What is the correct way to interpret the Bible?

[Justin108]

those that interpret the bible correctly will never find any of its statements contradict proven scientific fact.

What is the "correct" way to interpret the Bible? Is there an objective "correct" way to interpret the Bible? If so, what methods should one employ to interpret the Bible "correctly"?

Let's use Genesis 1 as an example. What is the correct interpretation of Genesis 1 and what method did you employ to conclude your interpretation?

Specifically...

1. Is Genesis 1 literal or metaphorical? (what method did you use to reach this conclusion?)

2. If it is metaphorical, what is it a metaphor for? (what method did you use to reach this conclusion?)

3. What is your explanation for the Genesis 1 claim that God created plants before he created the sun? (and again, what method did you use to reach this conclusion?)

[Justin108]

I was citing where and how from Scripture we know the Church was intended to be visible, which then automatically eliminates any religion that professes to be anti organized religion and believes the church is within us.

Let's look at the verses you quoted.
Jesus said his Church would be "the light of the world."
- This is clearly a metaphor. Unless you mean to say the Catholic church provides electricity to the world?

He then noted that "a city set on a hill cannot be hid" (Matt. 5:14).
- From this you conclude that it will be literally visible. But this is just your own interpretation of Matt 5:14.

Your own interpretation of Matt 5:14 is that "the church is visible", but your interpretation is no more valid than if one were to interpret this verse as "the church will be noticed". So no. Despite what you would like to believe, your own interpretation is not beyond dispute.

Scripture tells us how Christs Church must meet the four marks:

The Church Is One (Rom. 12:5, 1 Cor. 10:17, 12:13, CCC 813"822)

Jehovah's Witness "is one". East Orthodox "is one" Every church "is one" to themselves. One could also interpret these verses as meaning these churches are one in that they all worship God.

The Church Is Holy (Eph. 5:25"27, Rev. 19:7"8, CCC 823"829)

All churches claim they are holy.

The Church Is Catholic (Matt. 28:19"20, Rev. 5:9"10, CCC 830"856)

Jesus Church is called catholic ("universal" in Greek)

Ok so because your church is called the "universal" church, it must mean that it's the one true church? Because of its name? By that logic, I guess all Jehovah's Witnesses must have witnessed Jehovah. I mean, that's the church's name after all.

The Church Is Apostolic (Eph. 2:19"20, CCC 857"865)

Again, the Catholic church is not unique in this regard.

Jesus promised, "I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). This means that his Church will never be destroyed and will never fall away from him. His Church will survive until his return.

Again, this is not unique to Catholicism.

Actually, it pretty much is.

Oh so all other churches on earth has been destroyed? The Catholic church is the only one left? You'd think it would have made the news.

You have that the other way around. The Eastern Orthodox split from the Catholic Church

The Eastern Orthodox says otherwise. So who should I believe?

Any merely human organization with such members would have collapsed early on.

Can you support that claim? Sounds like a blind assumption to me.

Read any history book. The Catholic Church looked like it was down and out many times, but continually remained standing. This isnt an assumption. Its a fact.

No you don't understand. I'm asking you to support your claim that the Catholic church survived because of God. I know the Catholic church survived. There's just no proof that this is because of God. That part is an assumption.

Can you perhaps explain this scriptural logic?

You know I can. Lots of logical, beautiful, Scriptural support . . .

Let's take this piece by piece, shall we?

In the creation account of Genesis, we find the beautiful truth, God made man in His image; in the divine image He created him; male and female He created them (Genesis 1:27).

So from this, we gather that God made man. No mention of contraceptives, though.

In this one verse, we find an intrinsic goodness and dignity to each human being. We also recognize a goodness to our human sexuality" both man and woman are made in Gods image and likeness, and both masculinity and femininity are equally good. Yes, man and woman are different" anatomically, physiologically, and even psychologically (as admitted by many psychologists, even feminist ones). These differences do not indicate inequality, instead complementarity.

Right. Still nothing about contraception or the need to have sex only when you want to have children.

In the next verse of Genesis (1:28), we read, God blessed them, saying, Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.'

And if one were to have a few children and then used contraceptives afterwards? If one were to use contraceptives until one is ready to have children? In both of these instances, the command to multiply is still being followed.

The second creation account of Genesis reinforces this idea: Here, God takes the rib from the man to create a suitable partner, whom the man recognizes as This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called woman for out of her man this one has been taken. That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body (2:23-24).

Our Lord, Jesus Christ, in the gospel affirmed the teaching of Genesis. When asked by the Pharisees about divorce, Jesus replied, Have you not read that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and declared, For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife, and the two shall become as one? Thus, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore, let no man separate what God has joined (Matthew 19:3ff).

Given this basis in Sacred Scripture, we hold marriage as a sacrament in our Catholic belief. Vatican IIs Pastoral Constitution of the Church in the Modern World (#47-52) spoke beautifully about marriage: Marriage is a partnership of life and love designed by God and endowed by Him with its own proper laws, with various benefits, and with various ends in view. Both husband and wife surrender themselves to each other and give their irrevocable personal consent. Marriage involves a mutual giving of two persons, which entails total fidelity and permanence.

What does any of this have to do with contraception? I'm not going to read your essay to find an answer to my question. So far, none of the above has anything to do with contraception. So make a new post, one that gets to the point, and I'll respond to it.

You left out this little tid bit from the article you linked:

Despite the dismal picture of motherhood painted by researchers like me (sorry Mom), most mothers (and fathers) rate parenting as their greatest joy.

This is irrelevant to the point. You said that using contraception is harmful to the spouses. The article proves that having children is harmful to the spouses. The fact that they enjoyed parenting doesn't change the fact that they are less satisfied with their relationship with each other. Your argument is a Red Herring.

Your article also mentions those who have more children are less likely to get divorced.

The article also explains that these couples usually stay together for the sake of the children, not because they're happily married.

Also, your article ignores the bigger picture . . .
As the contraceptive pill became more and more available, divorce became more and more popular.

Correlation does not establish causation.

You also ignore that contraception in general has proven bad for women and marriage. This is evident even from a public health perspective. So before we all hail contraception, lets not ignore its harm and overall effect on ones happiness

You have yet to provide any support for your claim that contraception is harmful in any way.

If the basic purpose of sex is procreation, why is it so pleasurable?

You didnt read the full excerpt. The sexual act is unitive in nature. It has both pleasure and procreative function. The Church simply acknowledges our understanding of nature and the human body clearly shows the primary function/purpose of the sexual act is procreative. Its why males produce sperm, women ovulate, women have breasts that produce milk to nourish a baby, women have wombs, etc. Fertility is a natural, healthy part of the lives of men and women. It is not something that needs tweaked, fixed, altered, or stopped.

You didn't answer my question. Why is it pleasurable?

Either God wants us to
a) have over a dozen children and a constantly pregnant wife

Not always the way it works. A womans fertility is limited. Women only ovulate once a month and even if timed perfectly there is only a 25% chance of conception any given month and that decreases every year the woman ages.

But since, as you say, the purpose of sex is to procreate, people should not have sex if they're not fertile. So when a woman is not ovulating, the couple shouldn't be having sex because then they're clearly doing it just for pleasure.

Also, ecological breast feeding acts as a natural ovulation suppressor often making it highly unlikely a woman conceive while still nursing " this (gee almost as if God thought of it) makes a quite beautiful spacing of 2-3 years between children.

