditional understandings of scripture? You are just pulling a bunch of crap out of nowhere and slinging it at people. I have never in my life encouraged what is bad, what an insane thing to say. I have never done so on this forum, and I certainly have not done so in life either. Nor have I ever rejected what is good. I think this post was really quite uncalled for and extremely rude.

Philip has been a member here for over 3 years.  I have seen many examples of his comments on Scripture, more than enough to be aware that he does not cite good sources or have a traditional understanding.  (You claimed you were familiar with the context, so you should know this too.)  I have plenty of evidence for this. It is imprudent or worse to encourage him to have "fun" like this. This has nothing to do with my personal feelings about Philip.

Meanwhile, you reject Paeniteo's posts full of sound doctrine, as you make up nonsense about "the gospel according to Paeniteo".  Your comments to him were rude and uncalled for, worse than what I said to you.  Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

In order for an edifying discussion of Scripture to take place, there needs to be some sort of structure or ground rules in place to ensure that it is done in conformity to Catholic teaching.  Calling it "fun thoughts"  virtually invites the opposite.

There is nothing wrong with enjoying Scripture study, but most heresies in history were started by people misinterpreting the Bible.  This study is not something to undertake lightly.
Title: Re: Reading the Bible Fun Thoughts Thread
Post by: coffeeandcigarette on February 02, 2022, 05:20:40 PM

Meanwhile, you reject Paeniteo's posts full of sound doctrine, as you make up nonsense about "the gospel according to Paeniteo".  Your comments to him were rude and uncalled for, worse than what I said to you.  Don't dish it out if you can't take it.



I never rejected his posts about scripture, I simply said that if we treated each new thread as an opportunity to have kind, civil conversations each other instead of rehashing old issues and grudges, that this forum would be a nicer place. I didn't make up "nonsense" saying "gospel according to Paeniteo, I was kidding that he likes his own input too much. No one was accusing him of heresy or actually writing a gospel...? You on the other hand said I "reject the good, and encourage the bad." You have no evidence of this at all, you just like dragging people to your own tribunal and playing judge and jury. You really need to stop with these outlandish accusations. You are poisoning the forum, and making it intolerable for others.
Title: Re: Reading the Bible Fun Thoughts Thread
Post by: Jayne on February 02, 2022, 05:39:28 PM

Meanwhile, you reject Paeniteo's posts full of sound doctrine, as you make up nonsense about "the gospel according to Paeniteo".  Your comments to him were rude and uncalled for, worse than what I said to you.  Don't dish it out if you can't take it.



I never rejected his posts about scripture, I simply said that if we treated each new thread as an opportunity to have kind, civil conversations each other instead of rehashing old issues and grudges, that this forum would be a nicer place. I didn't make up "nonsense" saying "gospel according to Paeniteo, I was kidding that he likes his own input too much. No one was accusing him of heresy or actually writing a gospel...? You on the other hand said I "reject the good, and encourage the bad." You have no evidence of this at all, you just like dragging people to your own tribunal and playing judge and jury. You really need to stop with these outlandish accusations. You are poisoning the forum, and making it intolerable for others.

I have plenty of evidence.  If I posted specific examples, you would complain that it was "rehashing old issues".   A person with a posting history like Philip's starting a thread for "fun thoughts" on Scripture is not an opportunity for "kind, civil conversations".

You just wrote a post in which you rehashed your old issues and grudges against me while scolding me for doing what you yourself are doing.  You appear to lack self-awareness.

If you really want a thread for discussing Scripture, I suggest you think about how to set it up instead of attacking me.
Title: Civility
Post by: TerrorDæmonum on February 02, 2022, 06:11:48 PM
I never rejected his posts about scripture, I simply said that if we treated each new thread as an opportunity to have kind, civil conversations each other instead of rehashing old issues and grudges, that this forum would be a nicer place.

That was a really bizarre way to promote "kind, civil conversations".

Title: Re: Reading the Bible Fun Thoughts Thread
Post by: Philip G. on February 03, 2022, 12:33:44 AM
Exodus 24:18 "And Moses, entering into the midst of the cloud, went up into the mountain, and he was there forty days, and forty nights". 

There is a reference to this passage at the bottom of the page.  It directs the reader to deuteronomy 9:9.  "When I went up into the mount to receive the tables of stone, the tables of the covenant which the Lord made with you, and I continued in the mount forty days and nights, neither eating bread nor drinking water."

