Popes, Cardinals, Catholicism, Evil and King James – an Andrea’s eye View

Recently the Pope visited the UK.

It was a mixed kind of event.

The biggest challenge seemed to be the Catholic Church’s involvement in child abuse over the years.

In addition to expressing sorrow over this … the Pope expressed concern that religious views … especially Christian views … maybe especially Catholic views … and people … are being marginalised and their views and values are not being taken into account sufficiently.

But I can see why the un-churched might not see a problem in this. Looking around the world, religion has a very mixed history.

It isn’t all bad … but bad enough to mean that almost anyone involved in any mainstream religion ought to be prepared to apologise for past misdeeds before suggesting agendas for the present and the future. And some way of making sure that it doesn’t happen again.

I guess the same goes for political parties and a lot of non-religious groups as well.

Cardinal Walter Kasper hit the news in the UK just before the Papal Visit … though what he actually said in the context in which he meant it to be heard is something that the media seemed to lose track of.

For a little while I gave some thought to the Church’s role in past misdemeanours.

I typed the following search into the little box displayed at www.google.co.uk

is the catholic church evil

The second result in the list that came back tells me that God Hates the Catholic Church!

The thing I find difficult to understand is that the person that wrote this stuff expected to be taken seriously.

Even harder to understand is that some people agree.

And even harder … how can someone write all that stuff and then … at the very top of the page in bright red letters make the following quote:

"The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate." -Proverb 8:13 

My mind is boggling.

I then took a look at the home page: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/

Oh my gosh!

Which led me to: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/NIV/why.htm where Mr Stuart tells me:

If you are using the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible, and continue to do so after reading this article, then you are truly blinded by Satan, or just don't care.

At this point Andrea breathes a sigh of relief … no NIV for me.

There’s a part of me that thinks – so what? What if David J. Stewart thinks this?

And another part of me thinks – David J. Stewart should not go unchallenged.

So … here goes … in my opinion … David J. Stewart is a misguided man who misunderstands the book which he proclaims to be divinely inspired and infallible. He’s lost touch with the God that is described in the New Testament. He has made the book that He reads into his God.

I guess that he might see me as an abomination … under the influence of Satan. The only way I know to disagree with that it to discuss things rationally and reasonably. But maybe I’m on a loser when disagreeing with the infallible.

The letter that Paul wrote to the Galatians says:

... the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance …

Or in the 1611 version:

…  the fruit of the spirit is loue, ioy, peace, long suffering, gentlenesse, goodnesse, faith, meekenesse, temperance …

It would be nice to see a little of this at http://www.jesus-is-savior.com. But I’m not holding my breath.

Having spent a little while reading some of this stuff I wondered if there were other people that had similar views on the King James 1611 version of the Bible.

And Google led me here: King James Bible Believers

Mostly it saddens me. It seems that people are willing to buy into infallibility at the cost of their reason.

I left a message in the guest book:

http://kjv1611.org.uk/hivyersay/index.php dated 21 September 2010:

I'm convinced that you are mistaken ... but have the feeling that no amount of discussion will change your mind.
Infallibility - real or imagined - is a difficult thing to enter into a discussion with.

The reply:

Andrea:
You signed our guest book saying we are mistaken. What may we ask 'are we mistaken about'? What article are you referring to?
Webmaster

 

It begins with the infallibility of KJV 1611 thing. And the way that “reason” seems to be belittled and scorned whenever it seems to conflict with the infallible.

But it doesn’t end there. I read parts of the article at: http://kjv1611.org.uk/What%20Happens%20to%20Babies%20and%20the%20Retarded%20at%20Death.htm. There was a time when I might have thought the same. But really … to follow this logic to its extreme … wouldn’t it be better if most of humanity had never grown beyond babyhood?

The page that I first visited at this site was: http://kjv1611.org.uk/Questions%20for%20those%20who%20think%20the%20KJV%20Only%20are%20wrong!.htm

Here are the questions from the web site … and my thoughts in italics:

Let me ask you to answer the following questions about my position:

1. How many people am I leading to Hell because I believe the AV1611 is infallible?

If there is no hell … then no one.

If there is a hell … then perhaps there is just one person that turned away from Christ because they found it hard to see how anyone could make such a big thing out of this.

And if there is one … perhaps there is another.