At which point, the couples should not be having sex because (according to you) it's sinful to have sex without the intention of procreating.

b) be sexually frustrated because we're not allowed to have sex if we don't want more children

Not the way it works. God gave us brains and a womans cycle is not rocket science.

What you're describing is called the rhythm method. This is a natural form of contraception. So why is it ok to use this method but to not use a condom? What's the difference? In both cases, they have sex without the intention of getting pregnant. If you use the rhythm method, you are deliberately avoiding pregnancy while having sex. Why is that ok but other contraceptions aren't?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 70 by RightReason]

Explained above why this isnt being hypocritical. Ive had to not have sex many times in the course of our marriage " hes tired, hes sick, kids are sick, in-laws visiting and sleeping in the family room, etc. So, give me break. Like I said, occasionally abstaining from sex isnt exactly a major hardship.

Post 70 (the post I am responding to now) is the first hint I get from you that there are times where you personally don't have sex. Previous to this, you went into great detail about how you and your husband can't keep your hands off each other.
So saying now that there are times where you don't get freaky does NOT change the fact that prior to Post 70, you were being hypocritical.

The Church needs to improve her education to the lay faithful and parents need to improve on their responsibility in properly teaching the faith.

Your previous comments suggested the Church thinks sex is only about procreation. That would be false. The Church is very aware of the unitive nature of the marital act.

As I said, and as you agree with me on this (ironically), I know what it is the Church says. Growing up, my Roman Catholic priest-teachers didn't concentrate much (if at all) on the pleasurable aspect of sex. No, it was the "have sex only to procreate" that they talked about.

And contrary to popular criticism the Church is not anti sex,

Just sex in a very restricted list of circumstances. So no anal, no oral, no condoms...

Like a good parent, she cares about us, has our best interest at heart, and wants to protect us from unnecessary harm and heart ache.

Need I bring up the child abuse scandals of the past few decades?

It is exactly like that. The couple wants the pleasure from the sexual act but doesnt want to allow the natural consequences of the sexual act.

Bulimia is pleasurable?

And who says vomiting is painful?

Maybe I'm the only person in the world for whom vomiting is painful then?

So, pulling out or spilling ones seed is exactly like throwing up.

As someone who has both vomited, who masturbates to orgasm...no. Just no. The two acts couldn't be more different.
A person who's bulimic isn't doing it for some sort of pleasure (sexual or otherwise). They're doing it to achieve some end (such as losing weight). The act of vomiting up food isn't the end, the desired goal, in and of itself.

And who says vomiting is painful? And what would that have to do with anything?

Since vomiting is painful (at least for me, I honestly thought it was painful for everyone else?), your analogy makes no sense to me, since orgasm and vomiting (at least for me) are about as far apart in terms of experience as I can get.

When you use a condom you are having sex, but throwing up after wards.

There are so many ways your analogy fails. For one thing, a man's sperm is only useful when it comes into contact with the woman's egg. The food that a bulimic person throws up can still be used within that person's body.

Your analogy's purpose is to try to make some sort of emotive connection with your debate opponents in their minds, to try and make them be disgusted at the thought of using a condom/pulling out. Except it doesn't work, because I am pretty much stable emotionally. Instead of trying a logical argument, (which would work with me) you're trying to manipulate my emotions, which doesn't work.

Example please.

Building houses.

Animals arent subject to the same laws as human beings.

So natural means whatever you want it to mean in the heat of the debate? You're not going to stick with a set meaning?

I think the behavior is by its nature disordered.

I think I might stick with the psychologists on this one. They are able to note distinct patterns of harm that result from bulimia. There's the stress it puts on the body, the lack of digestible food matter for the body to process for its own use, etc.
Where is anything like this at all if I put on a rubber?

Sure. Just like bulimia is seen as a perversion or abuse of the body or not the proper order of things.

I'll ask again. With bulimia, we are able to find these harms to the body. Where are these harms if I use a rubber?

Talk about TMI.

Hi, pot, I'm kettle. Nice to meet you.

Plus, I would find that hard to believe, because talk about unnatural and painful. The anus was not designed to receive foreign objects. The thin membranes are more likely to tear or rupture and more likely to spread disease. Anyone who engages in anal sex also readily admits the act is often bloody. There is no indication from nature that man should engage in such behavior and lots of reasons from nature why he shouldnt.

Yes there are dangers, but this can be mitigated. Usage of a car with a petrol engine leads to air pollution. Doesn't stop most people from driving a car.

Right, because I have no serious reason not to. Though, my husband travels a lot and I have had to exercise self control many nights. Were human beings in control of our passions " not rabid dogs " its doable.

I have given you several scenarios. I'll repeat one of them. The couple in their mid 30's, celebrating ten years of marriage, in the hotel room. They however do not have the best financial situation, as in they can't afford more kids than they already have.
According to you, they should practice some sort of self control, which would ruin their anniversary.
You seemingly would be content with ruining their anniversary simply so you can retain this holier than thou mindset.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Justin108]

Let's look at the verses you quoted.
Jesus said his Church would be "the light of the world."
- This is clearly a metaphor.

Yes, and we are told we shouldnt keep our light under a bushel basket " in other words " it shouldnt be hidden! This entire post of yours is really reaching in attempts to suggest my responses arent valid. Ill take another pass at some of your remarks, but in most cases you either blatantly twist my words, even though I have corrected you already, or you pretend to be incapable of understanding my point. However, Ill respond anyway, because I think your responses to what Im actually saying are very telling and good for others to see.

He then noted that "a city set on a hill cannot be hid" (Matt. 5:14).
- From this you conclude that it will be literally visible.

Of course. And at the very least proves the Church is not simply within us as rikuoamero and some others like him try to argue.

To think the Church is not visible but merely anyone who believes makes no sense. Because we read in Scripture how people went to the Church for answers and Jesus instructed His Church. He who hears you, hears me. And Whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven. So, how exactly can one deny the Church was intended to be a literal entity? That is an illogical conclusion. Not to mention unless the Church was an actual, visible, organization she couldnt have given us the Bible.

Jehovah's Witness "is one". East Orthodox "is one" Every church "is one" to themselves. One could also interpret these verses as meaning these churches are one in that they all worship God.

You can go anywhere in the world and receive the exact same message from the Catholic Church on any given day. If I attended a Catholic mass in Japan, I would be hearing the exact readings and Scripture that those attending mass that day in Rome or New York would be receiving. A JW attending a Kingdom Hall meeting in Japan would not be hearing the exact Scripture of those JWs attending a Kingdom Hall meeting in New York.

All churches claim they are holy.

We shall know them by their fruits. Only the Catholic Church has a history of thousands of Saints and is the worlds largest charitable organization in the world. She is responsible for numerous hospitals and schools. Of course there is holiness outside of the Church, but it is also possible to eliminate any churches that exist today that dont demonstrate a record of holiness.

Ok so because your church is called the "universal" church, it must mean that it's the one true church? Because of its name? By that logic, I guess all Jehovah's Witnesses must have witnessed Jehovah. I mean, that's the church's name after all.

Actually, the use of the name Jehovah could be said to disqualify it as Christs Church because the word Jehovah isnt even used in Scripture and JWs inserted it in Scripture in various places to their liking.

RightReason wrote:


The Church Is Apostolic (Eph. 2:19"20, CCC 857"865)

Again, the Catholic church is not unique in this regard.

RightReason wrote:


Quote:
Quote:
Jesus promised, "I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). This means that his Church will never be destroyed and will never fall away from him. His Church will survive until his return.


