Search forums

Forums

Export thread

News in Catholicism

Oct 21, 2009#1

Steven Soderburgin

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/21/world/europe/21pope.html

VATICAN CITY — In an extraordinary bid to lure traditionalist Anglicans en masse, the Vatican said Tuesday that it would make it easier for Anglicans uncomfortable with their church’s acceptance of female priests and openly gay bishops to join the Roman Catholic Church while retaining many of their traditions.

Anglicans would be able “to enter full communion with the Catholic Church while preserving elements of the distinctive Anglican spiritual and liturgical patrimony,” Cardinal William J. Levada, the prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said at a news conference here.

It was unclear why the Vatican made the announcement now. But it seemed a rare opportunity, audaciously executed, to capitalize on deep divisions within the Anglican Church to attract new members at a time when the Catholic Church has been trying to reinvigorate itself in Europe.

The issue has long been close to the heart of Pope Benedict XVI, who for years has worked to build ties to those Anglicans who, like conservative Catholics, spurn the idea of female and gay priests.

Oct 21, 2009#2

Silver Jelly

Hate gays and women? Then give Catholicism a try!

Kissinger said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/21/wo...pe/21pope.html

VATICAN CITY — In an extraordinary bid to lure traditionalist Anglicans en masse, the Vatican said Tuesday that it would make it easier for Anglicans uncomfortable with their church’s acceptance of female priests and openly gay bishops to join the Roman Catholic Church while retaining many of their traditions.

Anglicans would be able “to enter full communion with the Catholic Church while preserving elements of the distinctive Anglican spiritual and liturgical patrimony,” Cardinal William J. Levada, the prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said at a news conference here.

It was unclear why the Vatican made the announcement now. But it seemed a rare opportunity, audaciously executed, to capitalize on deep divisions within the Anglican Church to attract new members at a time when the Catholic Church has been trying to reinvigorate itself in Europe.

The issue has long been close to the heart of Pope Benedict XVI, who for years has worked to build ties to those Anglicans who, like conservative Catholics, spurn the idea of female and gay priests.

Click to expand...

Maybe I should become Anglican.

Oct 21, 2009#3

Shakey

Hate gays and women? Then give Catholicism a try!

I hope that works out well for them. :rolleyes:

Oct 21, 2009#4

strawman

Hate gays and women? Then give Catholicism a try!

So you don't believe in religious freedom, you'd rather force people to conform to your belief system?

I heard third-hand that some 'international human rights group' has crafted a set of 'basic freedoms' which includes forcing churches to drop any restrictions based on gender, sex, etc. I doubt that it amounts to much, but it seems to be part of a general trend.

It's very odd, I think, that people are now considering a reduction in religious freedom to be acceptable, whereas this is one of the primary reasons America was formed - to prevent the government from telling churches what they can and can't believe in.

-Adam

---------- Post added at 04:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:00 PM ----------

Also, given the inflammatory title this should probably be in flame wars, not politics.

-Adam

Oct 21, 2009#5

Dave

Hate gays and women? Then give Catholicism a try!

I feel about this like I do the Boy Scouts. They can think anything they like but nobody can force me to think like them.

The ONLY issue I have with this is that discrimination is against US laws and these churches should have to abide by these laws due to their tax exempt status or they should lose said status.

Shit, I think religions should be taxed anyway.

Oct 21, 2009#6

AshburnerX

Hate gays and women? Then give Catholicism a try!

stienman said:
So you don't believe in religious freedom, you'd rather force people to conform to your belief system?

I heard third-hand that some 'international human rights group' has crafted a set of 'basic freedoms' which includes forcing churches to drop any restrictions based on gender, sex, etc. I doubt that it amounts to much, but it seems to be part of a general trend.

It's very odd, I think, that people are now considering a reduction in religious freedom to be acceptable, whereas this is one of the primary reasons America was formed - to prevent the government from telling churches what they can and can't believe in.

-Adam

Perhaps, but we realized that SOME reduction in Religious freedom was inevitable right around the time we started killing people for being witches in the US (though I'm not sure if Salem's witch trials were before or after the founding of the country). Some tenants of some religions, such as animal/human sacrifice, drug use, and murdering of heretics, are restricted because of local and federal laws. It's not exactly like it's anything new.

Dave said:
I feel about this like I do the Boy Scouts. They can think anything they like but nobody can force me to think like them.

The ONLY issue I have with this is that discrimination is against US laws and these churches should have to abide by these laws due to their tax exempt status or they should lose said status.

Shit, I think religions should be taxed anyway.

Taxing some religions would be problematic... for instance, how would you tax the Roman Catholic church? It operates out of it's own country. I somehow think it would be bad policy to give a sovereign head of state a bill and tell him to pay up or his followers can't have a place of worship.

Oct 21, 2009#7

Shakey

Hate gays and women? Then give Catholicism a try!

I think they can do whatever the hell they want. All they're doing is sealing their own eventual fate.

Oct 21, 2009#8

Covar

Hate gays and women? Then give Catholicism a try!

AshburnerX said:
Perhaps, but we realized that SOME reduction in Religious freedom was inevitable right around the time we started killing people for being witches in the US (though I'm not sure if Salem's witch trials were before or after the founding of the country). ...

Before. Well Before.

Oct 21, 2009#9

Steven Soderburgin

Hate gays and women? Then give Catholicism a try!

They can think whatever they like, but I think you're being naive if you don't see this as a purely political move that has very little, if anything, to do with actual religious belief systems.

---------- Post added at 08:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:10 PM ----------

And Re: the thread title, that's pretty much exactly what the church itself is saying. They're saying, "If you are upset that women and gays can obtain equal station within your church, then come join the Catholic Church because we continue to marginalize gays and women. We'll even make it easier to make the switch and you'll get to keep most of your traditions."

Oct 21, 2009#10

Covar

Hate gays and women? Then give Catholicism a try!

Kissinger said:
They can think whatever they like, but I think you're being naive if you don't see this as a purely political move that has very little, if anything, to do with actual religious belief systems.

That's also because there is very little difference in the actual religious belief systems. Lutherans are the same way. Tend to agree with Catholics on quite a lot of things.

Oct 21, 2009#11

Dave

Hate gays and women? Then give Catholicism a try!

Tax the individual churches and their incomes. You don't have to bother with the Vatican.

Oct 21, 2009#12

Cajungal

Hate gays and women? Then give Catholicism a try!

I'm gonna go ahead and move this as per a request. I was on the fence about it, but the title IS pretty inflammatory, and it could get crazy in here. Sorry if anyone is bugged by it, but at least you'll know who to be mad at.

<----

Oct 21, 2009#13

strawman

Hate gays and women? Then give Catholicism a try!

Kissinger said:
Re: the thread title, that's pretty much exactly what the church itself is saying. They're saying, "If you are upset that women and gays can obtain equal station within your church, then come join the Catholic Church because we continue to marginalize gays and women. We'll even make it easier to make the switch and you'll get to keep most of your traditions."

I appreciate that you feel this way about the Catholic church and many other religious institutions that have similar restrictions.

However I would offer a different interpretation:

"If you believe your church is changing according to the precepts of man, rather than staying true to the precepts of God, feel free to join with us in affirming our belief that God created us, Male and Female, for His own purpose."

You don't have to agree with them, but the title of the thread is a direct attack on a particular religion. It does not invite reasoned discussion, but blind attacks on a belief system.

-Adam

Oct 21, 2009#14

makare

Hate gays and women? Then give Catholicism a try!

There is freedom to practice religion.. not freedom to practice religion without being criticized. That is a mistake alot of people seem to make. You have the right to free speech, doesn't mean people have to like what you say.

Oct 21, 2009#15

The Lovely Boehner

Hate gays and women? Then give Catholicism a try!

Yo, moving this to flame wars is absolute BULLSHIT. You're saying we can't be inflammatory towards public institutions, people, celebrities? There have been no personal attacks in here.

Oct 21, 2009#16

Shakey

Hate gays and women? Then give Catholicism a try!

Charlie Dont Surf said:
Yo, moving this to flame wars is absolute BULLSHIT. You're saying we can't be inflammatory towards public institutions, people, celebrities? There have been no personal attacks in here.

Does it matter? It still shows up in the new posts link for everyone to see.

Oct 21, 2009#17

Steven Soderburgin

Hate gays and women? Then give Catholicism a try!

stienman said:
I appreciate that you feel this way about the Catholic church and many other religious institutions that have similar restrictions.

However I would offer a different interpretation:

"If you believe your church is changing according to the precepts of man, rather than staying true to the precepts of God, feel free to join with us in affirming our belief that God created us, Male and Female, for His own purpose."

You don't have to agree with them, but the title of the thread is a direct attack on a particular religion. It does not invite reasoned discussion, but blind attacks on a belief system.

-Adam

Your interpretation is valid, and vastly different from my own. My attacks on belief systems that purposefully and openly seek to marginalize homosexuals and women are anything but "blind" though.

Oct 21, 2009#18

sixpackshaker

Hate gays and women? Then give Catholicism a try!

The opening message is a troll flame.

Oct 21, 2009#19

Espy

Hate gays and women? Then give Catholicism a try!

Kissinger said:
Hate gays and women?

From another thread:

Kissinger said:
Any drama that surrounds me is not intentional, I assure you. It was when I first started posting. It is no longer.

Oct 21, 2009#20

strawman

Hate gays and women? Then give Catholicism a try!

Charlie Dont Surf said:
Yo, moving this to flame wars is absolute BULLSHIT. You're saying we can't be inflammatory towards public institutions, people, celebrities? There have been no personal attacks in here.

I'm saying that if you post something that says, "Catholics hate gays and women" it's going to be put in the flame war section just as fast as "Gays hate religion"

Neither statement is objective, but worse both statements are invitations to attack something that may well be important to many forum members.