2. How many young Christians will grow up with a stunted knowledge of the Bible, if I teach them to read it with the belief it is infallible and the very words of God?

To read it in the belief that this one translation is infallible requires a leap of faith that, I believe, discredits the word faith. How can it be infallible? It’s a translation. Really? How can it? And what happens when they discover the truth?

3. What is wrong with holding up the AV1611 and telling Bible-believing Christians, "You can trust every word"?

There are mistakes in the translation. Really. There are.

4. How much of my reward will I lose for trusting God to keep his "WORDS" to every generation?

Which generation? Which language? Where? When? You mean God promised somewhere that there would be a 100% accurate, unequivocal and unambiguous translation of the Bible in English? For ever? Always? 

5. If I am not allowed to believe the AV1611 is infallible, then which version should hold that distinction?

You may believe what you will … but really … honestly … there isn’t one.

6. If no version can hold that distinction, what do you suggest I tell my grand-children the next time they read Psalm 12:6-7?

This would be a start: http://kjvonlydebate.com/2010/03/17/psalm-126-7-preservation/

7. If I am forced to learn Hebrew and Greek before I can study the "words" of God, will you pay for our lessons?

I didn’t mention Hebrew nor Greek. And you do know … they aren’t infallible either. Honestly. 

8. Please tell me why you still "preach from" the AV1611 but do not believe it is infallible?

Actually I don’t. 

9. Which Bible do you use in your private studies and which one is the "best translation"?

None. But if I did … and when I did … looking at different translations added meaning and aided understanding … tended to avoid bigotry. It wasn’t ever about the best translation. It was about understanding and doing.

10. Why can't you just leave us "ignorant brethren" alone with our belief in the infallibility of the Scriptures and let us retain the title "Bible-believers", while you could use the title "Bible-correctors and interpreters"?

Mainly, I think, because you make such an issue of the truth and base the premise of your truth upon what seems to be an untruth. Also … if you cannot leave other people alone, you can expect others to not leave you alone.

So … there you go.

Of course … I am definitely not infallible.

Well … unless I am having a discussion with Sally, Sarah or Katie … in which case everyone knows I am always right. The clue is almost in my name :)

I’ve left the following message in the guestbook dated 27 September 2010:

Thank you for replying to my earlier comment of September 21st.
I believe that you are misguided over the issue of the infallibility of the KVJ1611 version - but also about other things as well.
I've written in a little more length in my blog at: http://andrea-wright.blogspot.com/2010/09/popes-cardinals-catholicism-evil-and.html
I do though, respect your right to your beliefs and also respect that you are prepared to allow people to leave messages on your guest book even where the message is in disagreement with you.
Andrea

Of Sexualty and Gender

Towards the end of last year (December 23rd) I was, as usual, listening to the radio on the way to work.

There was a story about some words of the Pope. The same story was included in the news headlines on television and featured in headlines on Google news.

I haven’t read the actual words that were written and spoken – my Italian isn’t up to it. So my thoughts are based on second hand accounts.

On the radio, the suggestion was that the Pope had said that issues of humanity and gender need to be addressed and dealt with just as urgently as issues of the environment.

Reports say that no mention was made of homosexuality. But people seemed to be making accusations of homophobia. The implication seemed to be that gays, lesbians and the transgendered were posing a threat to the survival of the human race that was on a par with the threat posed by Global warming.

There were two ladies on the radio sharing their views on what the Pope had, or had not, said.

The first, who always referred to the Poe as “The Holy Father”, made the point that homosexuality is patently wrong – not just because the Church says so – but because biology and science say so. If everyone was homosexual then the human race would be doomed. Where would all the children come from?

There seemed to be a certain irony in this statement. The thought crossed my mind. If every man became a priest, or every woman a nun, then the human race would be doomed in just the same way. Where would all the children come from?

Of course, I don’t think that it is expected that every man should be a priest nor every woman a nun. But, nor do I expect every man and woman to be gay.

Ma y years ago, in my born-again evangelical days, I wrote an open letter to the University magazine at the place where I was a student. It expressed similar sentiments to those voiced by the lady on the radio. It seemed obvious to me that nature didn’t design people to be homosexual. I remember a small delegation of representatives from the Anglican Society, the Catholic Society, the Christian Union and the Methodist Society dropped by to congratulate me. It makes me smile to think about this – I know for sure that we did not all agree on doctrines such as the Virgin Birth, the Immaculate Conception, Papal infallibility or lots and lots of other things. But homosexuality was something we all felt the same way about.