Again, this is not unique to Catholicism.


Actually, it pretty much is.

Oh so all other churches on earth has been destroyed? The Catholic church is the only one left? You'd think it would have made the news.

If you read properly you would see that the point is Christ would not have left His followers with a hidden church or no church for years only to reappear a thousand years later, which is when most Christian denominations were founded. Christ promised to remain with His Church, so looks like the Quakers founded in 1624, the Mormons founded in 1805, the Methodists founded in 1703, the JWs founded in 1852, and the Church of Scientology founded in 1911 cant be Christs established church. This is a logical conclusion given Scripture.

The Eastern Orthodox says otherwise. So who should I believe?

So, which Eastern Orthodox church are you referring to? There isnt ONE. There are several, so guess that disqualifies them as being ONE.

So from this, we gather that God made man. No mention of contraceptives, though.

Proper interpretation of Scripture requires a reading of Scripture as a whole. We learn from the get go that Christ created us male and female. Our bodies are different. They are complimentary and fit together to create new life. This sets the stage and Id call that significant.


[qutoe]RightReason wrote:


In the next verse of Genesis (1:28), we read, God blessed them, saying, Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.'

And if one were to have a few children and then used contraceptives afterwards? If one were to use contraceptives until one is ready to have children? In both of these instances, the command to multiply is still being followed. [/quote]

So, you admit be fruitful and multiply is clearly a command from God, signifying the importance and significance God placed on having children for man. And I dont know about you, but I never see mention of God doing away with or qualifying this command.

Have you not read that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and declared, For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife, and the two shall become as one? Thus, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore, let no man separate what God has joined (Matthew 19:3ff).

. . . Marriage is a partnership of life and love designed by God and endowed by Him with its own proper laws, with various benefits, and with various ends in view. Both husband and wife surrender themselves to each other and give their irrevocable personal consent. Marriage involves a mutual giving of two persons . . .

What does any of this have to do with contraception?

Again, Genesis shows us the significance God placed on marriage. The two become one paints the picture of the sexual act. In this picture it would be blatant disregard to envision the two becoming one, up until the last minute when the man pulls out. Or the two becoming one with a piece of latex remaining as a barrier between them. It is very clear that Genesis shows God gave Adam a partner and with that partner comes benefits and laws.

This is irrelevant to the point. You said that using contraception is harmful to the spouses. The article proves that having children is harmfulto the spouses.

Your article was a bias piece of journalism with some research thrown in that a bias journalist took the liberty of spinning in attempts to make some connection with her personal views.

The fact that the majority of men and women dont regret having children, view their children as the best thing that ever happened to them, wouldnt change having children for the world pretty much trumps some research study showing those who have children are less satisfied with their partner. A complex issue indeed, but your cited research is far from the whole picture.

RightReason wrote:

Your article also mentions those who have more children are less likely to get divorced.

The article also explains that these couples usually stay together for the sake of the children, not because they're happily married.

So, we could argue having children helps us become less selfish and be capable of putting someone else above our own happiness " a true sign of love and maturity.

You have yet to provide any support for your claim that contraception is harmful in any way.

A topic for another thread, but there is a great deal of evidence showing contraception can be harmful, especially IUDs, Norplant patches, and oral contraception. If you are unaware of this, you have been living under a rock. Again, there is the research also that shows use of contraception can reduce ones feeling of personal responsibility should said contraception fail, wedge communication between partners, foster an environment of using one another free from personal responsibility and commitment, etc. I could go on, but yes there is an argument to made that contraception, even condoms or withdrawal say something about a relationship and affect how the partners in that relationship see one another.

You didn't answer my question. Why is it pleasurable?

I did answer, but you hear what you want to hear. God gave us the gift of the sexual act to be unitive in nature so that we may experience the joy of being co creators and He made it pleasurable to build intimacy and love within our marriage. He also must have foreseen how children definitely change the dynamic of a relationship, can require sacrifice, but is for our own good in the long run, because even as your silly article posted the majority of people wouldnt trade having children for anything, recognizing themselves that the sacrifice was worth it. Why? Because we also learn to love in having children. Something Im pretty sure God knows a little about.

But since, as you say, the purpose of sex is to procreate, people should not have sex if they're not fertile. , people should not have sex if they're not fertile. So when a woman is not ovulating, the couple shouldn't be having sex because then they're clearly doing it just for pleasure.

Tsk, tsk saying I said things I never said. Ive explained several times now, the sexual act is unitive in nature and contains both a pleasurable and procreative component " that is the nature of the sexual act. This unitive nature aids in increasing intimacy and love and decreasing self absorption and selfishness.

I NEVER said people should not have sex if theyre not fertile. YOU said that and keep saying I said that. Nope! Not what I or the Church teaches. Pick up a catechism.

At which point, the couples should not be having sex because (according to you) it's sinful to have sex without the intention of procreating.

Please go back and actually read what I wrote. I never said this. You fail to understand Catholic teaching.

What you're describing is called the rhythm method.

Nope. Not at all. This time pick up a biology book. NFP is not the rhythm method.

This is a natural form of contraception. So why is it ok to use this method but to not use a condom? What's the difference? In both cases, they have sex without the intention of getting pregnant. If you use the rhythm method, you are deliberately avoiding pregnancy while having sex. Why is that ok but other contraceptions aren't?

Nope. NFP is not contraception. The couple is not engaging in the sexual act and then deliberately stopping/blocking/thwarting the consequences of THAT sexual act. NFP requires abstaining from sex. You cant be guilty of using contraception and altering the consequences of the sexual act if you arent engaging in the sexual act. See how that works?

Again, a great analogy would be the person who skips dessert to avoid calories vs. the person who goes ahead and eats but then vomits up the food to avoid calories. One is right/good/noble and in keeping with proper use/function of the body. The other is improper use and disordered.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 72 by rikuoamero]

Quote:
Explained above why this isnt being hypocritical. Ive had to not have sex many times in the course of our marriage " hes tired, hes sick, kids are sick, in-laws visiting and sleeping in the family room, etc. So, give me break. Like I said, occasionally abstaining from sex isnt exactly a major hardship.


Post 70 (the post I am responding to now) is the first hint I get from you that there are times where you personally don't have sex. Previous to this, you went into great detail about how you and your husband can't keep your hands off each other.
So saying now that there are times where you don't get freaky does NOT change the fact that prior to Post 70, you were being hypocritical.

You cant be serious. My words remain accurate. If he is home, my husband and I probably average having sex about every other day. Any reasonable person would understand that this could change/vary if he was out of town for a week, or sick, or some family crisis was going on. Things come up in life, but that doesnt change my very accurate words or make me a hypocrite for speaking them.

I know what it is the Church says. Growing up, my Roman Catholic priest-teachers didn't concentrate much (if at all) on the pleasurable aspect of sex. No, it was the "have sex only to procreate" that they talked about.

That is very sad. You were ill informed. And the only thing I agree with you about is that there can be some within the Church who could do a better job of explaining the beautiful truths of the Catholic Church.

Just sex in a very restricted list of circumstances. So no anal, no oral, no condoms...

Its funny to me that you would see not being able to engage in anal sex or sex with a condom as limiting. Anal sex is harmful, not natural, and according to much public opinion not all that pleasurable for the recipient. Are you familiar with the Kama Sutra? There are quite a few fun/beautiful/natural sexual positions out there that are in keeping with Gods plan and not harmful to engage in.