When I first read the passage in Exodus, I thought how unusual it was/is to separate the daytime from the night time when speaking of "days".  My first thought was, could the emphasis on nights along with days possibly mean that Moses kept vigil all forty days?  If Moses did keep vigil at night, it would certainly warrant such an emphasis in my opinion.  Because, most humans do not keep vigil at night.  They sleep at night.

When you read deuteronomy, the word that might suggest this is the word "continued".  It is not in my opinion a solid argument, but it is certainly worth the speculation in my opinion.  If I am not mistaken, Christ would go up into a mountain at night to "pray".  Are there any other scriptural examples of holy/just men keeping vigil on a mountain at night to suggest that Moses did so?

I am not (yet) of the opinion that moses didn't sleep for forty days and forty nights.  But it sure is a fun speculative thought!
Title: Re: Reading the Bible Fun Thoughts Thread
Post by: Kaesekopf on February 03, 2022, 11:14:28 AM
Our Slave Master, who art in Heaven?

Why do you think it's permissible to mock the Scriptures?

Week long ban.
Title: Re: Reading the Bible Fun Thoughts Thread
Post by: Philip G. on February 06, 2022, 11:10:27 PM
I have a thought about Exodus 32:1-2.  "And the people seeing that Moses delayed to come down from the mount, gathering together against Aaron, said, Arise, make us gods, that may go before us, for as to this Moses, the man that brought us out of the land of Egypt, we know not what has befallen him.  And, Aaron said to them, take the golden earrings from the ears of your wives, and your sons and daughters, and bring them to me."

Recall my OP with exodus 21:6.  I cannot help but think that there is a connection between the fact that perpetual hebrew servants who "had their ears bore through with an awl before the Gods", when they went to sin and make a god/idol, Aaron required that they not only remove their gold ear rings, but that the idol be made of the removed gold ear rings.  It appears to be drawing a clear parallel between idolatry, and a certain form of perpetual servitude/slavery.  Because, you cannot have ear rings, without a hole through your ear.  And, hebrews don't have a hole through their ears, unless they are a servant/slave. 

Is it possible that the uprising was spear headed by the hebrew slaves?  In St. Thomas More's book "Utopia", the slaves wore golden ear rings, and other golden jewelry.  The chains that bound them were even made of gold. 

I think these biblical passages and support material is a testament to the risk posed by the practice of slavery in all forms.  Slaves simply lack faith.  Moses was on the mount, and it was by all appearances the hebrew servants who lacked faith, and whipped up the community into the sin of idolatry. 

I wouldn't be surprised if the gold ear rings were a creation by the slaves.  It likely represents a "mark" distinguishing the two classes.  If slavery does not engender a kick down kiss up society, it will be the opposite.  It will be a kiss down, kick up society.  I mean, they did "force" Aaron to make unto them their Idol.  Aaron was wise enough to make it from their ear rings, lest he kiss down his fellow country men.  Aaron has mercy on the wives, and the children.
Title: Faithful Slaves
Post by: TerrorDæmonum on February 06, 2022, 11:36:22 PM
Slaves simply lack faith.

This is false. Slaves of men have the same interior liberty and there is no distinction in that regard.

Quote from: Summa Theologica, Supplement, Question 52
Article 2. Whether a slave can marry without his master's consent?

On the contrary, "In Christ Jesus . . . there is neither bond nor free" (Galatians 3:26-28). Therefore both freeman and bondsman enjoy the same liberty to marry in the faith of Christ Jesus.

Further, slavery is of positive law; whereas marriage is of natural and Divine law. Since then positive law is not prejudicial to the natural or the Divine law, it would seem that a slave can marry without his master's consent.

I answer that, As stated above (Article 1, Reply to Objection 3), the positive law arises out of the natural law, and consequently slavery, which is of positive law, cannot be prejudicious to those things that are of natural law. Now just as nature seeks the preservation of the individual, so does it seek the preservation of the species by means of procreation; wherefore even as a slave is not so subject to his master as not to be at liberty to eat, sleep, and do such things as pertain to the needs of his body, and without which nature cannot be preserved, so he is not subject to him to the extent of being unable to marry freely, even without his master's knowledge or consent.

Furthermore, Saint Louis-Marie Grignion de Montfort has written on the subject which is worth considering:

Quote from: True Devotion to Mary
These words of the Holy Spirit show that Jesus is the sole source and must be the sole end of all our good works, and that we must serve him not just as paid servants but as slaves of love. Let me explain what I mean.

