Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Religious History Cannot Be Rewritten No Matter How Much You Dislike It

Eating breakfast the other morning, during conversation, my sister informed me that my religion (Catholic) was not a christian religion. My response was, "Dear, it was the first christian religion." To which she stated, "No, it wasn't."

Okay, do people really think that? Do churches and schools no longer recommend encyclopedias? Do protestants faiths teach that protestant reform did not start until the 15th century and, for my sister, what kind of church would teach that christianity does not include catholics?

So, herein, is the historical data from the encyclopedia:

History and origins

Which came first? Main article: History of Christianity

The Roman Catholic Church was not started by any one person; it was founded by Jesus Christ, acting in the fullness of His divinity. It is the original form of Christianity; as promised, the Holy Spirit has continued to guide the understanding of the Church, and Her doctrine has developed over the course of 2000 years. Since Christianity is really the fulfillment of the promises of the Old Testament, its core belief preceded the Incarnation of Christ. Christ's message allows us to see the faith of the Old Testament from a new perspective. The idea is that the Old Testament believers believed in the promised Messiah (Christ) before he came and New Testament believers ("Christians") believe in the promised Christ who came.

At first the Christians were not organized into any official structure, though it was immediately obvious that there was an accepted line of authority. Since these men all preached against following the customs of men, it is clear that the idea of an authoritarian Church had to have been a dierct teaching of Christ. This is borne out in Gospel passages. Whenever Christ was conferring authority, He did so only to the Apostles, never to the crowds or to the general public. The recognized leaders were the Apostles, and the congregations of each locality had local leaders, called "elders", "presbyters", or "pastor/teachers". These leaders were not self-appointed, nor were they selected by the local members of their areas. The Apostles, as shown in the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, had to approve of and lay hands on these local presbyters---that is, they had to pass on the authority Christ granted them. This is today called Apostolic Succession.

Early Church and Christological Councils

Christianity began as a Jewish sect in the eastern Mediterranean in the mid-first century.[10][11][3] Its earliest development took place under the leadership of the Twelve Apostles, particularly Saint Peter and Paul the Apostle, followed by the early bishops, whom Christians considered the successors of the Apostles.

From the beginning, Christians were subject to persecution. This involved punishments, including death, for Christians such as Stephen[115] and James, son of Zebedee.[116] Larger-scale persecutions followed at the hands of the authorities of the Roman Empire, first in the year 64, when Emperor Nero blamed them for the Great Fire of Rome. According to Church tradition, it was under Nero's persecution that early Church leaders Peter and Paul of Tarsus were each martyred in Rome. Further widespread persecutions of the Church occurred under nine subsequent Roman emperors, most intensely under Decius and Diocletian. From the year 150, Christian teachers began to produce theological and apologetic works aimed at defending the faith. These authors are known as the Church Fathers, and study of them is called Patristics. Notable early Fathers include Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen.

Christianity was legalized in the 4th century, when Constantine I issued an edict of toleration in 313. On 27 February 380, Emperor Theodosius I enacted a law establishing Catholic Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire.[117] From at least the 4th century, Christianity has played a prominent role in the shaping of Western civilization.[13]

Constantine was also instrumental in the convocation of the First Council of Nicaea in 325, which sought to address the Arian heresy and formulated the Nicene Creed, which is still used by the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglican Communion, and many Protestant churches.[27] Nicaea was the first of a series of Ecumenical (worldwide) Councils which formally defined critical elements of the theology of the Church, notably concerning Christology.[118] The Assyrian Church of the East did not accept the third and following Ecumenical Councils, and are still separate today.

Christians were persecuted by civil authorities because they would not recognize Caesar as divine. They met, often secretly, and corresponded with each other. The pastoral letters all speak loudly of the authority of the Apostles and Paul. The instructions of these letters are not suggestions; they are binding, to the point that excommunication is recommended as the final correction for anyone who refuses to obey.

For one special question, the Apostles and the rest of the church met together in Jerusalem (Acts 15, 1-35). In this meeting, the authority of the Church is again apparent. The council settled, authoritatively, a key point of the faith: that the message of God extended also to the Gentiles. In other words, the faith is catholic, universal. The results of the decision were sent out via Judas Barsabbas and Silas. This practice continues today in the issuance of encyclicals, bulls, and statements sent out to the Church by the Holy See.