-Adam

Oct 21, 2009#21

Steven Soderburgin

Hate gays and women? Then give Catholicism a try!

If I wanted to intentionally start drama, the thread title would've said "Every single Catholic is a fucking bigot" and the body would've included a link to the article and a gif.

Oct 21, 2009#22

Dave

Hate gays and women? Then give Catholicism a try!

I see this as legitimate news with Kissinger but also see how it could quickly degenerate into Flames.

Not going to bash Cajun for the preemptive move.

Oct 21, 2009#23

Steven Soderburgin

Hate gays and women? Then give Catholicism a try!

stienman said:
I'm saying that if you post something that says, "Catholics hate gays and women" it's going to be put in the flame war section just as fast as "Gays hate religion"

Neither statement is objective, but worse both statements are invitations to attack something that may well be important to many forum members.

-Adam

I didn't say Catholics hate gays and women. I said the CATHOLIC CHURCH hates gays and women. The institution. The organization. The Pope.

Oct 21, 2009#24

Dave

Hate gays and women? Then give Catholicism a try!

Kissinger;280272][quote=stienman said:
I'm saying that if you post something that says, "Catholics hate gays and women" it's going to be put in the flame war section just as fast as "Gays hate religion"

Neither statement is objective, but worse both statements are invitations to attack something that may well be important to many forum members.

-Adam

I didn't say Catholics hate gays and women. I said the CATHOLIC CHURCH hates gays and women. The institution. The organization. The Pope.[/QUOTE]

The Pope - also known as a former Nazi Youth.

Oct 21, 2009#25

The Lovely Boehner

Hate gays and women? Then give Catholicism a try!

stienman;280269][quote=Charlie Dont Surf said:
Yo, moving this to flame wars is absolute BULLSHIT. You're saying we can't be inflammatory towards public institutions, people, celebrities? There have been no personal attacks in here.

Oct 21, 2009#26

sixpackshaker

Hate gays and women? Then give Catholicism a try!

Dave said:
The Pope - also known as a former Nazi Youth.

HOW DARE HE JOIN A MANDATORY ORGANIZATION AS A CHILD!!!!1

Oct 21, 2009#27

Dave

Hate gays and women? Then give Catholicism a try!

sixpackshaker;280282][quote=Dave said:
The Pope - also known as a former Nazi Youth.

Oct 21, 2009#28

Cajungal

Hate gays and women? Then give Catholicism a try!

Yeah, sorry, I thought some people would be upset. :\ But I left the redirected thing up longer than usual, at least. It was difficult to tell how things would go, and so I made a call. Wasn't sure who else was here.

If people are smart enough to click "NEW POST", they'll still find this place and they'll be able to discuss it. But frankly, as serious and kind of hostile things have been around here lately, I think I made the right move. It was a case-by-case kinda thing; I probably wouldn't have moved it on a different week.

So, sorry you're mad but them's the breaks. Enjoy yourselves!

Oct 21, 2009#29

strawman

Hate gays and women? Then give Catholicism a try!

Kissinger;280272][quote=stienman said:
I'm saying that if you post something that says, "Catholics hate gays and women" it's going to be put in the flame war section just as fast as "Gays hate religion"

Neither statement is objective, but worse both statements are invitations to attack something that may well be important to many forum members.

-Adam

I didn't say Catholics hate gays and women. I said the CATHOLIC CHURCH hates gays and women. The institution. The organization. The Pope.[/QUOTE]

You can split a hair as finely as you want. If you believe that no one in this forum will take this title as a personal attack on their belief system, then you are ignorant.

If you instead don't care how they take it, and prefer to believe that they should just suck it up, then you are arguing that inflammatory titles attacking homosexuality should not be moved to the flame subforum, even if the poster splits hairs and words it so it's not attacking homosexuals themselves, but the 'greater homosexual movement' or some lame, ignorant attempt at pretense.

-Adam

Oct 21, 2009#30

sixpackshaker

Hate gays and women? Then give Catholicism a try!

Dave;280283][quote=sixpackshaker;280282][quote=Dave said:
The Pope - also known as a former Nazi Youth.

HOW DARE HE JOIN A MANDATORY ORGANIZATION AS A CHILD!!!!1[/QUOTE]

Know anyone who turned them down? I do. They went to jail for it but they chose not to participate. You know, like a religious leader should have done?[/QUOTE]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-04-23-new-pope-defied-Nazis_x.htm

He avoided going as much as possible. But went enough to keep the tuition break by being in the mandatory organization.

Oct 21, 2009#31

Dave

Hate gays and women? Then give Catholicism a try!

sixpackshaker;280294][quote=Dave;280283][quote=sixpackshaker;280282][quote=Dave said:
The Pope - also known as a former Nazi Youth.

HOW DARE HE JOIN A MANDATORY ORGANIZATION AS A CHILD!!!!1[/quote]

Know anyone who turned them down? I do. They went to jail for it but they chose not to participate. You know, like a religious leader should have done?[/quote]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-04-23-new-pope-defied-Nazis_x.htm

He avoided going as much as possible. But went enough to keep the tuition break by being in the mandatory organization.[/QUOTE]

Now THAT I didn't know. Interesting. Time to cut him some slack it seems.

Oct 21, 2009#32

sixpackshaker

Hate gays and women? Then give Catholicism a try!

Women in the clergy, I can see that changing.

But an openly sexually active man serving in the clergy, don't hold your breath.

The current exception is the married Anglican Clergy that have transferred to the Catholic Church. This has been going on for at least a decade.

Oct 21, 2009#33

Steven Soderburgin

Hate gays and women? Then give Catholicism a try!

I don't care that he is a former Nazi Youth. That doesn't fucking matter. What matters to me is right now, the Pope is actively trying to marginalize and oppress gays and women within the Catholic organization.

And steinman, if someone wants to post those sorts of threads, then I'll call them out as the bigots they are. They're free to do so if that's what they believe, and it's up to the mods if they want to move those threads to the flame wars forum. I'm kind of annoyed that this thread was moved before any personal attacks or arguments were made, or that the thread title just wasn't changed if that's such a big deal, but whatever, ain't no worries about the move. I find it kind of funny, actually.

And anyway, I have a few issues and complaints with the "gay rights movement," as I'm sure many, many Catholics have with the Church. You see, I can separate individual Catholics from the organization of the Catholic Church. Just like with political parties, a person doesn't have to like or agree with every single move or statement made by the group to which they belong.

Oct 21, 2009#34

Silver Jelly

Hate gays and women? Then give Catholicism a try!

The title is inflammatory anyway.

"Hate gays and women in your clergy? Then give Catholicism a try!" would be exactly the same without the inflammation.

Oct 21, 2009#35

Steven Soderburgin

Hate gays and women? Then give Catholicism a try!

sixpackshaker said:
Women in the clergy, I can see that changing.

But an openly sexually active man serving in the clergy, don't hold your breath.

A person can be gay without being sexually active.

Oct 21, 2009#36

sixpackshaker

Hate gays and women? Then give Catholicism a try!

Kissinger;280309][quote=sixpackshaker said:
Women in the clergy, I can see that changing.

But an openly sexually active man serving in the clergy, don't hold your breath.

A person can be gay without being sexually active.[/QUOTE]

But can they do it by choice?

That is where the church keeps losing hetero priests.

Oct 21, 2009#37

Steven Soderburgin

Hate gays and women? Then give Catholicism a try!

sixpackshaker;280312][quote=Kissinger;280309][quote=sixpackshaker said:
Women in the clergy, I can see that changing.

But an openly sexually active man serving in the clergy, don't hold your breath.

A person can be gay without being sexually active.[/QUOTE]

But can they do it by choice?

That is where the church keeps losing hetero priests.[/QUOTE]
As well as any hetero person

Oct 21, 2009#38

Cajungal

Didn't think about renaming. Ok, let's try it this way. It won't move to flame wars until it gets really bad in here. Resume--

Oct 21, 2009#39

Cajungal

......No one wants to complain about Catholics anymore? After I slaved and slaved over a hot "tread tools" button?

out:

Oct 21, 2009#40

Silver Jelly

I am balding and fat and I don't like that!

Oct 21, 2009#41

Cajungal

Ah, but are you Catholic???

Oct 21, 2009#42

Shakey

Cajungal said:
......No one wants to complain about Catholics anymore? After I slaved and slaved over a hot "tread tools" button? out:

I totally wanted to post some inflamatory stuff but you had to move it out of the flame wars section. :humph:

Oct 21, 2009#43

Silver Jelly

Cajungal said:
Ah, but are you Catholic???

actually... yes

aranoid:

Oct 21, 2009#44

Espy

Silver Jelly;280360][quote=Cajungal said:
Ah, but are you Catholic???

actually... yes

aranoid:[/QUOTE]

How DARE you.

Oct 21, 2009#45

Silver Jelly

Espy;280362][quote=Silver Jelly;280360][quote=Cajungal said:
Ah, but are you Catholic???

actually... yes

aranoid:[/QUOTE]

How DARE you.[/QUOTE]

*gets a full glass of gin and tonic thrown to the face*

Oct 21, 2009#46

sixpackshaker

Silver Jelly;280364][quote=Espy;280362][quote=Silver Jelly;280360][quote=Cajungal said:
Ah, but are you Catholic???

actually... yes

aranoid:[/QUOTE]

How DARE you.[/QUOTE]

*gets a full glass of gin and tonic thrown to the face*[/QUOTE]

*Is saddened by the rampant alcohol abuse.*

Throw water next time.

Oct 21, 2009#47

Steven Soderburgin

But yeah, this isn't really a change to established behavior of the Church, it's just the Church openly stating it's long-established position on gays and women serving in the clergy (a position I obviously disagree with) in order to pick up on a juicy recruitment opportunity.