There are two ways of belonging to another person and being subject to his authority. One is by ordinary service and the other is by slavery. And so we must use the terms "servant" and "slave". Ordinary service in Christian countries is when a man is employed to serve another for a certain length of time at a wage which is fixed or agreed upon. When a man is totally dependent on another for life, and must serve his master without expecting any wages or recompense, when he is treated just like a beast of the field over which the owner has the right of life and death, then it is slavery.

Now there are three kinds of slavery; natural slavery, enforced slavery, and voluntary slavery. All creatures are slaves of God in the first sense, for "the earth and its fullness belong to the Lord". The devils and the damned are slaves in the second sense. The saints in heaven and the just on earth are slaves in the third sense. Voluntary slavery is the most perfect of all three states, for by it we give the greatest glory to God, who looks into the heart and wants it to be given to him. Is he not indeed called the God of the heart or of the loving will? For by this slavery we freely choose God and his service before all things, even if we were not by our very nature obliged to do so.

There is a world of difference between a servant and a slave.

...

No other human state involves belonging more completely to another than slavery. Among Christian peoples, nothing makes a person belong more completely to Jesus and his holy Mother than voluntary slavery. Our Lord himself gave us the example of this when out of love for us he "took the form of a slave". Our Lady gave us the same example when she called herself the handmaid or slave of the Lord. The Apostle considered it an honour to be called "slave of Christ". Several times in Holy Scripture, Christians are referred to as "slaves of Christ".

Granting this, I say that we must belong to Jesus and serve him not just as hired servants but as willing slaves who, moved by generous love, commit themselves to his service after the manner of slaves for the honour of belonging to him. Before we were baptized we were the slaves of the devil, but baptism made us the slaves of Jesus. Christians must be either the slaves of the devil or the slaves of Jesus Christ.
Title: Onesimus
Post by: TerrorDæmonum on February 07, 2022, 12:06:55 AM
Furthermore, the scripture of Saint Paul's Letter to Philemon illustrates this quite well: a slave, Onesimus, under Roman law converted to the faith and was a brother in faith to his master (who was also Christian), but he was still a slave under the positive law.

Paul sent Onesimus back to Philemon: the institution of slavery was not in itself any impediment to the faith or the person's ability to exercise their own will in accepting the faith and acting morally.

If your ideas were true, then this would not have happened. (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=27135.0)
Title: Re: Reading the Bible Fun Thoughts Thread
Post by: Philip G. on February 07, 2022, 12:37:46 AM
A slave has a master that is not the Lord.  Jesus said, "no man can serve two masters". 
Title: Slave of the Lord
Post by: TerrorDæmonum on February 07, 2022, 01:16:57 AM
A slave has a master that is not the Lord.  Jesus said, "no man can serve two masters".

So, you are finally acknowledging that one must be a slave of the Lord?

You are on the right track now.

Quote from: True Devotion
Christians must be either the slaves of the devil or the slaves of Jesus Christ.

However, you just need to distinguish between the authorities: God has ultimate authority and is obeyed in all things, but superiors and secular authorities are obeyed in some things (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=27435.msg566731#msg566731).

The same applies to slaves.
Title: Re: Reading the Bible Fun Thoughts Thread
Post by: Philip G. on February 07, 2022, 02:44:06 AM
Christendom is a society of servants and friends.  Anti-Christendom is a society of Lord(s) and slaves.  Jesus said, "Antichrist cometh, and in me he hath not a thing."  If there be only one antichrist in the end times, that societal design would fit all others to be slaves.  As antichrist hath not a thing in Christ, those who observe it's proxy, which is that all be slaves, suffer the same fate.  It is the spirit of antichrist.
Title: Anti-Christ
Post by: TerrorDæmonum on February 07, 2022, 10:59:23 AM
Christendom is a society of servants and friends.  Anti-Christendom is a society of Lord(s) and slaves.  Jesus said, "Antichrist cometh, and in me he hath not a thing."  If there be only one antichrist in the end times, that societal design would fit all others to be slaves.  As antichrist hath not a thing in Christ, those who observe it's proxy, which is that all be slaves, suffer the same fate.  It is the spirit of antichrist.

So, as a response to those scriptural citations and the work of Saint Louis-Marie Grignion de Montfort , are you claiming that scripture, Saint Louis de Montfort, St Thomas Aquinas and all theologians, are working as "anti-Christ"?

I included the quote which carefully distinguished servants and slaves and the types of slavery. You reject all that?
Title: Re: Reading the Bible Fun Thoughts Thread
Post by: james03 on February 07, 2022, 03:56:48 PM
Quote
Christendom is a society of servants and friends.