Roman Catholics have known and demonstrated, since immediately after the Ascension of Christ, that the Apostle Peter was the first leader of the Church. Most Protestant Christians reject this fact and assert that Peter was an equal among many Apostles. However, the Book of the Acts of the Apostles shows, repeatedly, Peter clearly acting as the leader. There is no record that his position as leader was ever challenged by any of the other apostles, even though there was some discord as the fullness of the faith was wrestled with. For example, Peter was once corrected by the Apostle Paul.

As predicted by the Apostles, a variety of different ideas about Christ and about God were advanced by people claiming to be Christians. These doctrines had to be tested against the teachings of the Apostles; remember, there was not yet a written body of Christian texts. The Apostolic Tradition, those things taught orally by the Apostles, was to be the guide for Truth. This was in accordance with the directive Christ gave when he said, "Whoever hears you, hears Me." It was to the apostles (that is, the authoratative Church) that this statement was made. It was NOT made to the body of believers at large.

Teachings at variance with apostolic tradition were rejected as "heresies", that is, as false teachings. Only the truth as Christ passed it on to the Apostles is true. Eventually, in the 4th century, these apostolic traditions became the basis for the establishment of the Canon, that is, the collection of sacred writings Christians worldwide today call the Bible. The Church reviewed thousands of texts, measuring each against apostolic Tradition, and included only those which did not differ from those Traditions. The Christian Bible, whether used by Catholics or Protestants, is a Catholic text. It is interesting to note that, although the Catholic Church organized and established the canon of Scripture, there are many today who try to find within Scripture proof that the Church lacks authority or authenticity. Should that argument ever be found to be true, the Bible itself loses authority; if the Church that chose the canonical texts had no real authority to do so, then the canon itself must be seen as suspect. This is clearly not the case, for the Truth of Scripture has been borne out over the course of nearly 2000 years of human experience.

The keeping of the Traditions, which formed the early Church and led to the structure of the Bible, was, and remains, a central obligation of the Church. Even in today's secular world, when many people reject the fullness of the faith because it is inconvenient, or because individualism makes an authoritative Church seem outdated, the Church maintains that it is not within its power to change the Traditions as handed down by the Apostles.

Gradually, even though it was still illegal to be Christian, a certain amount of organizational structure began to develop. Because it happened in the Roman Empire, the pattern and names from Roman government were adopted by the church. When it finally became legal to be Christian, the catholic Church flourished as never before. As there was, at that time, only one Church, in keeping with Christ's priestly prayer for unity,

Early Middle Ages

With the decline and fall of the Roman Empire in the west, the papacy became a political player, first visible in Pope Leo's diplomatic dealings with Huns and Vandals.[119] The church also entered into a long period of missionary activity and expansion among the former barbarian tribes. Catholicism spread among the Germanic peoples (initially in competition with Arianism[119]), the Celtic and Slavic peoples, the Hungarians and the Scandinavian and Baltic peoples.

Around 500, St. Benedict set out his Monastic Rule, establishing a system of regulations for the foundation and running of monasteries.[119] Monasticism became a powerful force throughout Europe,[119] and gave rise to many early centers of learning, most famously in Ireland, Scotland and Gaul, contributing to the Carolingian Renaissance of the 9th century.

From the 7th century onwards, Islam conquered the Christian lands of the Middle East, North Africa and much of Spain,[120] resulting in oppression of Christianity and numerous military struggles, including the Crusades, the Spanish Reconquista and wars against the Turks.

The Middle Ages brought about major changes within the church. Pope Gregory the Great dramatically reformed ecclesiastical structure and administration.[121] In the early 8th century, iconoclasm became a divisive issue, when it was sponsored by the Byzantine emperors. The Second Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (787) finally pronounced in favour of icons.[122] In the early 10th century, western monasticism was further rejuvenated through the leadership of the great Benedictine monastery of Cluny.[123]

High and Late Middle Ages

In the west, from the 11th century onward, older cathedral schools developed into universities (see University of Paris, University of Oxford, and University of Bologna.) Originally teaching only theology, these steadily added subjects including medicine, philosophy and law, becoming the direct ancestors of modern western institutions of learning.[124]

Accompanying the rise of the "new towns" throughout Western Europe, mendicant orders were founded, bringing the consecrated religious life out of the monastery and into the new urban setting. The two principal mendicant movements were the Franciscans[125] and the Dominicans[126] founded by St. Francis and St. Dominic respectively. Both orders made significant contributions to the development of the great universities of Europe. Another new order were the Cistercians, whose large isolated monasteries spearheaded the settlement of former wilderness areas. In this period church building and ecclesiastical architecture reached new heights, culminating in the orders of Romanesque and Gothic architecture and the building of the great European cathedrals.[127]

Pope Urban II at the Council of Clermont, where he preached the First Crusade.