It is interesting to me that someone would actually have to go beyond all that is possible in the marital act to be sexually fulfilled. There must be a lot of people in the world that lack imagination and common sense.

As for oral sex, I touched on that briefly already " no problem with touching, rubbing, sucking, kissing as part of engagement in the marital act.

Bulimia is pleasurable?

Eating anything you want certainly would be.

As someone who has both vomited, who masturbates to orgasm...no. Just no. The two acts couldn't be more different.

I disagree. My analogy is spot on. And the pleasure in bulimia is the enjoyment of eating food and even the pleasure of barfing it back up now having the feeling of relief knowing one will not have to suffer the consequences of eating all that food but still got to enjoy the pleasure from doing so.

Exactly like contraceptive use during sex. The person enjoys the pleasure of engaging in the sexual act, and then the relief and pleasure of knowing he/she successfully avoided the consequences from having sex.

Exact. Same. Thing.

Quote:
When you use a condom you are having sex, but throwing up after wards.

There are so many ways your analogy fails. For one thing, a man's sperm is only useful when it comes into contact with the woman's egg. The food that a bulimic person throws up can still be used within that person's body.

Huh?

Instead of trying a logical argument, (which would work with me) you're trying to manipulate my emotions, which doesn't work.

The argument I am using is based on reason and logic and why I am using it. It is hardly an emotional argument. And I am not implying a bulimic or someone who uses contraception is an unstable, emotional mess. Not at all. What both are trying to attempt is rational and logical. They know they can enjoy one thing without having to suffer something else. It is quite sane and it works (at least temporarily or on the surface). But it is still wrong and will never achieve the true fulfillment deserved.


[qutoe]Quote:
Animals arent subject to the same laws as human beings.

So natural means whatever you want it to mean in the heat of the debate? You're not going to stick with a set meaning? [/quote]

Again, I give a very logical reasonable definition. It is not some random definition I made up to serve my purposes. The definition of natural I use is what human beings and philosophers have been using for a long time in explaining and understanding the world we live in.

Quote:
I think the behavior is by its nature disordered.

I think I might stick with the psychologists on this one. They are able to note distinct patterns of harm that result from bulimia. There's the stress it puts on the body, the lack of digestible food matter for the body to process for its own use, etc.
Where is anything like this at all if I put on a rubber?

Bulimia isnt only wrong because of harm done Quite frankly one could argue there is harm in being obese so the bulimic vomits the food so she wont suffer all the harm from being overweight. Some people are bulimic for 10 years or more and dont have any visible physical side effects. But we all instinctively know bulimia is disordered. We all know the behavior is improper use " out of the proper order of things. We know from the world we live in that such behavior is disordered and therefore wrong.

I could also have you google contraceptive mentality to see many of the harmful effects and problems associated with contraception. Its really a topic for another thread.



[qutoe]I'll ask again. With bulimia, we are able to find these harms to the body. Where are these harms if I use a rubber?[/qutoe]

Google contraceptive mentality. Society is now so use to the use of contraception that they dont see the problem. Even though prior to the 1930s every religion and Christian denomination considered the use of contraception as morally wrong. What changed? People have become desensitized and culture has successfully created amazing ad campaigns to change and control public opinion on this matter. Also, birth control is big business, so that helps.

Quote:
Talk about TMI.

Hi, pot, I'm kettle. Nice to meet you.

Uuuuuh . . . I used the TMI phrase because you did. It was I who was basically telling you, pot meet kettle. LOL!

Quote:
Plus, I would find that hard to believe, because talk about unnatural and painful. The anus was not designed to receive foreign objects. The thin membranes are more likely to tear or rupture and more likely to spread disease. Anyone who engages in anal sex also readily admits the act is often bloody. There is no indication from nature that man should engage in such behavior and lots of reasons from nature why he shouldnt.

Yes there are dangers, but this can be mitigated. Usage of a car with a petrol engine leads to air pollution. Doesn't stop most people from driving a car.

Wow.

I have given you several scenarios. I'll repeat one of them. The couple in their mid 30's, celebrating ten years of marriage, in the hotel room. They however do not have the best financial situation, as in they can't afford more kids than they already have.
According to you, they should practice some sort of self control, which would ruin their anniversary.
You seemingly would be content with ruining their anniversary simply so you can retain this holier than thou mindset.

In what universe would having a romantic weekend get a way with your spouse but not engaging in the marital act be ruining ones weekend? Like I said, if you really wanted to have some fun, consider the whole weekend one long foreplay and indulge 2 days after your official anniversary date. Ever hear of moving a birthday party celebration to a different day, because the actual birthday falls on a Tuesday. Also, odd to think a weekend without sex with your spouse would be a horrible thought.

[Justin108]

Yes, and we are told we shouldnt keep our light under a bushel basket " in other words " it shouldnt be hidden! This entire post of yours is really reaching in attempts to suggest my responses arent valid.

It doesn't take much reaching to suggest that your personal interpretation of a text is not universal fact.

Of course. And at the very least proves the Church is not simply within us as rikuoamero and some others like him try to argue.

It proves nothing. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the Bible is open to interpretation (in which case, your interpretation is but one of many), or it isn't (in which case Genesis is enough to dismiss the Bible as clearly fictional nonsense). So which is it? Open to interpretation or clear fictional nonsense?

A JW attending a Kingdom Hall meeting in Japan would not be hearing the exact Scripture of those JWs attending a Kingdom Hall meeting in New York.

Is that a fact? I'll ask our JW forum members to clarify.

We shall know them by their fruits. Only the Catholic Church has a history of thousands of Saints and is the worlds largest charitable organization in the world.

That's about as valuable as a kingdom bragging about how many knights they have. If the king decides who to knight, then obviously the kingdom can have as many knights as they like. Who is it who decides who becomes saints? The Catholic church? Or an objective third party?

As for "we shall know them by their fruits". I trust you are aware of the Catholic priest pedophile scandal?

Actually, the use of the name Jehovah could be said to disqualify it as Christs Church because the word Jehovah isnt even used in Scripture and JWs inserted it in Scripture in various places to their liking.

Do you deny that "Jehovah" is the proper translation of YHWH? A Jehovah's Witness would insist it is. So, again, who should I believe? You or them? Their church or yours?

If you read properly you would see that...

I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but your church doesn't hold monopoly on what the "proper" reading of scripture is.

So, which Eastern Orthodox church are you referring to? There isnt ONE. There are several, so guess that disqualifies them as being ONE

Unless, of course, they are "one in Christ". Despite your delusion that your interpretation is law, this is a perfectly valid alternate meaning to the text.

We learn from the get go that Christ created us male and female. Our bodies are different. They are complimentary and fit together to create new life.

The fact that they can create new life doesn't mean that we are not allowed to use our bodies for other purposes. We use our mouths for eating, talking, kissing, etc. One organ, several purposes. Similarly we can use our bodies for several purposes. Sometimes for procreation, other times merely for pleasure. Your scripture proves nothing.

So, you admit be fruitful and multiply is clearly a command from God, signifying the importance and significance God placed on having children for man.

Does this apply in all instances and at all times? If a man never marries because he cannot find love, is he disobeying God's command? If a woman is sterile for whatever reason and could never bear children, is she breaking God's commandment?

And as I already clarified; if I have two or three children and then started using contraceptives, then you could not accuse me of disobeying God. I had children. I did multiply. Saying "do X" is not the same as saying "do X as many times as possible and never stop".