Oct 21, 2009#48

Silver Jelly

Kissinger said:
But yeah, this isn't really a change to established behavior of the Church, it's just the Church openly stating it's long-established position on gays and women serving in the clergy (a position I obviously disagree with) in order to pick up on a juicy recruitment opportunity.

I have to admit I also disagree with this position. And with lots and lots of other positions of my church. I'm a catholic more because of tradition than anything else... as I said in the "religion?" topic, I have my own little religion going on inside my head. One day I may even write it down (probably as fiction) to try and spread my ideas about the world. Wich are pretty cool :cool:

Oct 21, 2009#49

Jake

The attitude toward gays is one of the main things that keeps me away from church. Well, besides the agnostic thing I've got going, but I can overlook that for the free snacks they pass around (or make you get up and get in the case of Catholic churches, in their general theme of church aerobics). The creationism gets a solid eyeroll, of course, but at least that's merely stupid and not mean.

Oh, and chicks are people, too. Give 'em a fancy robe if they want one. Otherwise I, too, will go all e-Martin Luther up in this bitch.

Oct 21, 2009#50

Cajungal

Shakey;280358][quote=Cajungal said:
......No one wants to complain about Catholics anymore? After I slaved and slaved over a hot "tread tools" button? out:

I totally wanted to post some inflamatory stuff but you had to move it out of the flame wars section. :humph:[/QUOTE]

>.< D'OH!

Bunch of whiners, the lot o' ya.

Oct 21, 2009#51

Chazwozel

Hate gays and women? Then give Catholicism a try!

Kissinger said:
They can think whatever they like, but I think you're being naive if you don't see this as a purely political move that has very little, if anything, to do with actual religious belief systems.

---------- Post added at 08:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:10 PM ----------

And Re: the thread title, that's pretty much exactly what the church itself is saying. They're saying, "If you are upset that women and gays can obtain equal station within your church, then come join the Catholic Church because we continue to marginalize gays and women. We'll even make it easier to make the switch and you'll get to keep most of your traditions."

Remember the best way is to hook em when their young!

I believe their message runs more along the lines of, "we won't bend over, just because the government/media says it's trendy. It's not like anyone's forcing others to adhere to Catholic doctrines, unless they want to follow the religion.

I..I...actually agree with Steiny 100% on this.

---------- Post added at 09:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:29 PM ----------

Jake said:
The attitude toward gays is one of the main things that keeps me away from church. Well, besides the agnostic thing I've got going, but I can overlook that for the free snacks they pass around (or make you get up and get in the case of Catholic churches, in their general theme of church aerobics). The creationism gets a solid eyeroll, of course, but at least that's merely stupid and not mean.

Oh, and chicks are people, too. Give 'em a fancy robe if they want one. Otherwise I, too, will go all e-Martin Luther up in this bitch.

There are so many religions to choose from that'll conform to what ever self-imposed ideals a person sets upon themselves these days. I really don't see a big issue with this. It's not like someone's gotta become Catholic to find religion.

Oct 21, 2009#52

The Lovely Boehner

Hate gays and women? Then give Catholicism a try!

Chazwozel said:
because the government/media says it's trendy. .

Being a homosexual or, god forbid, a woman isn't 'trendy'

Oct 21, 2009#53

Chazwozel

Hate gays and women? Then give Catholicism a try!

Charlie Dont Surf;280473][quote=Chazwozel said:
because the government/media says it's trendy. .

Being a homosexual or, god forbid, a woman isn't 'trendy'[/QUOTE]

Yeah, that was a bad choice of words on my part. The government is required to administer equal rights for gays and women. Churches are not.

Oct 21, 2009#54

Adammon

Hate gays and women? Then give Catholicism a try!

Charlie Dont Surf;280473][quote=Chazwozel said:
because the government/media says it's trendy. .

Being a homosexual or, god forbid, a woman isn't 'trendy'[/QUOTE]

The Catholic church, for good or ill, is about 2000 years old. It's quite like changing the direction of a train using a toothpick. For them, yes, this whole fascination with "Equal Rights" is trendy.

Oct 21, 2009#55

The Lovely Boehner

No one's ever said anything approaching that the government should force the church to do anything.

Oct 21, 2009#56

Adammon

Charlie Dont Surf said:
No one's ever said anything approaching that the government should force the church to do anything.

Equality is a government mandate.

Oct 21, 2009#57

Chazwozel

Charlie Dont Surf said:
No one's ever said anything approaching that the government should force the church to do anything.

Then the point of the OP is to bitch about the Catholic church trying to swipe bigots from the former bigoted churches so they can remain bigots?

Oct 21, 2009#58

Steven Soderburgin

Hey, so backing up to what steinman's interpretation of what this means, the whole "Church changing according to the precepts of man instead of God" thing, what about the Church allowing married priests? That used to be hell of against the rules, but they tend to make some exceptions for that now. Isn't that changing according to the precepts of man? Because that goes against long standing Catholic tradition

EDIT: Basically, that excuse is bullshit because the Catholic Church changes things around to fit its whims all the time.

Oct 21, 2009#59

The Lovely Boehner

The thread was basically a call-out of the Catholic Church for doing something horrible and bigoted.

Oct 21, 2009#60

Steven Soderburgin

The OP is an article about how the Church is changing things around in order to do a big recruitment drive based entirely on bigotry.

Oct 21, 2009#61

Chazwozel

Kissinger said:
Hey, so backing up to what steinman's interpretation of what this means, the whole "Church changing according to the precepts of man instead of God" thing, what about the Church allowing married priests? That used to be hell of against the rules, but they tend to make some exceptions for that now. Isn't that changing according to the precepts of man? Because that goes against long standing Catholic tradition

Dude, it's a major religion. You're trying to point out fallacies and loopholes in a major religion. Think about that for a second. You might as well piss in the wind.

Oct 21, 2009#62

Adammon

Kissinger said:
Hey, so backing up to what steinman's interpretation of what this means, the whole "Church changing according to the precepts of man instead of God" thing, what about the Church allowing married priests? That used to be hell of against the rules, but they tend to make some exceptions for that now. Isn't that changing according to the precepts of man? Because that goes against long standing Catholic tradition

If you are married, or plan on getting married, you can only become a Deacon, not a priest. Common misconception. There is pressure to change this, but once again, train, toothpick.

Oct 21, 2009#63

Steven Soderburgin

there was a married priest who was ordained in nebraska earlier this year

http://www.ketv.com/news/19820185/detail.html

Oct 21, 2009#64

Adammon

It's the same as the Anglican thing:

"The exception is granted only to married men who previously served as protestant clergy then converted to Catholicism."

And then right after that, heh

"Some Catholics wonder if such exceptions may open the door to more diversity, such as allowing priests to marry or allowing the ordination of female priests."

Oct 21, 2009#65

Steven Soderburgin

GUESS NOT, HEH

HEH

*take that gays and women*

Oct 21, 2009#66

Adammon

Kissinger said:
GUESS NOT, HEH

HEH

*take that gays and women*

I bet you'd like to join the Congressional Black Congress too.

Oct 21, 2009#67

Chazwozel

Kissinger said:
GUESS NOT, HEH

HEH

*take that gays and women*

You got it toots.

I'm so glad to be a white, straight, male age 18-65. The world is my oyster!

Oct 21, 2009#68

Green_Lantern

Hate gays and women? Then give Catholicism a try!

Kissinger;280309][quote=sixpackshaker said:
Women in the clergy, I can see that changing.

But an openly sexually active man serving in the clergy, don't hold your breath.

A person can be gay without being sexually active.[/QUOTE]

Well, yes, but what would be the point?

Oct 21, 2009#69

Adammon

Hate gays and women? Then give Catholicism a try!

Green_Lantern;280513][quote=Kissinger;280309][quote=sixpackshaker said:
Women in the clergy, I can see that changing.

But an openly sexually active man serving in the clergy, don't hold your breath.

A person can be gay without being sexually active.[/QUOTE]

Well, yes, but what would be the point?[/QUOTE]

The opportunity to be FAB-U-LOUS!

Oct 21, 2009#70

Chazwozel

Hate gays and women? Then give Catholicism a try!

Green_Lantern;280513][quote=Kissinger;280309][quote=sixpackshaker said:
Women in the clergy, I can see that changing.

But an openly sexually active man serving in the clergy, don't hold your breath.

A person can be gay without being sexually active.[/QUOTE]

Well, yes, but what would be the point?[/QUOTE]

Finally a gay guy in this thread who's not hypersensitive!

<high five>

Oct 21, 2009#71

Steven Soderburgin

why the fuck do i even bother with you people

Oct 21, 2009#72

Green_Lantern

Hate gays and women? Then give Catholicism a try!

Chazwozel;280516][quote=Green_Lantern;280513][quote=Kissinger;280309][quote=sixpackshaker said:
Women in the clergy, I can see that changing.

But an openly sexually active man serving in the clergy, don't hold your breath.

A person can be gay without being sexually active.[/QUOTE]

Well, yes, but what would be the point?[/QUOTE]

Finally a gay guy in this thread who's not hypersensitive!

<high five>[/QUOTE]

huh... okay.

<high five>

Oct 21, 2009#73

Chazwozel

Kissinger said:
why the fuck do i even bother with you people

I just don't get the point of your original post. Other than to bitch about something that's frankly not all that damn important. So close-minded people from one church move to another due to a marketing ploy based on bigotry. So what? You still have the same group of assholes in a new setting; shit happens all the time with everything from race, gender; to sex. You find a market that a niche of people will buy up and exploit it. Now I'm off to buy the beer brand with the most titties in its commercials.

Oct 21, 2009#74

Steven Soderburgin

It's important because the Catholic Church is an organization with pretty significant international influence that openly wants to marginalize gays and women, peace

Oct 21, 2009#75

Chazwozel

Kissinger said:
It's important because the Catholic Church is an organization with pretty significant international influence that openly wants to marginalize gays and women, peace

So does Islam, and they marginalize gays and women with a smile while they stone or behead them.