From 1095 under the pontificate of Urban II, the Crusades were launched.[128] These were a series of military campaigns in the Holy Land and elsewhere, initiated in response to pleas from the Byzantine Emperor Alexios I for aid against Turkish expansion. The Crusades ultimately failed to stifle Islamic aggression and even contributed to Christian enmity with the sacking of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade.[129]

Over a period stretching from the 7th to the 13th century, the Christian Church underwent gradual alienation, resulting in a schism dividing it into a Western, largely Latin branch, the Roman Catholic Church, and an Eastern, largely Greek, branch, the Orthodox Church. These two churches disagree on a number of administrative, liturgical, and doctrinal issues, most notably papal primacy of jurisdiction.[130][131] The Second Council of Lyon (1274) and the Council of Florence (1439) attempted to reunite the churches, but in both cases the Eastern Orthodox refused to implement the decisions and the two principal churches remain in schism to the present day. However, the Roman Catholic Church has achieved union with various smaller eastern churches.

Beginning around 1184, following the crusade against the Cathar heresy,[132] various institutions, broadly referred to as the Inquisition, were established with the aim of suppressing heresy and securing religious and doctrinal unity within Christianity through conversion and prosecution.[133]

Protestant Reformation and Counter-Reformation

An icon depicting the First Council of Nicaea

The 15th-century Renaissance brought about a renewed interest in ancient and classical learning. Another major schism, the Reformation, resulted in the splintering of the Western Christendom into several Christian denominations.[134] Martin Luther in 1517 protested against the sale of indulgences and soon moved on to deny several key points of Roman Catholic doctrine. Others like Zwingli and Calvin further criticized Roman Catholic teaching and worship. These challenges developed into the movement called Protestantism, which repudiated the primacy of the pope, the role of tradition, the seven sacraments, and other doctrines and practices.[135] Reformation in England began in 1534, when King Henry VIII had himself declared head of the Church of England. Beginning in 1536, the monasteries throughout England, Wales and Ireland were dissolved.[136]

Partly in response to the Protestant Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church engaged in a substantial process of reform and renewal, known as the Counter-Reformation or Catholic Reform.[137] The Council of Trent clarified and reasserted Roman Catholic doctrine. During the following centuries, competition between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism became deeply entangled with political struggles among European states.[138]

Meanwhile, the discovery of America by Christopher Columbus in 1492 brought about a new wave of missionary activity. Partly from missionary zeal, but under the impetus of colonial expansion by the European powers, Christianity spread to the Americas, Oceania, East Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa.

Throughout Europe, the divides caused by the Reformation led to outbreaks of religious violence and the establishment of separate state religions in Western Europe: Lutheranism in parts of Germany and in Scandinavia and Anglicanism in England in 1534. Ultimately, these differences led to the outbreak of conflicts in which religion played a key factor. The Thirty Years' War, the English Civil War, and the French Wars of Religion are prominent examples. These events intensified the Christian debate on persecution and toleration.

Protestantism

In the 16th century, Martin Luther, Huldrych Zwingli, and John Calvin inaugurated what has come to be called Protestantism. Luther's primary theological heirs are known as Lutherans. Zwingli and Calvin's heirs are far broader denominationally, and are broadly referred to as the Reformed Tradition.[174] Most Protestant traditions branch out from the Reformed tradition in some way. In addition to the Lutheran and Reformed branches of the Reformation, there is Anglicanism after the English Reformation. The Anabaptist tradition was largely ostracized by the other Protestant parties at the time, but has achieved a measure of affirmation in more recent history.