Again, Genesis shows us the significance God placed on marriage.

Married people use contraceptives. Married people who later plan on having children use contraceptives. Married people who already had children use contraceptives. Saying "get married" is not the same as saying "never use contraceptives".

The two become one paints the picture of the sexual act. In this picture it would be blatant disregard to envision the two becoming one, up until the last minute when the man pulls out.

Well the man needs to pull out eventually... or do you suggest that now that they are one, they should stay that way indefinitely? Should he walk around the next day with his wife's legs around him?

Two become one is clearly metaphorical. The Bible makes no mention of when this "one" gets to split up again. There is no mention of them "being one" until the man ejaculates and no sooner.

It is very clear that Genesis shows God gave Adam a partner and with that partner comes benefits and laws.

Yes but there is no mention of contraceptives being against one of these laws. The Bible is notoriously specific about its laws, practices and rituals. Leviticus goes in depth about how to prepare an animal sacrifice. There are countless laws and prohibitions throughout the Bible, from what not to eat to what not to wear and not a single mention in the law that prohibits any form of contraceptive.

Your article was a bias piece of journalism with some research thrown in that a bias journalist took the liberty of spinning in attempts to make some connection with her personal views.

The data that you accuse them of spinning is clear statements from the participants that they are less satisfied with their marriage after having children. If you want to dismiss it as bias, then so be it.

The fact that the majority of men and women dont regret having children...

Pay attention because this is the second time I need to clarify this for you. I never said people regret having children. I said that having children is harmful to the marriage, statistically speaking. So the parents may be happier in general, but they are less happy with each other.

A complex issue indeed, but your cited research is far from the whole picture.

I've offered more than you have. All you've given me is that "contraception ruins relationships" without a shred of evidence to support that claim.

So, we could argue having children helps us become less selfish and be capable of putting someone else above our own happiness " a true sign of love and maturity.

Ok so you're abandoning your earlier claim that contraception ruins relationships then?

A topic for another thread, but there is a great deal of evidence showing contraception can be harmful, especially IUDs, Norplant patches, and oral contraception. If you are unaware of this, you have been living under a rock.

There is also evidence that oral contraceptives can be helpful in reducing period pains. So it goes both ways. But contraceptives having diverse side effects still does nothing to support your earlier claim that contraceptives ruin relationships.

I NEVER said people should not have sex if theyre not fertile.

You strongly implied it. If one cannot bear children, why have sex?

NFP is not the rhythm method.

What's the difference?

Nope. NFP is not contraception. The couple is not engaging in the sexual act and then deliberately stopping/blocking/thwarting the consequences of THAT sexual act.

They don't have to in order for it to be a contraception. If you do anything to in order to prevent sexual acts to result in pregnancy (including only having sex on days your wife is infertile) then it's a contraception by definition.

Again, a great analogy would be the person who skips dessert to avoid calories vs. the person who goes ahead and eats but then vomits up the food to avoid calories. One is right/good/noble and in keeping with proper use/function of the body. The other is improper use and disordered.

Other than your say-so, what is so improper about contraceptives? The reason throwing food up is improper is because it is clearly harmful. Can you demonstrate how pulling out, using a condom, etc. is clearly harmful?

[RightReason]

[Replying to Justin108]

This is getting boring. I think I made my points. I answered some stuff, if I felt I had a little more I wanted to say . . .

It doesn't take much reaching to suggest that your personal interpretation of a text is not universal fact.

Im giving reasons one can know from Scripture (something lots of Christians find important) how we can identify Christs Church on earth. Quite frankly, it is the best anyone can do. When it comes down to it, even believing in the existence of God comes down to faith. It also comes down to faith whether to accept or believe Jesus was the son of God and walked the earth 2000 years ago. People are free to believe that or not. If one believes that and believes the Bible is the Word of God, then they acknowledge that they want to hear what the Bible says about things and so I am saying how according to the Bible it looks like how we will be able to know and recognize Christs Church. Yes, others might interpret Scripture differently, though a very basic and blatant reading of Scripture can show Christ established His Church, told us to listen to her, and intended an authoritative earthly structure. If you disagree, fine. But make your presentation showing otherwise. Mine is based on the words from the Bible, history, and logic and reason. Again " the best anyone can do.

It proves nothing. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the Bible is open to interpretation (in which case, your interpretation is but one of many), or it isn't (in which case Genesis is enough to dismiss the Bible as clearly fictional nonsense). So which is it? Open to interpretation or clear fictional nonsense?

Your statement is illogical. The Bible obviously needs interpreted. Words on a page do not interpret themselves. But that doesnt mean the Bible is open for interpretation. First, someone cant blatantly disregard the obvious meaning of a text and suggest with no rhyme or reason that it means something else. Second, only those entrusted with the authority to interpret Scripture should.

Is that a fact? I'll ask our JW forum members to clarify.

Have at it.

The sect known as Jehovahs Witnesses (JWs) began with Charles Taze Russell in the 1870s. Russell was raised a Presbyterian, then joined the Congregational church, and was finally influenced by Adventist teachings. By his own admission, he had a hard time accepting the existence of hell. He sought out the Bible, and as his "studies" continued, he systematically began to reject the major doctrines of historic Christianity. He ultimately established his own belief system, and in 1879 he started publishing a magazine to promote his beliefs. This magazine was the precursor to todays Watchtower (WT) magazine, by which Jehovahs Witnesses are typically known.

The Jehovahs Witnesses publish their own translation of the Bible"the so-called New World Translation (NWT). NWT was created between 1950-61 in several parts, beginning with New Testament (NT). The translation was made by an "anonymous" committee, which transliterated and altered passages that were problematic for earlier JWs. The NWT is universally rejected by non-Witnesses, including secular Greek and Hebrew

scholars. https://www.catholic.com/tract/stumpers ... -witnesses

Do you deny that "Jehovah" is the proper translation of YHWH? A Jehovah's Witness would insist it is. So, again, who should I believe? You or them? Their church or yours?

In Reasoning From the Scriptures the WTS teaches that "Jehovah" is the proper pronunciation of Gods name, and so "Everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved" (Rom. 10:13). They continue, "Many scholars favor the spelling Yahweh, but it is uncertain and there is not agreement among them. On the other hand, Jehovah is the form of the name that is most readily recognized, because it has been used in English for centuries . . . " (p. 195).


However, the JWs own Aid to Bible Understanding says, "The first recorded use of this form [Jehovah] dates from the 13th century C.E. [after Christ]. Raymundus Martini, a Spanish monk of the Dominican order, used it in his book Pugeo Fidei of the year 1270. Hebrew scholars generally favor Yahweh as the most likely pronunciation" (pp. 884-885).


New Testament Greek always uses the word "Lord," and never "Jehovah," even in quotes from the Old Testament (OT). Encyclopedia Judaica, Websters Encyclopedia, Jewish Encyclopedia,Encyclopedia Britannica, Universal Jewish Encyclopedia and countless others agree that the title "Jehovah" is erroneous, grammatically impossible, and was never used by the Jews.

https://www.catholic.com/tract/stumpers ... -witnesses

Married people use contraceptives. Married people who later plan on having children use contraceptives. Married people who already hadchildren use contraceptives. Saying "get married" is not the same as saying "never use contraceptives".

No religion prior to the 1930s advocated contraception. They all believed and taught it was immoral to do so. What changed?