That's a balanced way to look at it:

Quote from: Gal 4
And because you are sons, God hath sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying: Abba, Father. [7] Therefore now he is not a servant, but a son. And if a son, an heir also through God.

Quote from: John 15
You are my friends, if you do the things that I command you. [15] I will not now call you servants: for the servant knoweth not what his lord doth. But I have called you friends: because all things whatsoever I have heard of my Father, I have made known to you.

But He maintains the servant language later:
Quote
Remember my word that I said to you: The servant is not greater than his master. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you: if they have kept my word, they will keep yours also.
Title: Re: Reading the Bible Fun Thoughts Thread
Post by: Philip G. on February 07, 2022, 10:31:51 PM

Quote from: Gal 4
And because you are sons, God hath sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying: Abba, Father. [7] Therefore now he is not a servant, but a son. And if a son, an heir also through God.


That is a good one.  And, the thing is, this happens all the time in a healthy society.  I read wester novels, and it happens all the time in them as well.  As a gardener/property manager/laborer/you name it, I have many customers that treat me very well.  And, I am simply a servant.  But I go about my business in a unique way, and I gain other's trust, and relations are great.  This and more is possible in a society of servants and friends, because they have something "good" in common.  In a society of lords and slaves, there is no way to bridge the gap.  Because, you don't become a prince.  You are born a prince.  You don't become a slave.  As aristotle would say, slaves are born.  Opposites attract, but only on a carnal/physical level.  In Christendom, where life is lived in spirit and truth, like attracts like. 
Title: God Alone
Post by: TerrorDæmonum on February 07, 2022, 10:34:40 PM
That is a good one.  And, the thing is, this happens all the time in a healthy society.  I read wester novels, and it happens all the time in them as well.  As a gardener/property manager/laborer/you name it, I have many customers that treat me very well.  And, I am simply a servant.  But I go about my business in a unique way, and I gain other's trust, and relations are great.  This and more is possible in a society of servants and friends, because they have something "good" in common.  In a society of lords and slaves, there is no way to bridge the gap.  Because, you don't become a prince.  You are born a prince.  You don't become a slave.  As aristotle would say, slaves are born.  Opposites attract, but only on a carnal/physical level.  In Christendom, where life is lived in spirit and truth, like attracts like.

Do you think those quotes are meant to deny the absolute dominion of God over all of creation?

You are interpreting scripture and rejecting every understanding of it but your own warping of it.

Title: Re: Reading the Bible Fun Thoughts Thread
Post by: james03 on February 08, 2022, 10:55:38 AM
Quote
I read wester novels,

Have you read "Brings the Lightning" by Peter Grant?  New author.  I did not read it, but my son did and liked it.  He also has a sequel: "Rocky Mountain Retribution".
Title: Re: Reading the Bible Fun Thoughts Thread
Post by: Philip G. on February 08, 2022, 12:53:06 PM
Quote
I read wester novels,

Have you read "Brings the Lightning" by Peter Grant?  New author.  I did not read it, but my son did and liked it.  He also has a sequel: "Rocky Mountain Retribution".

Thanks for the reference.  I had not heard of him, but I just looked at the cover images of his books, and they do spark the imagination.  I was just reminded of the book "the prince and the pauper".  You cannot have one without the other.  Yet, they have no relationship.  What do we call family members outside of the nuclear family?  They are called relatives. 

Outside of family and relatives, which you cannot marry, you have neighbors of your parish community/societal community.  Spouses are sourced from among these, which in a healthy normal society can comprise the whole.  Matrimony not only brings about new life, and two life long companions.  It can also bridge gaps in the community, and result in an intangible macro manifestation parallel the tangible micro manifestation of offspring.  And this intangible macro manifestation, in the sense that it affects all, is a happy death.

Contrast that with the prince/pauper/slave/lord society.  Spouses can never be sourced from certain factions in that society be it a Romeo Juliet example on one hand, or a more monarchy/royal example of a princess kissing a frog.  Marriages are either sourced from other aristocratic ruling elites, or in the case of monarchy, from a distant earthly kingdom/dominion in order to establish an alliance to further entrench the world in relations that certainly do not qualify, as they always result in cloak and dagger politics.  These extremes also give rise to actions taken by counter factions in society such as the rothchilds, who only marry within the family/among their cousins.  All of these are abuses, and they occur in the lord/slave society.  Whether you observe the whole, or a part makes little difference.  The curse of the mark follows all.