Of course, people change - me too. And although Margaret Thatcher may not have been a lady in favour of U-turns, I’m happy enough to have made a few of them myself.

In my student days my feelings about homosexuality were strongly affected my understanding of what the Bible was. As a Bible believing Christian, all my beliefs and feelings were affected by this – in theory at least. I fell into the “typical conservative” camp as described at http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm . It was because I believed that the Bible was the Word of God and that the Bible condemned homosexuality that I wrote my letter to the University magazine.

In fact, I have always realised that the way that Nature works is not always the way that societies want to work. For example, Nature seems to select and favour the strong and allows the weak to pass away. Natures answer to high death rates seems to be to work towards even higher birth rates.

There was a time when I would have explained this contradiction between Nature and Society in terms of the “fall”. I believed that, in some ways, Nature had become broken when humanity decided to turn away from God. But not completely broken. So some aspects of Nature work in line with God’s will, but others do not.

I did, however, miss the point that it is, perhaps, disingenuous to use Nature in support of some theories and yet disregard other aspects of Nature wherever it didn’t fit in with the theories.

These days I think that Nature of itself offers little in the way of guidance on moral and ethical issues. Condemning homosexuality using Nature as the basis for the condemnation seems akin to using Nature in support of a policy that would cull the sick and elderly before they became a burden to society.

So, I’m left feeling that whatever Nature has to say about sexuality is not the final word. Societies are not obliged to condone or condemn certain aspects of human behaviour just because it appears to be natural or unnatural.

Ultimately what we condone or condemn is based on what we believe to be right or wrong. And there are many things that can contribute to these beliefs. Nature. The Bible. The Pope. Parents. Peers. Science. Religion.

My own feelings about Gay and Lesbian issues has been influenced by Indigo Girls. I discovered their music quite a few years ago when Napster was a source of vast amounts of music that you could download free. One night in a fit of nostalgia I had been doing some web searching – I almost used the word googling – but maybe Google had not yet been invented, so it may have been yahooing. I was looking for antiwar songs – or at least songs that included the word “war” in the lyrics. In amongst the results was a song called “You and me of the 10,000 wars”. I’d never heard of Indigo Girls and if Napster had not existed that would have been the end of it. However, courtesy of Napster, I was listening to the song ten minutes later – 56K modems took quite a while to download songs. In the years since then I have attended 5 or 6 Indigo Girls concerts and purchased all of their CDs – none of which would have happened with that first free download – RIAA please note!

I’d been listening to Indigo Girls music for a little while when I began to find out a bit about who they are. It was kind of surprising to discover that the love songs that they wrote were quite likely about lesbian relationships. I hadn’t been able to tell from the words. The words just seemed to express love. It’s hard to remember what it was that I’d thought before. But in lots of ways it came as a revelation of what maybe should have been obvious. Gay and lesbian love isn’t different from love. Without knowing it, Emily Saliers and Amy Ray have helped me begin to understand things in a different way than I used to.

I think, as well, that as my opinions on Gay and Lesbian relationships has changed it has become possible for me to begin to accept my own sexuality. I am, like most transvestites, heterosexual. But I guess I am not 100% macho male either.

There was a time when I felt guilty about that. I hid it. I denied it. I buried it. I was, I believe, burying myself.

I was a long time coming, but I have accepted myself. I am happy with the whole TV / transgendered thing.. I don’t feel bad about it. I don’t at all understand it. But that’s ok – I don’t understand lots of things.

A song that Emily Salliers wrote has an interesting perspective on beliefs. Is it beliefs that make people – or people that make beliefs?
We're sculpted from youth
The chipping away makes me weary
And as for the truth
It seems like we just pick a theory

And it's the one that justifies
Our daily lives
And backs us with quiver and arrows

To protect openings
Cause when the warring begins
How quickly the wide open narrows

It may be that one day whoever is Pope and whoever is leading all those Conservative Evangelical Christian groups might be able to see sexuality from a different perspective. Over the years churches have learned to accept things that, once upon a time, would have been an anathema. Perhaps sometime in the future people will look back and smile and think ... “how could they ever have thought that?”