Yes but there is no mention of contraceptives being against one of these laws.

Aaaaaaaaaand yet that is what every religion prior to 1930 took away from the Bible. Interesting.

Pay attention because this is the second time I need to clarify this for you. I never said people regret having children. I said that having children is harmful to the marriage, statistically speaking. So the parents may be happier in general, but they are less happy with each other.

First, I question the research and would like to see if the findings were repeated in similar studies. Second, how can you conclude having children is harmful to the marriage when the parents may now claim to be happier having had children? Your less happy with each other is not the whole or full picture of marriage or life. Your conclusion is trying to say since a woman can die in childbirth or since women might report they are less happy with their bodies after giving birth, this means children are harmful to marriage. LOL!

RightReason wrote:


I NEVER said people should not have sex if theyre not fertile.

You strongly implied it. If one cannot bear children, why have sex?

Not in the least. It is YOU who keeps declaring this as my view. Ive never said anything of the kind. Nor do I believe anything of the kind.

RightReason wrote:


NFP is not the rhythm method.

What's the difference?

Look it up and dont be surprised how often youll hear, NFP is not the rhythm method!

RightReason wrote:


Nope. NFP is not contraception. The couple is not engaging in the sexual act and then deliberately stopping/blocking/thwarting the consequences of THAT sexual act.

They don't have to in order for it to be a contraception. If you do anything to in order to prevent sexual acts to result in pregnancy (including only having sex on days your wife is infertile) then it's a contraception by definition.

Huh? So, my six year old is using contraception because he is not engaging in sex? The 90 year old woman is practicing contraception by not having sex?

RightReason wrote:


Again, a great analogy would be the person who skips dessert to avoid calories vs. the person who goes ahead and eats but then vomits up the food to avoid calories. One is right/good/noble and in keeping with proper use/function of the body. The other is improper use and disordered.

Other than your say-so, what is so improper about contraceptives? The reason throwing food up is improper is because it is clearly harmful. Can you demonstrate how pulling out, using a condom, etc. is clearly harmful?

I already answered this. We know bulimia is wrong NOT just because there might be some physical health consequences. Tooth decay is reported as one of the harmful side effects of bulimia. Tooth decay is also a harmful side effect of drinking soda. We know bulimia is wrong because we recognize the behavior is not the proper order. The body is not being used as it was designed. Man can know the purpose/function of things by observing the world and recognizing the world works in a certain way. This is how we know what is right and good.

[Justin108]

This is getting boring.

Feel free to abandon the debate.

Im giving reasons one can know from Scripture (something lots of Christians find important) how we can identify Christs Church on earth.

Non-Catholics have reasons for their interpretations as well. Why do you think non-Catholics even exist? Either they are deliberately rebellious, or they find reason in scripture to believe what they believe.

It proves nothing. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the Bible is open to interpretation (in which case, your interpretation is but one of many), or it isn't (in which case Genesis is enough to dismiss the Bible as clearly fictional nonsense). So which is it? Open to interpretation or clear fictional nonsense?

Your statement is illogical. The Bible obviously needs interpreted. Words on a page do not interpret themselves. But that doesnt mean the Bible is open for interpretation. First, someone cant blatantly disregard the obvious meaning of a text and suggest with no rhyme or reason that it means something else.

Genesis 1. Give me a quick rundown of its actual meaning. Is it literal? Did God make the universe in 6 literal days? Did he make plant life before he made the sun and stars?

Second, only those entrusted with the authority to interpret Scripture should.

And who holds this authority? Your priests?

New Testament Greek always uses the word "Lord," and never "Jehovah," even in quotes from the Old Testament (OT). Encyclopedia Judaica, Websters Encyclopedia, Jewish Encyclopedia,Encyclopedia Britannica, Universal Jewish Encyclopedia and countless others agree that the title "Jehovah" is erroneous, grammatically impossible, and was never used by the Jews.

Does that distinction matter? Do you not believe that Jehovah is Lord? How do you personally pronounce YHWH? Do you believe all those who pronounce it as "Jehovah" are unknowingly worshiping a false god?

Married people use contraceptives. Married people who later plan on having children use contraceptives. Married people who already hadchildren use contraceptives. Saying "get married" is not the same as saying "never use contraceptives".

No religion prior to the 1930s advocated contraception. They all believed and taught it was immoral to do so. What changed?

I don't care. My point is, your quoting scripture that says we should get married is a moot point because married people use contraceptions as well. I don't care if people used to believe it was immoral. My question is does the Bible say it is immoral?

Yes but there is no mention of contraceptives being against one of these laws.

Aaaaaaaaaand yet that is what every religion prior to 1930 took away from the Bible. Interesting.

"People in the 30's used to believe it was immoral, therefore it is immoral"
- is that the gist of your argument?

NFP is not the rhythm method.

What's the difference?

Look it up and dont be surprised how often youll hear, NFP is not the rhythm method!

I'll take this as an inability to answer my question.

They don't have to in order for it to be a contraception. If you do anything to in prevent sexual acts to result in pregnancy (including only having sex on days your wife is infertile) then it's a contraception by definition.

Huh? So, my six year old is using contraception because he is not engaging in sex? The 90 year old woman is practicing contraception by not having sex?

Can you read? If you do anything to prevent sexual acts to result in pregnancy (including only having sex on days your wife is infertile) then it's a contraception by definition. Is your six year old partaking in sexual acts?

"I want to have sex, but since I do not want it to result in pregnancy, I will only have sex on days my wife is infertile"
- This is, by definition, contraception. He wants to have sex and at the same time, he wants it to not result in pregnancy. This is, by definition, contraception.

contraception
kntrsp()n/
noun
the deliberate use of artificial methods or other techniques to prevent pregnancy as a consequence of sexual intercourse.

So a contraception is
- a deliberate use of a method
- to prevent pregnancy
- as a consequence of sexual intercourse

Jack wants to have sex with his wife, Mary. Jack does not want it to result in pregnancy. Jack decides to only have sex with Mary on days when Mary is not fertile. This means that Jack is using a deliberate method (having sex on infertile days) to prevent pregnancy (she is less likely to fall pregnant on these infertile days) as a consequence of sexual intercourse (the sex is less likely to result in pregnancy). Jack, by definition, is using contraception.

This is not the same as abstinence. If it was, Jack would not be having sex with Mary at all. Jack does, however, have sex with her, but he does this specifically on infertile days. This is not just abstinence, this is contraception. By definition.

Other than your say-so, what is so improper about contraceptives? The reason throwing food up is improper is because it is clearly harmful. Can you demonstrate how pulling out, using a condom, etc. is clearly harmful?

I already answered this. We know bulimia is wrong NOT just because there might be some physical health consequences.

If there were absolutely no health issues with bulimia, no one would object to it. They would probably just think it's gross.

Tooth decay is reported as one of the harmful side effects of bulimia. Tooth decay is also a harmful side effect of drinking soda.

Tooth decay is one of the side effects, and I assure you stomach acid is far more harmful to teeth than sugary drinks.

Man can know the purpose/function of things by observing the world and recognizing the world works in a certain way. This is how we know what is right and good.

Observing the world, I see that all animals are naked. Should I conclude then that humans should be naked as well? Observing the world, I see that very few animals are monogamous and no other animal ever marries. Should I stop being monogamous?

Unless you can give me good reason for why contraceptives are harmful, other than "it's unnatural", your position is baseless.

I see you just snipped out my most damning argument, so I'll just repeat it here.