What international influence does the Catholic church have, aside from having world leaders that might follow that particular religion (and even they can make up their own minds about these things)? I don't really know of many countries that are governed under Catholic law outside the Vatican (Mexico?). I'd say you're barking up the wrong religion if you want to call out an organization that actually puts religious dogma into play as government law. *cough* *Saudi Arabia* *cough* middle east *cough*

Oct 21, 2009#76

makare

I thought the point of the forum is to post about random shit we want to talk about. If we have to have a valid reason for making a thread the activity in this place is going to go down to practically zero.

Oct 21, 2009#77

Steven Soderburgin

The middle east has many, many problems, including heavily orthodox religious rule of many of the sovereign nations there. I'm not ignorant about that at all, and I'm very very disturbed about the kinds of things happening in the Middle East. But with this particular issue, I'm talking about developed and industrialized nations, into which the Catholic Church incredibly far reaching influence using both religious influences and plain old cold hard cash. And with this move, they're using they're announcing their intention to use that power and influence to continue to promote bigotry.

Oct 21, 2009#78

strawman

Hate gays and women? Then give Catholicism a try!

Chazwozel said:
I..I...actually agree with Steiny 100% on this.

I'm truly sorry it came to this. Let us never speak of it again.

-Adam

Oct 21, 2009#79

Chazwozel

Kissinger said:
The middle east has many, many problems, including heavily orthodox religious rule of many of the sovereign nations there. I'm not ignorant about that at all, and I'm very very disturbed about the kinds of things happening in the Middle East. But with this particular issue, I'm talking about developed and industrialized nations, into which the Catholic Church incredibly far reaching influence using both religious influences and plain old cold hard cash. And with this move, they're using they're announcing their intention to use that power and influence to continue to promote bigotry.

All well and good, but they aren't exactly pistol whipping people into joining the church so as I said before, they're not exactly making new bigots or changing anyone's opinion. They're simply attempting to rally together the people that don't agree with the way their current opiate of the masses is swinging. I'd say that's pretty much the foundation of any religion nowadays. Try to bag together as many like-minded people and worship in the way you feel is the 'correct' way. What developed nations are you talking about? The Catholic churches biggest influences are in 3rd world Latin/South Americas and some of 3rd world Africa and Southeast Asia. Developing nations aren't exactly the bastion of education and tolerance for modern ideas to start with.

Oct 21, 2009#80

Steven Soderburgin

Chazwozel said:
All well and good, but they aren't exactly pistol whipping people into joining the church so as I said before, they're not exactly making new bigots or changing anyone's opinion. They're simply attempting to rally together the people that don't agree with the way their current opiate of the masses is swinging. I'd say that's pretty much the foundation of any religion nowadays. Try to bag together as many like-minded people and worship in the way you feel is the 'correct' way.

Yeah, I know that it's nothing new. I said that earlier in the thread. I just want to expose this to people so they can see an example of the Church being openly bigoted.

What developed nations are you talking about? The Catholic churches biggest influences are in 3rd world Latin/South Americas and some of 3rd world Africa and Southeast Asia. Developing nations aren't exactly the bastion of education and tolerance for modern ideas to start with.

I'm talking about the United States, and the way the Church attempts to influence politics here, such as in Maine: http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=26268

Oct 21, 2009#81

strawman

At best this is a big advertisement:

"Your favorite coffee shop changed their formula and the coffee tastes different. If you really liked the old taste, you might like our coffee shop - we're willing to change in small ways to serve you."

You may believe it's wrong to serve that formula of coffee, but they are well within their rights not only to serve it, but to openly advertise it and court disaffected customers of a different brand.

-Adam

Oct 21, 2009#82

Steven Soderburgin

Yeah, see, the problem with that analogy is that a formula of coffee isn't going to work to oppress an entire group of people (OR IS IT http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/food_politics/coffee/index.html).

I'm not saying that they can't believe what they believe. I'm saying that what the Church is trying to do is actively oppress gays and women. This isn't about religious belief, it's about human rights.

Oct 21, 2009#83

Chazwozel

Well if we're sticking to the United States as topic of discussion. I don't particularly agree with the KKK in the least bit, but they are well within their rights as an organization to practice their idiocy (of course within the law i.e. they can't harass/terrorize people).

Don't Jehovah's Witness people already do something similar to this Catholic campaign (since the inception of Jehovah's Witness religion), where they go door to door and advertise how they believe Catholics, gays, etc... are going to hell?

Hell, I left the Catholic church for almost the opposite reasons this advertising campaign is promoting. I wasn't allowed to marry my wife unless she converted, so I said, 'alright see ya bastards'. Her church was more than welcoming to tie our unholy union.

Oct 21, 2009#84

Adammon

Kissinger said:
Yeah, see, the problem with that analogy is that a formula of coffee isn't going to work to oppress an entire group of people (OR IS IT http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/food_politics/coffee/index.html).

I'm not saying that they can't believe what they believe. I'm saying that what the Church is trying to do is actively oppress gays and women. This isn't about religious belief, it's about human rights.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o76WQzVJ434[/ame]

Oct 21, 2009#85

The Lovely Boehner

If you think the KKK or Jehova's Witnesses have any fraction of the power and influence of the Catholic Church, then I don't know what to tell you

Oct 21, 2009#86

Espy

Kissinger said:
I'm not saying that they can't believe what they believe. I'm saying that what the Church is trying to do is actively oppress gays and women. This isn't about religious belief, it's about human rights.

Now look, I agree with you that they need to have some changes in their policies and politics, but I don't see how letting disenfranchised Anglicans know they can join their church if they want is actively oppressing gays and women... Maybe you are right, but it's a little unclear over here how you got there.

Oct 21, 2009#87

Chazwozel

Kissinger said:
Yeah, see, the problem with that analogy is that a formula of coffee isn't going to work to oppress an entire group of people (OR IS IT http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/food_politics/coffee/index.html).

I'm not saying that they can't believe what they believe. I'm saying that what the Church is trying to do is actively oppress gays and women. This isn't about religious belief, it's about human rights.

Unless they start throwing bricks and marking 'gay houses' with flaming crosses, they're not violating any human rights.

---------- Post added at 10:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:53 PM ----------

Charlie Dont Surf said:
If you think the KKK or Jehova's Witnesses have any fraction of the power and influence of the Catholic Church, then I don't know what to tell you

Clearly I need to read more Dan Brown novels.

Oct 21, 2009#88

Steven Soderburgin

Chazwozel said:
Well if we're sticking to the United States as topic of discussion. I don't particularly agree with the KKK in the least bit, but they are well within their rights as an organization to practice their idiocy (of course within the law i.e. they can't harass/terrorize people).

Yep, I agree.

Don't Jehovah's Witness people already do something similar to this Catholic campaign (since the inception of Jehovah's Witness religion), where they go door to door and advertise how they believe Catholics, gays, etc... are going to hell?

They do, and I don't like that from them, either, but they don't have nearly the money, influence, or resources of the Catholic Church.

Hell, I left the Catholic church for almost the opposite reasons this advertising campaign is promoting. I wasn't allowed to marry my wife unless she converted, so I said, 'alright see ya bastards'. Her church was more than welcoming to tie our unholy union.

I'm glad you were able to marry!

Guess what gay people can't do! Guess who wants to keep it that way! (Hint: the answer to the second one could be many things, but the answer I'm looking for has been the main subject of the thread.)

---------- Post added at 02:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:56 AM ----------

Espy said:
Now look, I agree with you that they need to have some changes in their policies and politics, but I don't see how letting disenfranchised Anglicans know they can join their church if they want is actively oppressing gays and women... Maybe you are right, but it's a little unclear over here how you got there.

No, see, this particular move isn't oppressing gays, but it's using the fact that the Church DOES oppress gays to lure people to the fold.

Oct 21, 2009#89

Chazwozel

Kissinger;280590][quote=Chazwozel said:
Well if we're sticking to the United States as topic of discussion. I don't particularly agree with the KKK in the least bit, but they are well within their rights as an organization to practice their idiocy (of course within the law i.e. they can't harass/terrorize people).

Yep, I agree.

Don't Jehovah's Witness people already do something similar to this Catholic campaign (since the inception of Jehovah's Witness religion), where they go door to door and advertise how they believe Catholics, gays, etc... are going to hell?

They do, and I don't like that from them, either, but they don't have nearly the money, influence, or resources of the Catholic Church.

Hell, I left the Catholic church for almost the opposite reasons this advertising campaign is promoting. I wasn't allowed to marry my wife unless she converted, so I said, 'alright see ya bastards'. Her church was more than welcoming to tie our unholy union.

I'm glad you were able to marry!

Guess what gay people can't do! Guess who wants to keep it that way! (Hint: the answer to the second one could be many things, but the answer I'm looking for has been the main subject of the thread.)[/QUOTE]

I don't think it's entirely the influence of the Catholic church that's holding back that whole can of worms. I'd sooner point to all those wacky bible belt evangelicals in congress.

Oct 21, 2009#90

Steven Soderburgin

Chazwozel said:
Unless they start throwing bricks and marking 'gay houses' with flaming crosses, they're not violating any human rights.

Yeah, they're just giving tons money to political campaigns in support of banning gay marriage. Not restricting any rights at all.

---------- Post added at 03:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:59 AM ----------

Chazwozel said:
I don't think it's entirely the influence of the Catholic church that's holding back that whole can of worms. I'd sooner point to all those wacky bible belt evangelicals in congress.

You're right! It's not entirely the Catholic Church! But a huge amount of money comes from the Church to support bans on gay marriage! And the Church is what we're talking about here!

Oct 21, 2009#91

Rob King

Kissinger said:
Guess what gay people can't do! Guess who wants to keep it that way! (Hint: the answer to the second one could be many things, but the answer I'm looking for has been the main subject of the thread.)