The oldest Protestant groups separated from the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century Protestant Reformation, followed in many cases by further divisions.[174] For example, the Methodist Church grew out of Anglican minister John Wesley's evangelical and revival movement in the Anglican Church.[175][176] Several Pentecostal and non-denominational Churches, which emphasize the cleansing power of the Holy Spirit, in turn grew out of the Methodist Church.[177][176] Because Methodists, Pentecostals, and other evangelicals stress "accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior",[178] which comes from John Wesley's emphasis of the New Birth,[179] they often refer to themselves as being born-again.[180][181]

Estimates of the total number of Protestants are very uncertain, partly because of the difficulty in determining which denominations should be placed in these categories, but it seems clear that Protestantism is the second largest major group of Christians after Roman Catholicism in number of followers (although the Eastern Orthodox Church is larger than any single Protestant denomination).[168]

A special grouping are the Anglican churches descended from the Church of England and organised in the Anglican Communion.. Some Anglican churches consider themselves both Protestant and Catholic.[182] Some Anglicans consider their church a branch of the "One Holy Catholic Church" alongside of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, a concept rejected by the Roman Catholic Church and some Eastern Orthodox.[183][184]

Some Christians who come out of the Protestant tradition identify themselves simply as "Christian", or "born-again Christian"; they typically distance themselves from the confessionalism and/or creedalism of other Christian communities[185] by calling themselves "non-denominational"—often founded by individual pastors, they have little affiliation with historic denominations.

The Roman Catholic Church was not started by any one person; it was founded by Jesus Christ, acting in the fullness of His divinity. It is the original form of Christianity; as promised, the Holy Spirit has continued to guide the understanding of the Church, and Her doctrine has developed over the course of 2000 years. Since Christianity is really the fulfillment of the promises of the Old Testament, its core belief preceded the Incarnation of Christ. Christ's message allows us to see the faith of the Old Testament from a new perspective. The idea is that the Old Testament believers believed in the promised Messiah (Christ) before he came and New Testament believers ("Christians") believe in the promised Christ who came.

At first the Christians were not organized into any official structure, though it was immediately obvious that there was an accepted line of authority. Since these men all preached against following the customs of men, it is clear that the idea of an authoritarian Church had to have been a dierct teaching of Christ. This is borne out in Gospel passages. Whenever Christ was conferring authority, He did so only to the Apostles, never to the crowds or to the general public. The recognized leaders were the Apostles, and the congregations of each locality had local leaders, called "elders", "presbyters", or "pastor/teachers". These leaders were not self-appointed, nor were they selected by the local members of their areas. The Apostles, as shown in the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, had to approve of and lay hands on these local presbyters---that is, they had to pass on the authority Christ granted them. This is today called Apostolic Succession.

Christians were persecuted by civil authorities because they would not recognize Caesar as divine. They met, often secretly, and corresponded with each other. The pastoral letters all speak loudly of the authority of the Apostles and Paul. The instructions of these letters are not suggestions; they are binding, to the point that excommunication is recommended as the final correction for anyone who refuses to obey.

For one special question, the Apostles and the rest of the church met together in Jerusalem (Acts 15, 1-35). In this meeting, the authority of the Church is again apparent. The council settled, authoritatively, a key point of the faith: that the message of God extended also to the Gentiles. In other words, the faith is catholic, universal. The results of the decision were sent out via Judas Barsabbas and Silas. This practice continues today in the issuance of encyclicals, bulls, and statements sent out to the Church by the Holy See.

Roman Catholics have known and demonstrated, since immediately after the Ascension of Christ, that the Apostle Peter was the first leader of the Church. Most Protestant Christians reject this fact and assert that Peter was an equal among many Apostles. However, the Book of the Acts of the Apostles shows, repeatedly, Peter clearly acting as the leader. There is no record that his position as leader was ever challenged by any of the other apostles, even though there was some discord as the fullness of the faith was wrestled with. For example, Peter was once corrected by the Apostle Paul.

As predicted by the Apostles, a variety of different ideas about Christ and about God were advanced by people claiming to be Christians. These doctrines had to be tested against the teachings of the Apostles; remember, there was not yet a written body of Christian texts. The Apostolic Tradition, those things taught orally by the Apostles, was to be the guide for Truth. This was in accordance with the directive Christ gave when he said, "Whoever hears you, hears Me." It was to the apostles (that is, the authoratative Church) that this statement was made. It was NOT made to the body of believers at large.