There is no mention of contraceptives being against one of these laws. The Bible is notoriously specific about its laws, practices and rituals. Leviticus goes in depth about how to prepare an animal sacrifice. There are countless laws and prohibitions throughout the Bible, from what not to eat to what not to wear and not a single mention in the law that prohibits any form of contraceptive. Can you explain that? If contraception was wrong, why is there no law against it in the Bible? There's a law against eating pork, there is a law against wearing mixed fabrics... but there is no law against contraception. Even Jehovah's Witnesses can make a better case for why blood transfusion is immoral. There is at least something in the Bible that resembles a command against blood transfusion.

[evilsorcerer1]

****Numbers and letters, what do they mean?****

0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9. zero, one, two, three,four,five,six,seven,eight,nine.
0,zerow,1,wun,2,tuw,3,thre,4,for,5,fiv,6,six,7seven,8,eight,at,ayt,9,nin,
0,o,1,l,i,2,n,c,,3,m,w,s,zN,
A capital letter probably always represents a name, actually a word given to a man that had a meaning that was lost. So that would mean people were never supposed to be named. Also if both vowels coincide with the sound it would be ad um. The vowels may be a clue to a consonant facing the wrong way. Last letter may be a clue to next word-m, mankind, death.
Adam-incorrect, correct-adam, possible meanings of letters-a from above dirt air, , ad um, A is incorrect names are incorrect, first a would represent an analogy, d represents dirt, a represents add. Woman; w represents water, woman(n). Woman a clue, woman is womb, goes with w n, woman, wom is w, b is silent. C represents Cain, Eden, ed en , e water from river, from sideways, not from above, d is dirt, e would be second letter, more air, woman wom, o could be air meaning seed is not alive (Clue to no life until birth or later in the pregnancy process. I thinkers very likely and is one of the main reasons Im doing this study. Womb and Tomb are very close in sound. Although its possible when people got old and very close to death they would go to their tomb early, we know its simple to understand mostly dead bodies inhabit tombs. If it could be proved that people arent alive until birth or later than 5 months in the pregnancy, it would prove the story about John the baptist being filled with the holy spirit in the womb and the angel are false. I think life may be a chemical reaction caused by exposure to air in the lungs. Heres a quote from a doctor online- In mother's womb fetus is immersed in amniotic fluid all the time and airways of lung is full with this fluid . Have you ever wondered : how does fetus breathe and gets oxygen . Truth is they don't breath . After all there is no air in womb to breath . Fetus gets his oxygen through the oxygenated blood that reaches fetal circulation through placenta. Cain , Adam, Eden, in the beginning, God created the heaven and earth, assumption made by author, n thu beg n eng, begin, beget, God, g gas o volcano d
(Direction A,a,E,e,I,i,O,o,U,u), heven. D in eden could represent death. The rivers flowing out may imply theyre slowly killing mankind. Heaven and eden could be closely related: even, eden. Both are a paradise. Although vowels represent non visible things, air is a gas. The sun is composed of 99% gas. God could represent creation and destruction. Gas, Death.
god created the heavens and the earth seems an opinion made by the author. Was creation an important part of history and what can the letters tell me.
Umbilical cord, Placenta, Water, Womb, Air Beginning,Life, Wum, Umbilical cord, the b may be a clue to the next word in the meaning of all things. bilical, biblical, tomb, embryo,
The human skeleton is the internal framework of the body. It is composed of 270 bones at birth " this total decreases to 206 bones by adulthood after some bones have fused together. The bone mass in the skeleton reaches maximum density around age 30. The number of muscles in our body varies from around 640 to 850. We have 3 types of muscles in our body: skeletal, visceral, and cardiac. The skeletal muscles are voluntary, while the visceral muscles are involuntary. There are no exact number of muscles in our body because there are different opinions of what constitutes a distinct muscle. According to Wikipedia. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_ ... continents. There are 203 countries. So we may have been created with a design, like the bones represent solid land and we have the same amount of bones as languages that were first created. If there were 270 to start that would exactly match the amount of bones in the human body. Heres an example from online, although just an estimate. Approximate body weight distribution for a lean adult:
Bone: men 15%; women 10%
Muscle: men 45%; women 37%
Organs: men and women: 25%
Fat: men 15%; women 28%

Beginning, End. The worlds lands are related somehow by its peoples composition and the Earths.
O may represent Ocean, Continent. Why is continent a good word in this case? Contains the Earths oceans?
Theory- If the baby heart starts to beat at a very early age but isnt alive could it be be as a result of vibrations from its mothers heartbeat. That design would allow for the heart to strengthen even if the baby isnt alive. Suppose from conception to birth is ideally 40 weeks or 280 days. If exact pregnancy should be 270 days Noahs ark was an analogy (unknown to the author) about birth. Ark, rainbow, umbrella, all talk about an arch or curve. Umb is in both umbrella and umbilical cord. Ark of the covenant. The author may have unknowingly been talking about the end of the world. The ark may have represented a casket, rain may have represented stars, birth may have been mistaken for death. If their numbering system was different and people only ever lived 120 years, thats about 1/10 of the original so the ark would have been about 1/3 or 50 x 8 x 5 feet (just enough to fit him and his families bodies). The ark of the covenant later was the correct dimension of a casket after they claim lives were shortened.

If all letters should point down in an alphabet that are being moved by gravity then once m and w would be the same. Lowercase m and w have one which is rounded and one straight, possibly explaining the composition of the object.

[tam]

[Replying to post 1 by Justin108]

What is the "correct" way to interpret the Bible? Is there an objective "correct" way to interpret the Bible? If so, what methods should one employ to interpret the Bible "correctly"?

The "correct" way to interpret the bible would be to look at it through the light that is Christ. Keep Him in mind - His word, the truth He teaches - when it comes to everything written in it.


And we should ASK to know the truth. Even the apostles needed the scriptures to be opened to them. But they looked to CHRIST to know the truth; tested things against Him (the Light, the Truth). That is what we are supposed to do as well.

Some people talk about a 'key' to understanding the bible, and they are using codes and numerology, and such things, etc. But sister of mine once stated the truth on this so simply:

Christ IS that key. Obviously! He is the one who opens (unlocks) the scriptures.



One does not need to look to a religious group to tell them the meaning of what is written. One need to look to (and listen to) Christ.


**

As for Genesis 1, there was light before there was anything else, including plants.

That light, however, is Christ - and one can know this by a) asking and/or listening to Christ; and b) in this case, simply listening to the words we have recorded of Him:

"I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." John 8:12

As for the science:

It is not necessarily the sun that plants require to grow and to live... but rather it is the energy from the sun that plants require to live and to grow. If plants could receive that energy (that life) from another source, then plants could still live and grow. Indeed, plants can even live and grow under the artificial light that man creates, because that light can give off the required energy. How much more could those plants (or anything living) do so under the light that is Christ, from the "energy/life" that He gives; the Light that God created/brought forth?

Would that source of energy/life not be much more powerful than a mere energy bulb that man has created? More powerful even than the sun (considering there are many suns that 'live' and 'die', but all of them came from God, through Christ. The source being more powerful than that which came from the source.)


I won't claim to understand everything. But I asked my Lord about this because of your thread, and He reminded me that He is the Light, and He helped me to see some of the things that I shared above.

Light gives off energy. Life.

**

Science seeks to understand the physical (and anything else that is in existence, but science is limited in at least one way by the tools at its disposal). But there is so much about even the physical which science has yet to discover. Throw in the spiritual as well?