Are you arguing that an organization's teachings are influencing people not to allow you to marry? I can buy that. But you need to step back and realize that that isn't oppression. You MIGHT be able to get away calling it propoganda.

Okay. The organization in question has a profound influence on people who get to vote on the issues. So does the Republican party, in many cases. Same with the democrats, for that matter. Capitol records has an influence over a few less, but still a decent chunk.

Fuck. Ancestry, particularly among immigrants has a huge effect too. Let's call out China too, then. China is unfriendly toward homosexuality, which is influencing Chinese Americans as well.

Oct 21, 2009#92

The Lovely Boehner

Holy shit you're saying there is more than one terrible organization in the world

Oct 21, 2009#93

Steven Soderburgin

Rob King said:
Are you arguing that an organization's teachings are influencing people not to allow you to marry? I can buy that. But you need to step back and realize that that isn't oppression. You MIGHT be able to get away calling it propoganda.

No, see, it's not just the teachings, but the money. Also the fact that women are not equal to men in the eyes of the Church, and gays are HELL OF not equal. But we're getting into a semantics argument. You say propaganda, I say oppression. I say oppression because I couldn't marry my boyfriend today if I wanted to. Further, you're still throwing out red herrings. I'm perfectly aware that there are other terrible organizations in the world. I'm not talking about those right now.

Oct 21, 2009#94

Jake

I agree that their dogma is wrongheaded and this advertising push is a dick move, but I don't see the case for opression. Nobody is forced (anymore) to join their club, so let them make all the "no gurlz allowed" signs they want.

I can see why you'd want to keep this kind of stuff in the public eye so the powers that be would hopefully respond with a "no, you guys are dicks" when they try to curry favor, but don't call it opression.

Oct 21, 2009#95

Rob King

Kissinger said:
No, see, it's not just the teachings, but the money.

See ... maybe I don't know Jack, but I just thought that was how politics worked in the U.S. Not being sarcastic or anything. But organization believes X, so they support candidate that believes X. With that support, candidate X gets his message out there. More people hear it, and allow it to affect their ballot on election day.

I don't like that system. But it seems that the real weak link in that system is how many simpletons who don't think about the issues are members of the voting public.

Kissinger said:
Also the fact that women are not equal to men in the eyes of the Church, and gays are HELL OF not equal. But we're getting into a semantics argument.

I'm unsure how to deal with this part of your post. I come from a horribly liberal church upbringing when it comes to the gender issue. My denomination has been allowing (hell, encouraging!) women preachers ever since it's establishment in 1865. The founder of the movement once said 'Some of my best men are women.' We were very unpopular for the stance we took way back when, but it was just a matter of being ahead of the curve in that instance.

So the mindset that precludes women from being full members of the clergy is entirely a mystery to me. But I wouldn't up and call it discrimination. And I sincerely doubt it's a matter of believing that women are not equal to men.

Kissinger said:
You say propaganda, I say oppression. I say oppression because I couldn't marry my boyfriend today if I wanted to. Further, you're still throwing out red herrings. I'm perfectly aware that there are other terrible organizations in the world. I'm not talking about those right now.

I didn't intend any of those organizations as red herrings. In fact, I didn't think any of them were bad organizations, let alone 'terrible' ones. Fact is: there are organizations all over the place in the U.S. that throw money into lobbying, and earning favors from politicians. There are organizations (sometimes the same organizations) that focus on mobilizing the voting public. These organizations have all kinds of platforms, viewpoints, and origins.

You see the Catholic church as playing dirty in this game, by advocating 'bigotry.' I see attempts at disqualifying the Catholic church from the lobbying/voter-influence game as playing dirty.

Oct 21, 2009#96

Kitty Sinatra

Kissinger;280598][/COLOR][quote=Chazwozel said:
I don't think it's entirely the influence of the Catholic church that's holding back that whole can of worms. I'd sooner point to all those wacky bible belt evangelicals in congress.

You're right! It's not entirely the Catholic Church! But a huge amount of money comes from the Church to support bans on gay marriage! And the Church is what we're talking about here![/QUOTE]
And yet, up here in Canada, gay marriage was legalized during a time when we had a Catholic Prime Minister. Hell, Canada's probably far more Catholic than y'all. Ontario, the largest province, even has a fully-publicly funded Catholic school system that operates parallel to the Public, secular school system.

Now this is only one example, but I'm fairly confident in saying that the Vatican's influence on most other developed industrial nations is roughly equal to its influence in Canada: Laughably small. That Catholic Prime Minister of ours thumbed his nose at the Vatican when the Pope threatened excommunication.

Oct 21, 2009#97

Frankie Williamson

1700 years ago there were married priests and female priests. Then a bunch of assholes gradually changed the rules over the next 3-400 years until women and sex were not allowed. Then sexual desire itself became a sin 1300 years ago.

The church can change, but only ass fucking backwards it seems.

---------- Post added at 10:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:51 PM ----------

Gruebeard;280724][quote=Kissinger;280598][/COLOR][quote=Chazwozel said:
I don't think it's entirely the influence of the Catholic church that's holding back that whole can of worms. I'd sooner point to all those wacky bible belt evangelicals in congress.

Oct 21, 2009#98

Kitty Sinatra

Frankie said:
The church can change, but only ass fucking backwards it seems.

That's where the altar boys come in.

---------- Post added at 04:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:52 AM ----------

Frankie said:
In my hometown in Alberta (St. Albert), the public school system in the city is Catholic. We were required to have our Religion and CALM 30 classes in order to graduate.

Wow. I never knew about that. Is that a decision that each city there makes (Catholic or Secular), or is St Albert too small to support both, or is that really province-wide the only system? Er, what is the Catholic/Secular setup there in Alberta is what I'm asking I guess.

Oct 22, 2009#99

Frankie Williamson

St. Albert is a city sized about 60,000 people. Not huge by any means and it does have non Catholic schools people can choose to put their children into, they're just not the normal public system.

As far as I know, St. Albert was not normal when it came to it's public school system also, nowhere else I've lived had Catholic as it's base system.

Oct 22, 2009#100

Adammon

Frankie said:
St. Albert is a city sized about 60,000 people. Not huge by any means and it does have non Catholic schools people can choose to put their children into, they're just not the normal public system.

As far as I know, St. Albert was not normal when it came to it's public school system also, nowhere else I've lived had Catholic as it's base system.

Our local preschools are all Catholic, and you can stay in that system all the way up to Grade 5 I believe.

Oct 22, 2009#101

Kitty Sinatra

Yeah, in Ontario you can go all the way up to high school graduation in the Catholic schools - with uniforms :unibrow:

So there you go Kissinger. We're smurfing indoctrinated in Catholicism by our government and yet we legalized gay marriage.

Oct 22, 2009#102

Silver Jelly

Spain is traditionally catholic. How are gay people doing around here, since Zapatero came to power?

Oct 22, 2009#103

Steven Soderburgin

Rob King;280618][quote=Kissinger said:
No, see, it's not just the teachings, but the money.

I'm unsure how to deal with this part of your post. I come from a horribly liberal church upbringing when it comes to the gender issue. My denomination has been allowing (hell, encouraging!) women preachers ever since it's establishment in 1865. The founder of the movement once said 'Some of my best men are women.' We were very unpopular for the stance we took way back when, but it was just a matter of being ahead of the curve in that instance.

So the mindset that precludes women from being full members of the clergy is entirely a mystery to me. But I wouldn't up and call it discrimination. And I sincerely doubt it's a matter of believing that women are not equal to men.

You aren't Catholic, therefore that complaint doesn't apply to your Church. But if allowing men to become priests and not women ONLY because they are women isn't discrimination, then what is it?

I didn't intend any of those organizations as red herrings. In fact, I didn't think any of them were bad organizations, let alone 'terrible' ones. Fact is: there are organizations all over the place in the U.S. that throw money into lobbying, and earning favors from politicians. There are organizations (sometimes the same organizations) that focus on mobilizing the voting public. These organizations have all kinds of platforms, viewpoints, and origins.

You see the Catholic church as playing dirty in this game, by advocating 'bigotry.' I see attempts at disqualifying the Catholic church from the lobbying/voter-influence game as playing dirty.

I'm not attempting to disqualify the Church from lobbying/voter-influence (though I do think it's a bit shady that they are a tax exempt organization that tries to influence politics), I'm just calling them out on their bigotry and continued efforts to marginalize women and gays. That's all I can do, and that's all this is.

Gruebeard said:
So there you go Kissinger. We're smurfing indoctrinated in Catholicism by our government and yet we legalized gay marriage.

Canada is far more progressive than America (except when it comes to those gosh darned Indians, where you're right there with us). This shouldn't surprise anyone. They have a much more European social and political mindset than America.

Oct 22, 2009#104

Kitty Sinatra

Kissinger said:
Canada is far more progressive than America (except when it comes to those gosh darned Indians, where you're right there with us).

Worst damn tech support out there.

Oct 22, 2009#105

ThatGrinningIdiot!

Gruebeard;281072][quote=Kissinger said:
Canada is far more progressive than America (except when it comes to those gosh darned Indians, where you're right there with us).

Worst damn tech support out there.[/QUOTE]

Damn it! We aren't Indians, damn you all to hell! :angry:

Oct 22, 2009#106

Kitty Sinatra

Are you saying that because you're a native, or because you're tech support?

Oct 22, 2009#107

ThatGrinningIdiot!

Gruebeard said:
Are you saying that because you're a native, or because you're tech support?

What if I am both?

Oct 22, 2009#108

Krisken

BlackCrossCrusader;281100][quote=Gruebeard said:
Are you saying that because you're a native, or because you're tech support?

What if I am both?[/QUOTE]
You're... native tech support?

Oct 22, 2009#109

ThatGrinningIdiot!