Teachings at variance with apostolic tradition were rejected as "heresies", that is, as false teachings. Only the truth as Christ passed it on to the Apostles is true. Eventually, in the 4th century, these apostolic traditions became the basis for the establishment of the Canon, that is, the collection of sacred writings Christians worldwide today call the Bible. The Church reviewed thousands of texts, measuring each against apostolic Tradition, and included only those which did not differ from those Traditions. The Christian Bible, whether used by Catholics or Protestants, is a Catholic text. It is interesting to note that, although the Catholic Church organized and established the canon of Scripture, there are many today who try to find within Scripture proof that the Church lacks authority or authenticity. Should that argument ever be found to be true, the Bible itself loses authority; if the Church that chose the canonical texts had no real authority to do so, then the canon itself must be seen as suspect. This is clearly not the case, for the Truth of Scripture has been borne out over the course of nearly 2000 years of human experience.

The keeping of the Traditions, which formed the early Church and led to the structure of the Bible, was, and remains, a central obligation of the Church. Even in today's secular world, when many people reject the fullness of the faith because it is inconvenient, or because individualism makes an authoritative Church seem outdated, the Church maintains that it is not within its power to change the Traditions as handed down by the Apostles.

Gradually, even though it was still illegal to be Christian, a certain amount of organizational structure began to develop. Because it happened in the Roman Empire, the pattern and names from Roman government were adopted by the church. When it finally became legal to be Christian, the catholic Church flourished as never before. As there was, at that time, only one Church, in keeping with Christ's priestly prayer for unity,

Sunday, February 1, 2009

Three Same Sex Relationships in the Bible

The Bible describes three emotionally close relationships between two people of the same gender. They appear to have progressed well beyond a casual friendship. There is, however, no unmistakable evidence that they were sexually active relationships. The individuals are:

Ruth and Naomi

Ruth 1:16-17 and 2:10-11 describe their close friendship. Perhaps the best known passage from this book is Ruth 1:16-17 which is often read out during opposite-sex and same-sex marriage and union ceremonies:

  • "Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if anything but death separates you and me." (NIV)
Ruth 1:14, referring to the relationship between Ruth and Naomi, mentions that "Ruth clave onto her." (KJV) The Hebrew word translated here as "clave" is identical to that used in the description of a heterosexual marriage in Genesis 2:24: " Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (KJV) This book was probably included in the Hebrew Scriptures because King David was one of the descendents of Ruth. Although this same-sex friendship appears to have been very close, there is no proof that it was a sexually active relationship.

David and Jonathan

Passages in 1 Samuel & 2 Samuel describe, among other events, a extremely close bond between David and Jonathan. Jonathan was the son of King Saul, and next in line for the throne. But Samuel anointed David to be the next king. This produced a strong conflict in the mind of Saul. Interpretation: Religious conservatives generally view the friendship of David and Jonathan as totally non-sexual. They find it inconceivable that God would allow a famous king of Israel to be a homosexual.Some religious liberals believe that David and Jonathan had a consensual homosexual relationship - in many ways, a prototype of many of today's gay partnerships.

1 Samuel 18:1

  • "...Jonathan became one in spirit with David and he loved him as himself." (NIV)
  • "...the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul" (KJV)

Most translations use the term "soul" rather than "spirit" to describe the bond. They speak of an "immediate bond of love", their souls being "in unison," their souls being "knit", etc. Genesis 2:7, as written in the original Hebrew, describes how God blew the spirit into the body of Adam that God had formed from earth, so that Adam became a living soul. This means that "soul", in the ancient Israelite times, represents a combination of body and spirit. Thus the two men appear to have loved each other both physically and emotionally.

  • "From that day, Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house." (NIV)

David left his parent's home and moved to Saul's where he would be with Jonathan. This is a strong indication that the relationship was extremely close. It echoes the passage marriage passage in Genesis 2:24: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

1 Samuel 18:3-4
  • "And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt." (NIV)

Since people in those days did not wear underwear, Jonathan stripped himself naked in front of David. That would be considered extremely unusual behavior (then and now) unless their relationship was physical.

