Forum Replies Created
How would inclusive language be unacceptable? And unacceptable according to whom? It is the official translation approved by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops so it is not banned by Rome. It’s just that the U.S. Bishops choose not to use it. In fact, I think most other Engligh speaking countries use it accept for the United States. ” title=”Confused” />
Inclusive language does not harm a translation so long as certain things are kept faithful to its original meaning. When something is changed to be gender inclusive it is usually changing words like “man” or “mankind” that refer to all people to words such as “human being” or “people” or “humankind.” With those words, as far as the New Testament is concerned, turning them into the latter three is an accepted translation/interpretation and does no harm to the text.
Now if somewhere it said “man” as a pronoun and it was changed to “person” that would just be stupid, but that is not what gender inclusivity is.
Well, from what I know the best English versions for the United States are the New American Bible and New Revised Standard Version with Deuterocanonicals. They are somewhat similar, but the NRSV is used more for scholarship purposes for those that cannot read the ancient original languages of the Bible.
I really think the KJV is archaic no matter what some Baptists say. It is very out of date and to me it makes the Bible feel so distant. It’s not written in my language so how am I supposed to connect with it? There is no English version protected by God as some would like to say and if there were I doubt it would be the KJV. Why would God want to send us something so useless? All the thou’s and ye’s are confusing.
It is quite alright. I do the same thing from time to time. ” title=”Very Happy” />
Sorry, I just totally misread it ” title=”Smile” />
I must not have been thinking too hard or not wanting to when I read it the first time. Now that I read it again it makes much more sense.
Sure,…My past post was meant to go along the lines of using the same terminology of those who support abortions. Those who support it often see the baby, not as a real person, but as a fetus. And today, more of society is using this same term for an unborn baby. So by the previous post, I meant that sooner or later, society may start calling Baby Showers “Fetus Showers.”
There is also some other meaning to this. More often than not, an unborn child is only called a baby if he or she is wanted. If not wanted, calling the baby a “fetus” must make the baby “easier on the conscience” for those involved to abort. This is why we cannot let ourselves become adapted to this pro-abortion terminology. If we do, we have already fulfilled a part of their agenda.
Just remember, though, that this is only possible because Jesus promised the protection of the Holy Spirit and it’s through the spirit that we have our faith preserved.
[quote:20eiikoa]Here is another one to think about: If the baby is not a person inside the womb, why don’t we have fetus showers?[/quote:20eiikoa]
hmmm….I’m not quite sure I get this one. Could you please explain this a little more?
I’m a big music gal myself. What does ‘fostering evangelization’ entail? Is that music related?[/quote:1lbdte7x]
yeah Phil, that’s a good question. Could you give a quick synopsis of “fostering evangelization?”
” title=”Smile” />
Amen. ” title=”Very Happy” />
Here is another one to think about: If the baby is not a person inside the womb, why don’t we have fetus showers?
Phil – do you still sing?
What kinds of singing do you do?
I agree that it is very contradictory that the organizations that support abortions say that is the woman’s choice and then pressure her into doing something which she does not feel is entirely her choice.
Who should be consulted when a women is thinking of having an abortion? Of course the woman is there, but like you said what about the father, or possibly even the grandparents? Who can speak for the baby? By leaving these others out of discussion, it makes for a selfish decision on mom’s part.
Well, we think a lot alike! But it is true, I have been doing saintly work, I mean reading up on the saints. ” title=”Very Happy” /> There are a lot of them. It sure offers hope us still here on earth that there is a chance for us to become saints too!
Well, what’s really interesting is that the women that support abortion are very vehement in proclaiming that it is a woman’s choice and all that. Well, what about the father? Doesn’t he have a say? It’s his child too. Just because the woman is the one carrying the baby doesn’t mean that the decision is solely up to her.
Actually, there’s a lot that can be said about all of this including what I just said, but my main point is that it is not solely the woman’s choice and that there are many other factors (people) involved in being pregnant than just the woman.
hey that’s pretty funny – I made a topic almost the same thing as this one right around the same time you did!
It is unfortunate, though, that there are people out there who actually distort what happened in history. Take for example the fallacy that the Catholic Church was started by Constantine. This is totally untrue and far removed from reality.
History can also work against Catholics because of episodes such as the Crusades and the Inquisition.
Speaking of just any person(s) not being able to lead the Church, as a Catholic I feel blessed that the Pope has infallibility when it comes to God’s word and finding what that means for us today. Now, especially there are people who twist or “tweak” the passages of the Bible to have a meaning that was not intended by the author (God). Yes, the Pope is human, but obviously he is not just an Average Joe. His papal lineage is traced back to Peter who was the rock on whom Christ built his Church. So the point of all this is that Christ put a lot of faith and trust into Peter to look after His bride, the Church, thus, Christ knew that Peter and his successors would be following in Christ footsteps as best as humanly possible, and therefore, the Pope is to be trusted by Christ’s followers.
I’m pretty sure that’s why Jesus called 12 people specifically to lead the church after Jesus’ death and resurrection. It certainly wouldn’t seem that Jesus wants just any person(s) out there to shepherd his flock.
Yes, cheers John!
The biggest thing about interreligious dialogue is focusing on our similarities more than or before our differences so that we may be reconciled and not further divided.