Krisken;281108][quote=BlackCrossCrusader;281100][quote=Gruebeard said:
Are you saying that because you're a native, or because you're tech support?

What if I am both?[/QUOTE]
You're... native tech support?[/QUOTE]

Good heavens no! I ain't no nothing 'bout these "spirit boxes."

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to looking wise and serene.

Where did I put my headdress?

----------
(serious face)

Usually I have an opinion of the Catholic church as my heritage and the history of it are intertwined, but it's not relevant to the topic at hand.

Oct 22, 2009#110

Eriol

Everybody here knows that the idea of "Human Rights" is just as much of a belief as any of the beliefs in religions that you guys are trashing, don't you? You keep claiming that "human rights" have a higher basis than the beliefs which conflict with them.

But who sets what they are? At best, consensus. At worst... anybody? Opinion? So really, they're no better a basis than any holy book out there. Just opinion written down somewhere that "enough" people agree with. Sure many religions also agree with a lot of them, but not all, so when there's a conflict, why is somebody touting "human rights" correct?

Oct 22, 2009#111

Iaculus

Eriol said:
Everybody here knows that the idea of "Human Rights" is just as much of a belief as any of the beliefs in religions that you guys are trashing, don't you? You keep claiming that "human rights" have a higher basis than the beliefs which conflict with them.

But who sets what they are? At best, consensus. At worst... anybody? Opinion? So really, they're no better a basis than any holy book out there. Just opinion written down somewhere that "enough" people agree with. Sure many religions also agree with a lot of them, but not all, so when there's a conflict, why is somebody touting "human rights" correct?

Oct 22, 2009#112

Silver Jelly

Iaculus;281418][quote=Eriol said:
Everybody here knows that the idea of "Human Rights" is just as much of a belief as any of the beliefs in religions that you guys are trashing, don't you? You keep claiming that "human rights" have a higher basis than the beliefs which conflict with them.

But who sets what they are? At best, consensus. At worst... anybody? Opinion? So really, they're no better a basis than any holy book out there. Just opinion written down somewhere that "enough" people agree with. Sure many religions also agree with a lot of them, but not all, so when there's a conflict, why is somebody touting "human rights" correct?

Oct 22, 2009#113

Iaculus

Silver Jelly;281420][quote=Iaculus;281418][quote=Eriol said:
Everybody here knows that the idea of "Human Rights" is just as much of a belief as any of the beliefs in religions that you guys are trashing, don't you? You keep claiming that "human rights" have a higher basis than the beliefs which conflict with them.

But who sets what they are? At best, consensus. At worst... anybody? Opinion? So really, they're no better a basis than any holy book out there. Just opinion written down somewhere that "enough" people agree with. Sure many religions also agree with a lot of them, but not all, so when there's a conflict, why is somebody touting "human rights" correct?

Oct 22, 2009#114

Silver Jelly

Iaculus;281423][quote=Silver Jelly;281420][quote=Iaculus;281418][quote=Eriol said:
Everybody here knows that the idea of "Human Rights" is just as much of a belief as any of the beliefs in religions that you guys are trashing, don't you? You keep claiming that "human rights" have a higher basis than the beliefs which conflict with them.

But who sets what they are? At best, consensus. At worst... anybody? Opinion? So really, they're no better a basis than any holy book out there. Just opinion written down somewhere that "enough" people agree with. Sure many religions also agree with a lot of them, but not all, so when there's a conflict, why is somebody touting "human rights" correct?

Oct 22, 2009#115

Iaculus

Silver Jelly;281425][quote=Iaculus;281423][quote=Silver Jelly;281420][quote=Iaculus;281418][quote=Eriol said:
Everybody here knows that the idea of "Human Rights" is just as much of a belief as any of the beliefs in religions that you guys are trashing, don't you? You keep claiming that "human rights" have a higher basis than the beliefs which conflict with them.

But who sets what they are? At best, consensus. At worst... anybody? Opinion? So really, they're no better a basis than any holy book out there. Just opinion written down somewhere that "enough" people agree with. Sure many religions also agree with a lot of them, but not all, so when there's a conflict, why is somebody touting "human rights" correct?

Oct 22, 2009#116

Silver Jelly

Iaculus;281439][quote=Silver Jelly;281425][quote=Iaculus;281423][quote=Silver Jelly;281420][quote=Iaculus;281418][quote=Eriol said:
Everybody here knows that the idea of "Human Rights" is just as much of a belief as any of the beliefs in religions that you guys are trashing, don't you? You keep claiming that "human rights" have a higher basis than the beliefs which conflict with them.

But who sets what they are? At best, consensus. At worst... anybody? Opinion? So really, they're no better a basis than any holy book out there. Just opinion written down somewhere that "enough" people agree with. Sure many religions also agree with a lot of them, but not all, so when there's a conflict, why is somebody touting "human rights" correct?

Religion serves (insert deity/belief system here) first and foremost. Human rights serve... well... humanity first and foremost, and usually have a fair measure of evidential backup regarding why what they are protecting is beneficial (or, at least, not actively harmful) to society as a whole. You say they are created by consensus, but why was that consensus reached?[/QUOTE]

thanks to the christian cultural heritage.

I'm all in favour of the human rights, but it's nothing more than a cultural construction based on the western moral tradition.[/QUOTE]

And why do you think that moral tradition was created? What purpose did it serve?[/QUOTE]

Good service at restaurants.[/QUOTE]

And is there any higher cause? :toocool:[/QUOTE]

XD

I have to say that I always thought religious beliefs where not so different. It's that idea of "circumcision prevents infection" "no pig protects form sickness" "no clams protects form poisoning" "poligamy is useful in a society with few males"... etc. etc.
Of course, this basic elements are then a basis for other stuff that may not be so useful...
But, in it's core, it's a pretty similar thing.

Oct 22, 2009#117

Iaculus

Silver Jelly;281445][quote=Iaculus;281439][quote=Silver Jelly;281425][quote=Iaculus;281423][quote=Silver Jelly;281420][quote=Iaculus said:
Religion serves (insert deity/belief system here) first and foremost. Human rights serve... well... humanity first and foremost, and usually have a fair measure of evidential backup regarding why what they are protecting is beneficial (or, at least, not actively harmful) to society as a whole. You say they are created by consensus, but why was that consensus reached?

thanks to the christian cultural heritage.

I'm all in favour of the human rights, but it's nothing more than a cultural construction based on the western moral tradition.[/quote]

And why do you think that moral tradition was created? What purpose did it serve?[/quote]

Good service at restaurants.[/quote]

And is there any higher cause? :toocool:[/quote]

XD

I have to say that I always thought religious beliefs where not so different. It's that idea of "circumcision prevents infection" "no pig protects form sickness" "no clams protects form poisoning" "poligamy is useful in a society with few males"... etc. etc.
Of course, this basic elements are then a basis for other stuff that may not be so useful...
But, in it's core, it's a pretty similar thing.[/QUOTE]

So why not update them as our knowledge-base expands, rather than sticking to outdated prohibitions simply because we've always done it that way? I mean, a lot of the stuff in Leviticus seems to be intended to discourage behaviour likely to result in diseases and medical conditions they couldn't handle. Eating shellfish, drinking from water that something had just died in, incest, having anal sex... you get the picture.

Incest, in fact, is a good example. Nobody at the time was quite sure how the whole 'genetics' business worked, so they went massively overboard in order to prevent the known negative consequences. Marrying your brother's ex was prohibited, for instance. Nowadays we have a better idea of how things work, so that's just fine and dandy... provided your brother doesn't object.

Oct 22, 2009#118

Silver Jelly

I might be one of the most progressive catholics you may meet, so I agree with you...

The problem is that lots of things that may be updated will still be part of the person's behaviour as cultural heritage. I still remember when my mother had some people of jewish heritage, but totally non religious, over and said "hey, why don't we go and eat at this wonderful restaurant my brother has suggested me?"
The special dish was paella (rice with several possible combinations of animals inside).

They finally ate just the rice in that paella. The rest of the animals inside that particular one were found by all of them to be disgusting, almost revolting.

And, curiously enough, where all forbidden by judaism!

Oct 22, 2009#119

Iaculus

Silver Jelly said:
I might be one of the most progressive catholics you may meet, so I agree with you...

The problem is that lots of things that may be updated will still be part of the person's behaviour as cultural heritage. I still remember when my mother had some people of jewish heritage, but totally non religious, over and said "hey, why don't we go and eat at this wonderful restaurant my brother has suggested me?"
The special dish was paella (rice with several possible combinations of animals inside).

They finally ate just the rice in that paella. The rest of the animals inside that particular one were found by all of them to be disgusting, almost revolting.

And, curiously enough, where all forbidden by judaism!

Well, sure, but the right to do something generally includes the right not to do it as well.

Even if human beings aren't wholly rational, at least our laws can be.

Oct 22, 2009#120

Silver Jelly

We agree.

So, what do we do now? :eek:

Oct 22, 2009#121

Krisken

Silver Jelly said:
We agree.

So, what do we do now?

:tea:

Oct 22, 2009#122

Eriol

Iaculus said:
Well, sure, but the right to do something generally includes the right not to do it as well.

Even if human beings aren't wholly rational, at least our laws can be.

Oct 22, 2009#123

Kitty Sinatra

Damn. We need a "Bump this Thread When You See A Real Discussion" thread. Sure it'd be bumped only rarely, or maybe even only ever for what just went on above. But hey! It could be worth shot.

Oct 23, 2009#124

Iaculus

Eriol;281492][quote=Iaculus said:
Well, sure, but the right to do something generally includes the right not to do it as well.

Even if human beings aren't wholly rational, at least our laws can be.

Rational can't enter in to it without an idea of "good" or at least "better" to favor one outcome over another. Even simple things like life and death are subject to a moral standing. Yes we can all easily say "life over death" but others are saying "planet over human life" right now. Who's right?