1 Samuel 18:20-21
  • "Now Saul's daughter Michal was in love with David, and when they told Saul about it, he was pleased. 'I will give her to him', he thought, 'so that she may be a snare to him and so that the hand of the Philistines may be against him'. Now you have a second opportunity to become my son-in-law" (NIV)

In the King James Version, the end of Verse 21 reads:

  • "Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the one of the twain." (KJV)

Saul's belief was that David would be so distracted by a wife that he would not be an effective fighter and would be killed by the Philistines. He offered first his daughter Merab, but that was rejected, presumably by her. Then he offered Michal. There is an interesting phrase used at the end of verse 21. In both the NIV and KJV, it would seem that David's first opportunity to be a son-in-law was with the older daughter Merab, and his second was with the younger daughter Michal. The KJV preserves the original text in its clearest form; it implies that David would become Saul's son-in-law through "one of the twain." "Twain" means "two", so the verse seems to refer to one of Saul's two daughters. Unfortunately, this is a mistranslation. The underlined phrase "the one of" does not exist in the Hebrew original. The words are shown in italics in the King James Version; this is an admission by the translators that they made the words up. Thus, if the KJV translators had been truly honest, they would have written: "Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the twain."

In modern English, this might be written: "Today, you are son-in-law with two of my children" That would refer to both his son Jonathan and his daughter Michal. The Hebrew original would appear to recognize David and Jonathan's homosexual relationship as equivalent to David and Michal's heterosexual marriage. Saul may have approved or disapproved of the same-sex relationship; but at least he appears to have recognized it. The KJV highlight their re-writing of the Hebrew original by placing the three words in italics; the NIV translation is clearly deceptive.

1 Samuel 20:41
  • "After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with is face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together - but David wept the most." (NIV)
  • "...and they kissed one another and wept with one another, until David exceeded." (KJV)"...and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David got control of himself." (Amplified Bible)
  • "and they sadly shook hands, tears running down their cheeks until David could weep no more." (Living Bible)
  • "They kissed each other and wept together until David got control of himself." (Modern Language)
  • "They kissed each other and wept aloud together." (New American Bible)
  • "Then David and Jonathan kissed each other. They cried together, but David cried the most." (New Century Version)
  • "Then they kissed one another and shed tears together, until David's grief was even greater than Jonathan's." (Revised English Bible)
  • "...and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David recovered himself." (Revised Standard Version)

The translators of the Living Bible apparently could not handle the thought of two adult men kissing, so they mistranslated the passage by saying that the two men shook hands! This is somewhat less than honest. The original Hebrew text says that they kissed each other and wept together until David became great. The word which means "great" in this passage is "gadal" in the original Hebrew. The same word is used elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures to refer to King Solomon being greater than all other kings. Some theologians interpret "gadal" in this verse as indicating that David had an erection. However, the thoughts of David becoming sexually aroused after kissing Jonathan may have been too threatening for Bible translators. They either deleted the ending entirely or created one of their own.

2 Samuel 1:26:
  • "I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women."

In the society of ancient Israel, it was not considered proper for a man and woman to have a platonic relationship. Men and women rarely spoke to each other in public. Since David's only relationships with women would have been sexual in nature, then he must be referring to sexual love here. It would not make sense in this verse to compare platonic love for a man with sexual love for a woman; they are two completely different phenomena. It would appear that David is referring to his sexual love for Jonathan.

Daniel and Ashpenaz

Daniel 1:9 refers to Ashpenaz, the chief of the court officials of Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon.