I won't say that science and something written in the bible could not be in conflict (because there are errors in the text, even if they are just translation errors). But science and God are not in conflict. It is only our (lack of) understanding of one or the other, or both, that make them appear to be in conflict.




Peace to you Justin, and thank you for the topic!
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[RightReason]

[Replying to Justin108]

This is getting boring.

Feel free to abandon the debate.

Its just that many of your comments seem to be a very immature response and not really addressing the point, but instead trying to take part of what I say " take it out of context " and suggest Im saying something Im not. Its amateur and getting a little old to keep taking the time to respond to your remarks. But hey, I just poured myself a glass a wine and will respond to some of the stuff, if it so moves me to do so . . .

Genesis 1. Give me a quick rundown of its actual meaning. Is it literal? Did God make the universe in 6 literal days? Did he make plant life before he made the sun and stars?

Parts of Scripture are to be taken literally and parts figuratively or even as an allegory " usually the case for Genesis. Just like in life, I sometimes will speak literally " We will be eating at 6pm. And sometimes I speak figuratively, Wow! Its raining cats and dogs today. Most people familiar with the English language and applying the context to my words can understand when I am speaking literally and when I am not and know what I am saying.

The same is true for Scripture. Of course, it is important to be familiar with the original language used in Scripture, the audience, and the context of a single passage and how it relates to other passages in order to be sure one is reading something correctly. I guess someone from a different culture who speaks a different language might find my, Its raining cats and dogs comment to be confusing, but even they with a little inquiry would be able to determine what I actually meant.

only those entrusted with the authority to interpret Scripture should.

And who holds this authority? Your priests?

Christs established Church. He who hears you, hears me. Whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven

Does that distinction matter?

Yes, one needs to ask why JWs change Scripture and emphasize the importance of calling God Jehova.

So why do the Jehovahs Witnesses say Gods only personal name is Jehovah? One reason is it gives them the air they are the only true religion that properly worships God. It sets them apart. The other reason is by pointing to Jehovah as the one personal name, they can attack the doctrine of the Trinity.


Jesus never identified the Father as Jehovah. Was Jesus wrong for not calling the Father by his personal name? When He taught us how to pray, how are we to address the Father? Matthew 6:9 Pray, then, in this way: Our Father who is in heaven, Hallowed be Your name. Jesus taught his disciples and us to say Our Father and not Our Jehovah. You need to chastise Him for forgetting to use Jehovah here and all through his ministry. Jesus never said the name Jehovah.


Why didnt any of the New Testament writers use the name Jehovah? Were all the writers of the New Testament out of line? Are you going to correct them? There are over 5,700 ancient New Testament manuscripts and none of them ever used the name Jehovah. NONE! Does the Watchtower Organization know more than Jesus and the New Testament writers?

Forcing the word Jehovah [by the New World Translation] into the New Testament is simply wrong. When your translators did this they went against thousands of Greek manuscripts of the New Testament; some of which date back to the second century. Instead the New Testament uses the words Lord [Greek: Kurios] and God [Greek: theos] when talking about God. The writers never used Jehovah, even when quoting the Old Testament. The Greek New Testament source for the New World Translation, Westcott and Hort, never used Jehovah. They used kurios for Lord and theos for God. The Kingdom Interlinear confirms Jehovah was never in the original text.



http://biblicalworldviewacademy.org/why ... gods-name/

No religion prior to the 1930s advocated contraception. They all believed and taught it was immoral to do so. What changed?

I don't care. . . .I don't care if people used to believe it was immoral. My question is does the Bible say it is immoral?

Thats my point! Obviously, the first Christians felt pretty strongly that the Bible said contraception is immoral. And it is what every church taught until the 1930s. They certainly considered the issue, read Scripture, and came to the conclusion to teach its immorality. So, maybe you should care that those who were actually alive when Jesus walked the earth and the first Christians all thought and believed the use of contraception was immoral. Id say thats HUGE!

"People in the 30's used to believe it was immoral, therefore it is immoral"
- is that the gist of your argument?

Uh " no. Everyone prior to the 30s believed and taught this. It was common knowledge for any Christian prior to 1930. It IS what Christs established Church taught!!! Thats the gist of my argument.

Look it up and dont be surprised how often youll hear, NFP is not the rhythm method!

I'll take this as an inability to answer my question.

You would. The rhythm method was when every women looked at a womans fertility based on a 28 day cycle, with a woman ovulating on cycle day 14. Women were told they ovulate half way thru their cycle or on day 14. This is sooooooooooo inaccurate.

In only about 30% of women is the fertile window entirely within the days of the menstrual cycle identified by clinical guidelines"that is, between days 10 and 17. Most women reach their fertile window earlier and others much later. Women should be advised that the timing of their fertile window can be highly unpredictable, even if their cycles are usually regular.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC27529/

The rhythm method was even worse than the 10-17 day guideline. Like I said it pretty much assumed every woman ovulated on the 14th. NFP does not rely on such primitive guesswork.


NFP teaches women to observe their body cues to determine when they ovulate. Women check for fertile mucus and are taught to observe the different types of mucus, position of their cervix, and take their basal body temperature. The rhythm method did none of that.

Can you read? If you do anything to prevent sexual acts to result in pregnancy (including only having sex on days your wife is infertile) then it's a contraception by definition. Is your six year old partaking in sexual acts?

If not having sex is included in doing something to prevent pregnancy, then yes my 6 year old and my 80 year old mother would by your terms be contracepting.

contraception
kntrsp()n/
noun
the deliberate use of artificial methods or other techniques to prevent pregnancy as a consequence of sexual intercourse.

as a consequence of sexual intercourse

If you dont engage in the sexual act, there is no consequence that would result from the sexual act.

So a contraception is
- a deliberate use of a method
- to prevent pregnancy
- as a consequence of sexual intercourse

Yep. as a consequence of THAT act

So, youre suggesting not having sex is using contraception? Ill let you think about that for a moment.

If there were absolutely no health issues with bulimia, no one would object to it. They would probably just think it's gross.

Whats wrong with being gross? Human beings poop, which could be considered kind of gross, but no one would consider it disordered to poop. Quite the contrary.

Tooth decay is one of the side effects, and I assure you stomach acid is far more harmful to teeth than sugary drinks.

So, if we came up with something that would help bulimics prevent tooth decay, would we then have no problem with it?

Observing the world, I see that all animals are naked. Should I conclude then that humans should be naked as well? Observing the world, I see that very few animals are monogamous and no other animal ever marries. Should I stop being monogamous?

I thought we covered this already. Human beings are not held to the same standards as animals. Anyone who observes the world would recognize this.

There is no mention of contraceptives being against one of these laws. The Bible is notoriously specific about its laws, practices and rituals. Leviticus goes in depth about how to prepare an animal sacrifice. There are countless laws and prohibitions throughout the Bible, from what not to eat to what not to wear and not a single mention in the law that prohibits any form of contraceptive. Can you explain that? If contraception was wrong, why is there no law against it in the Bible?

I already explained all this. Like I said " this is getting boring. The story of Onan is the perfect example of the law against contraception. It is what all the first Christians, the Early Church and even our Jewish brothers and sisters knew and understood the story of Onan in Scripture to mean and what they all taught and believed. In fact, in Jewish culture, the sin of contraception was known as Onanism. So, yeah, its Scriptural.