So when the "basics" become hard, how can it be easy to be "rational" when making laws? The end result is that belief is at the heart of all of it. Once you have a principal to go toward (or against), you can then act rationally, but the principal itself is always founded on nothing but belief.[/QUOTE]

The danger with that level of moral relativism, though, is in the logical conclusion drawn from it. If all moral standings are equal by dint of being moral standings, then all beliefs become equally valid - including that of the chap who wants to burn down the planet and dance naked in the ashes. If you can't see the immediate problem with that, then I'm afraid I don't have the training required to argue with sociopathy.

Human rights are amongst the latest and most sophisticated attempts in a millennia-spanning experiment to ensure the greatest happiness and satisfaction for the greatest number of people, and that's why I think they deserve respect. After all, empathy is an inherent aspect of humanity.

Oct 23, 2009#125

Kitty Sinatra

Iaculus said:
If all moral standings are equal by dint of being moral standings, then all beliefs become equally valid - including that of the chap . . .

I'm pretty sure Eriol's whole point of discussion centers upon morals commonly held by a large group of people, which would make that chap's beliefs irrelevant if he's the only one - or one of a small sect - who holds them.

I imagine it's rather impossible to get a large group of people to agree to a set of morals that don't benefit them significantly, which would make any set of accepted morals the foundation of a pretty sturdy society. There really couldn't be any way a society would build itself around morals centered upon Annihilism (I'm coining that right now apparently) because it wouldn't benefit many people. Nor, on the other extreme, will we ever see a society built upon the morals of pure do-goodery because it would require too great a sacrifice on the part of all; our Christian morals don't teach us to be that do-gooder named Jesus, only to act like him, at times, to a small degree, as convenient, while still looking out for Number One.

Oct 23, 2009#126

Iaculus

Gruebeard;281814][quote=Iaculus said:
If all moral standings are equal by dint of being moral standings, then all beliefs become equally valid - including that of the chap . . .

Oct 23, 2009#127

Kitty Sinatra

I rather agree with you there, but I also think that's the case because we can afford such a "high minded" moral stance in the West. Also, I think such a moral stance is necessary.

We can afford the idea of Human Rights because we have a surplus of resources and luxury. There's no harm to us for sharing. It's also necessary because our near-zero population growth makes it too risky to have morals that permit killing, and eliminating our own personal genetic lines. So as a group we can decide, yes, everyone deserves these rights because it's the best choice for us.

In a society of scarce resources, a less high-minded morality is kinda necessary if we want any chance of anyone getting enough in order to live. And these societies of scarceness tend to have high birth rates, permitting the endless "warfare" without a great risk of wiping out those genetic lines.

Anyway, that's a half-assed argument for why I don't think the idea of Human Rights would've worked for the Western World of 1000 years ago, and I don't even think it works for parts of the world now. It makes sense for us now, and I hope it makes sense for everyone soon. But that's my thought on the subject.

And so - to get back to what I think Eriol was discussing - I think a society's morals are shaped by what makes sense for the survival of the species at a given time, and that what is good wholly depends on the circumstances. Once that's determined, we build our beliefs around that, whether that's a religious code or the current, more secular idea of the Global Society as expressed in various declarations of human rights.

Oct 26, 2009#128

Eriol

I agree with most of your interpretations of what I'm saying, but you're going further than my simple point: the concept of "Human Rights" has no more special status than any other belief by itself because it is only a belief. I'm with you that most beliefs have more standing because of the numbers that follow it, but the "Human Rights" idea put out isn't superior by itself.

But all of that is still avoiding what is the core question IMO: What is right? I know it's not really answerable, but I do believe that it's a question worth pursuing, even if it can never really be answered totally.

Oct 26, 2009#129

crono1224

Hate gays and women? Then give Catholicism a try!

Kissinger;280309][quote=sixpackshaker said:
Women in the clergy, I can see that changing.

But an openly sexually active man serving in the clergy, don't hold your breath.

A person can be gay without being sexually active.[/QUOTE]

Then how do you know they are gay? *rimshot* or something?

Oct 26, 2009#130

Kitty Sinatra

Because they tell you they are. Of course, all gays are liars so you can't actually believe what they say.

:yo:

Oct 27, 2009#131

Soliloquy

Dang, where did all this thoughtful, rational discussion come from? This is a thread about religion, for goodness sake!

We're supposed to end this with soured feelings, lowered respect for everyone involved, and a lock!

Oct 28, 2009#132

Silver Jelly

The good times are over!

Oct 28, 2009#133

Dave

Soliloquy said:
Dang, where did all this thoughtful, rational discussion come from? This is a thread about religion, for goodness sake!

We're supposed to end this with soured feelings, lowered respect for everyone involved, and a lock!

All I got.

Oct 28, 2009#134

sixpackshaker

in before... dang it.

Oct 28, 2009#135

Green_Lantern

we need a new invader zim or this community is doomed.

Oct 28, 2009#136

Eriol

Dave said:
All I got.

Favorite. Emoticon. EVER!

Oct 28, 2009#137

Rob King

Eriol said:
I agree with most of your interpretations of what I'm saying, but you're going further than my simple point: the concept of "Human Rights" has no more special status than any other belief by itself because it is only a belief. I'm with you that most beliefs have more standing because of the numbers that follow it, but the "Human Rights" idea put out isn't superior by itself.

But all of that is still avoiding what is the core question IMO: What is right? I know it's not really answerable, but I do believe that it's a question worth pursuing, even if it can never really be answered totally.

The superiority that people see in the Human Rights thing is that we assume that they came about from rational thought and discussion among many men, rather than a prophet. This of course ignores that they had their genesis as a secularization of Judeo-Christian principles.

But that secularization is what makes them better, in my opinion. As a global movement with over two thousand years of history, and two billion members, Christianity has a lot of momentum to direct, especially since the church doesn't really have any legislative power: only influence over voters. And that's ignoring the fact that there are hundreds of denominations with differing and often times contradictory philosophies.

Human Rights, however, are newer and ostensibly based on rationalism. That makes them much nimbler, so we can have things happen like Norway declaring internet access a human right.

At the core though, you're right. It's just another belief system which in itself might not be any more valid than a religious worldview. But I like it because it's non-sectarian, pretty much universally applicable (even despite Gruebeard's point), and open for debate without cries of 'Heresy!' floating through the conversation.

Oct 28, 2009#138

Green_Lantern

Rob King said:
*rob king post*

Oct 28, 2009#139

Rob King

Green_Lantern;285412][quote=Rob King said:
*rob king post*

thank you, I was afraid that this thread was going to end with a rational and logical note, now back to status quo.

despite the brainwashing that you have suffer from your religion, moral concepts that judeo-christian-pastafarians are based are far older than them religion themselves, many human rights might have "copied" them, but religion is just a irration cultural aspect that we made up for survival, but we have grown up and come with the rational aproach, is not flawless but is way more logical than believing that we still "live" beyond death or that there is someone watching from the sky.[/QUOTE]

No problem. I will now misinterpret your condescending remarks as compliments. Yes, I have been getting to the gym, thanks for noticing.

First: Your brainwashing comment is not only inflammatory, but ridiculously misdirected. Of course you don't know that, because you don't really know me, but I know me very well and I can assure you that it's downright humorous to be accused of being an empty-headed follower of Christianity. Again, I don't expect you to see that because we don't know each-other, but it's quite telling that without any relevant data other than my religious affiliation, that is the assumption you made.

Now, the point regarding Judeo-Christian values and when they came about is immaterial. I said "[Human Rights] had their genesis as a secularization of Judeo-Christian principles." I didn't say that those Judeo-Christian principles were the first step, or the second step, or the twenty eighth step. I said that they were the penultimate step. If you wish to disagree, it's a matter to take up with various figures of the Renaissance, not me.

Further, I don't disagree about the 'purpose' that religion serves, not even when it comes to my own. I realize that the various laws and commands in scripture form a primitive "How Not To Let Your Society Die for Dummies." And if you had read my post more fully than you quoted it, you'd have seen that I'm for the idea of secularized Human Rights. They are a thing that I like.

In conclusion, I'm really not sure what prompted such a condescending response, but I hope we can get past it, because it seems like neither of us want this thread to descend into the typical religious/political-discussion shitfest.

Oct 28, 2009#140

Silver Jelly

Nooooo! We almost made it!

Oct 28, 2009#141

Rob King

No reason we still can't.

Oct 28, 2009#142

Chippy

Chazwozel;280506][quote=Kissinger said:
GUESS NOT, HEH

HEH

*take that gays and women*

You got it toots.

I'm so glad to be a white, straight, male age 18-65. The world is my oyster![/QUOTE]

Oct 28, 2009#143

Eriol

Green_Lantern said:
but we have grown up and come with the rational aproach, is not flawless but is way more logical than believing that

I cut that off there, as this emphasizes what you completely missed (but Rob got) : the idea that rationalism can't exist without a pre-existing measure of good and bad (or better or worse states). From there you can be rational, but the belief is always irrational. Thus all are irrational, but only some are self-consistent (the ones that are rational after the core belief). The self-contradicting ones are the REALLY easy ones to attack.

I'm not getting into the "what is the origin of beliefs A, B, and C, and are they (or not) older than Christianity." I'm only attacking the mistaken belief that total rationalism is possible when making value judgments. Without making value judgments it's possible to observe patterns, and correlate cause and effect, but you can never say anything was "better" than something else. That's where belief comes.

Oct 28, 2009#144

tegid

Well, more than belief i'd say it's a coherent but somehow arbitrary definition of what is good or bad.

Of course you can build more or less rational definitions, with a miminum amount of arbitraryness (...)

Nov 1, 2009#145

SpecialKO

Vatican condemns Halloween.