  • "Now God had caused the official to show favor and sympathy to Daniel" (NIV)
  • "Now God had brought Daniel into favor and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs" (KJV)
  • "Now God made Daniel to find favor, compassion and loving-kindness with the chief of the eunuchs" (Amplified Bible)
  • "Now, as it happens, God had given the superintendent a special appreciation for Daniel and sympathy for his predicament" (Living Bible)
  • "Then God granted Daniel favor and sympathy from the chief of the eunuchs" (Modern Language)
  • "Though God had given Daniel the favor and sympathy of the chief chamberlain..." (New American Bible)
  • "God made Ashpenaz want to be kind and merciful to Daniel" (New Century Version)
  • "And God gave Daniel favor and compassion in the sight of the chief of the eunuchs" (Revised Standard Version)
  • "God caused the master to look on Daniel with kindness and goodwill" (Revised English Version)
Interpretation: Religious conservatives generally view the friendship of Daniel and Ashpenaz as totally non-sexual. It is inconceivable that God would allow a famous prophet of Israel to be a homosexual.Some religious liberals detect the possibility of a homosexual relationship here. The Hebrew words which describe the relationship between Daniel and Ashpenaz are chesed v'rachamim The most common translation of chesed is "mercy". V'rachamim is in a plural form which is used to emphasize its relative importance. It has multiple meanings: "mercy" and "physical love". It is unreasonable that the original Hebrew would read that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and mercy." A more reasonable translation would thus be that Ashpenaz showed mercy and engaged in physical love" with Daniel. Of course, this would be unacceptable to later translators, so they substitute more innocuous terms. The KJV reference to "tender love" would appear to be the closest to the truth. One might question whether Daniel and Ashpenaz could sexually consummate their relationship. They were both eunuchs. Apparently, when males are castrated after puberty, they still retain sexual drive. It is interesting to note that no other romantic interest or sexual partner of Daniel was mentioned elsewhere in the Bible.

Monday, January 26, 2009

Are Protestant Faiths Safe?

I am writing this blog in light of the increase in hate groups and hate crimes which have become very troubling. Many are White Supremist's but I'm sure not all.

From the history of the bible, we know that Jesus was Jewish but started and inspired the Catholic religion. This is the first Christian religion.

Protestant religions branched out from the Catechism because humans wanted to tweak and refine their beliefs. They were started by man; therefore, have the potential to be harmful IF they were started by a person or a group of people whom have a personal agenda.

How do we know the difference between a safe and unsafe faith group? By open-minded research. There are several websites that take a unbiased review of faith, one of my favorites is http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_inte.htm .

Regardless of our own personal faith, I think the basics are to stay tolerant and loving of all people regardless of their faith, race, sexual orientation.

Whether you are christian, wiccan, buddist, agnostic, or believe in karma, love and acceptance is the most important of all. Do not judge others because they are different because no one faith is the absolute.

Sunday, January 25, 2009

Random Things....


1. I sometimes question my faith, i.e.: God, life after death, creation, true sins? I think I'm half Catholic and half Native American Spiritualist.

2. My children are the best thing I've ever done.

3. I believe in equal rights for all, regardless of race or sexual orientation. Prejudices p!ss me off.

4. I think smoking in public places should be banned via federal law - nationwide.

5. I am interested in learning about other faiths such as Zen Buddism and Wiccan.

6. I haven't drank soda, regular or diet, since I was 14.

7. I've never been drunk. Really.

8. I recently realized that I really like dogs.

9. I LOVE Au Bon Pain! OMG, the pastries!

10. I drink 5 large glasses of hot tea every day, like 80 ounces!

11. I love old movies, real life crime books, and top 40 pop/R&B music.

12. I am still friends with my grade school and junior high friends.

13. I get very annoyed with people who are self-righteous, judgemental and gossip negatively about others for their own entertainment.

14. This page is very interesting: http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerrant.htm

15. I love reconnecting with classmates on facebook and seeing how much I have in common with some whom I never got the opportunity to hang out with much in high school.

16. I am crafty: I paint, draw, make jewely, make soap, make candles, weave baskets.

17. I love to decorate. I wish I could do it for a living.

18. I laugh A LOT! And I cry at movies, books, and when someone else cries....

19. I would like to try writing. Like a book or a magazine or newspaper column.

20. I question the long term safety of Botox. After all, it is a toxic poison....

21. I think I have very good communication skills. At least, my youngest says I should be Oprah... Yeah, I'd like to have her money!

22. I have a crush on Barack Obama. He is HOT! Ok, and inspirational, too.

23. I love Nancy Grace and am 110% positive Casey Anthony did it. I feel sorry for George Anthony.

24. Mammograms freak me out!

25. I want a tramp stamp and a belly button piercing.

26. I use herbs, sometimes in place of antibiotics.

27. I once took a foot reflexology class for illness.

28. Like all moms, I embarrass my kids.

29. I got my first ticket at age 40. Grrrrr....

30. I would love to learn the art of permanent cosmetics.

31. I believe in ghosts.

32. I can usually see the good in everyone.

33. I believe that nothing is black and white but shades of gray regarding beliefs, morality, etc.