The Vatican issued the warning through its official newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, in an article headlined \"Hallowe'en's Dangerous Messages\".
The paper quoted a liturgical expert, Joan Maria Canals, who said: \"Hallowe'en has an undercurrent of occultism and is absolutely anti-Christian.\"
Parents should \"be aware of this and try to direct the meaning of the feast towards wholesomeness and beauty rather than terror, fear and death,\" said Father Canals, a member of a Spanish commission on church rites.

While I think that the Catholic church really needs to set other priorities higher and is overreacting, this is at least reasonably stated.

Nov 1, 2009#146

Silvanesti

"Hallowe'en has an undercurrent of occultism and is absolutely anti-Christian."

um.... every holiday has "an undercurrent of occultism" Good god, they need to get their heads outta their asses. I went to the church for 20 years and its shit like this (besides the massive amount of doubt) that makes me not call myself catholic.

Nov 1, 2009#147

Rob King

TeKeo said:
Vatican condemns Halloween.

The Vatican issued the warning through its official newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, in an article headlined \"Hallowe'en's Dangerous Messages\".
The paper quoted a liturgical expert, Joan Maria Canals, who said: \"Hallowe'en has an undercurrent of occultism and is absolutely anti-Christian.\"
Parents should \"be aware of this and try to direct the meaning of the feast towards wholesomeness and beauty rather than terror, fear and death,\" said Father Canals, a member of a Spanish commission on church rites.

Click to expand...

While I think that the Catholic church really needs to set other priorities higher and is overreacting, this is at least reasonably stated.

This kind of shit annoys me. I'd have thought the commercialization of Halloween would please the church. At least they're being consistent, though: not praising the commercialization of one holiday while lamenting the commercialization of Christmas and Easter.

All the same, this kind of shit happens all the time. I used to regularly associate with a guy who started referring to Santa as 'Satan Claus' a few years back.

Nov 1, 2009#148

Hailey Knight

But it is about death, to a degree. It's also about life, but you can't have one without the other.

EDIT: Fun times with the advertisement. "THE TYRANNY OF GOD".

Nov 1, 2009#149

Rob King

escushion said:
But it is about death, to a degree. It's also about life, but you can't have one without the other.

EDIT: Fun times with the advertisement. "THE TYRANNY OF GOD".

Some Christians will tell you otherwise. Actually, in the evolution debate, I've found THAT to be the most difficult obstacle.

It says somewhere in John or something that death only entered the world through the original sin. People interpret this as literal death, and since evolution takes millions of years of animals living, passing on good genes and then dying ... they reject it altogether.

Nov 1, 2009#150

Hailey Knight

I don't consider a perpetual state of immortality to be living. That's why the Greek gods were so bored.

But even on the terms of those Christians, however long and perfect that life was, death occurred and existed anyway.

Nov 2, 2009#151

WolfOfOdin

This is why, like most of America's elite, I worship Pan, the Goat God

Nov 2, 2009#152

Chibibar

Sorry to chime in late, wait.... so Catholic church will welcome gay priest and women priests??

does this mean gay is ok now in the Roman Catholic belief?

Nov 2, 2009#153

Espy

Chibibar said:
Sorry to chime in late, wait.... so Catholic church will welcome gay priest and women priests??

Nope. That is not what the original article was about. The Anglican church has a more liberal stance on those issues and the catholic church simply made it easier for Anglicans who disagree with those stances to joint he more conservative Catholic church.

Nov 2, 2009#154

Chibibar

Espy;287746][quote=Chibibar said:
Sorry to chime in late, wait.... so Catholic church will welcome gay priest and women priests??

Nov 2, 2009#155

The Pumes

I view this outreach for jilted members of the Anglican Church as a gateway to regain footing in England. The Catholic Church still maintains the belief that homosexuality is still a sin, but does not go to extremes to punish it, but instead just tries to make sure those who actively commit what they refer to as sin out of a leadership position. They believe that if a homosexual priest was allowed then the congregation or general church would be led astray. In both Old and New Testament it says that women should be subservient to men which is still something the Catholic Church believes. So in the mind of the Catholic Church it is not oppressing anything, but rather staying true and loyal to their beliefs and getting more members who believe the same.

So when the formally conservative Anglican church allowed these things, conservative members threw a fit and the Catholic Church is like 'Eyyy, brohantas we still view that as wrong'. Depending on which side of the spectrum you view it, it's all about gaining more followers and gaining the foothold they need in England or they are trying to give jilted members a place where they can go if they still wish to believe in their core ideals of right and wrong.

I really should not make Nyquil induced politically influeneced religious posts ever.

Nov 2, 2009#156

Espy

The Pumes said:
In both Old and New Testament it says that women should be subservient to men which is still something the Catholic Church believes.

Huh? You will have to forgive me, I can't seem to find anything outside of cultural norms of the time (which is a bigger issue that we can discuss here really. If anyone wants to learn about how cultural norms influence scripture and how scholars deal with them in translation and modern interpretation I can dig up some books on that if you want to pm me) that talks about women being subservient to men... Ephesians 5:22 is the closest you can get and it's in the context of how marriage works, and it's actually a joke (Paul tells women to "graciously submit" to their husbands, but he tells husbands to put their wives first to the point of dying for them, so they are "submitting" to being considered foremost in the marriage).
I'm not saying you can't pull some stuff out and use it to get where the Catholic church is (and I don't really know their theological view on that issue, does anyone here who is a member of the C. Church?), but I don't know any Biblical Scholars who take the idea of any form of "subservience" from one gender to another as being a Biblical tenant. Rather, the repeated calls for total equality among races and genders is the primary focus of gender and race relations among Biblical Studies today.

Nov 2, 2009#157

The Pumes

Espy;287960][quote=The Pumes said:
In both Old and New Testament it says that women should be subservient to men which is still something the Catholic Church believes.

Nov 2, 2009#158

Espy

The Pumes said:
Horrible screw-up on my part, I should say that books of the Old and New Testament make clear that women should never have positions of authority in the church (One exception in the old testament however, maybe more) and they are subservient under men in terms of authority in the church. Equal rights is totally cool with most religious groups, but equal rights in terms of authority is a no-no in some religious circles.

Kind of. Culturally in the Ancient Near East (Babylon, Egypt, Mesopotamia and the like) women were, in general considered subservient to men in most cultures, however, Israel had a rather regular habit of women taking prominent roles, particularly due to no men being "man enough" to fulfill God's call for Israel.
As far as women in leadership positions go, it's an easy target to say "Oh the NT didn't let women in leadership positions" but again I say, no scholar worth his weight would say that was anything but cultural law at work. The majority of men in that age would never have participated in a church or religion that allowed women to run it. Now, even in the NT there are several instances where it does happen, for the record, but still, as far as western civilization goes, it's a rather recent thing that equality among the sexes has become more widespread, even in the most modern of countries.
Basically my point being, God used Paul to start spreading a doctrine of equality, despite the cultural issues that would have to be worked out, that even to this day we are dealing with in both the secular and religious world. In reality, most (I think anyway, I haven't checked in awhile) Christian denominations, thanks to lots of work in the scholarly interpretation and textual criticism field, are allowing women in the highest of leadership circles. Clearly the CC is behind on that.
I agree that it took way to long, but then again, women have only really been allowed total equality in even the United States since what? The women's suffrage movement in the 1920's? God made it clear, that in his eyes all were equal despite humans not seeing it that way, which is a shame.

Nov 2, 2009#159

Hailey Knight

Espy;288000][quote=The Pumes said:
Horrible screw-up on my part, I should say that books of the Old and New Testament make clear that women should never have positions of authority in the church (One exception in the old testament however, maybe more) and they are subservient under men in terms of authority in the church. Equal rights is totally cool with most religious groups, but equal rights in terms of authority is a no-no in some religious circles.

Nov 2, 2009#160

Espy

escushion said:
Quiet, Espy!

Women! God says get back in that fucking kitchen and make him a sammich!

I can't argue that. He does love a good sammich. What dude don't?

Nov 2, 2009#161

Hailey Knight

Espy;288016][quote=escushion said:
Quiet, Espy!

Women! God says get back in that fucking kitchen and make him a sammich!

I can't argue that. He does love a good sammich. What dude don't?

[/QUOTE]

On a more serious note than this topic merits... I know exactly what you mean. I'm a simple guy when it comes to pleasures, and my favorite food is a sandwich. Others can keep their pizza, their tacos, their filet mignon, but give me a sandwich and I'm a happy guy.

Nov 9, 2009#162

Eriol

Espy, unfortunately I have to disagree with your interpretation on a textual basis (not a philosophical one). The two passages in the New Testament most relevant are:

1 Timothy 2:11-12 - 11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

and

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 - 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

FYI those are from the New International Version, and the links are from BibleGateway. Pick your favorite translation, but the idea is there. There is definite "women aren't supposed to teach" message there.

Now for some "on the other hand" commentary from google. Random site I found when trying "new testament women teaching" into google. I have no idea what congregation this is from, but hey, it's an interesting article on this:

Those who have opposed the use of women in teaching have used as their basic text 1 Corinthians 14.34-35, “Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law also says. And if they desire to learn anything let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.” A study of the context of this passage shows that it applies to a meeting unlike any we have today. Clearly, the meeting in question was one at which miraculous spiritual gifts were exercised. (cf vs. 1, 4, 5, 6, 13, 18, 22, 23, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33.) \"The women\" (wives) seems to refer to the wives of those who were exercising the gift of prophecy. The instruction, therefore, does not seem to be intended for unmarried women or widows or women whose husbands were not members of the church. The passage, therefore, teaches that when a prophet receives a revelation which his wife sitting in the audience does not fully understand, she is not to interrupt and make inquiry on the spot but must wait in silence and ask her husband at home.

So on Corinthians alone, it's saying (to my interpretation) "if your husband's a prophet, don't speak like you know what he does." That site has even more there that muddles the issue more (some of it giving outright examples of where women HAVE taught scripture), but the site itself seems to have a bias against women being "above" men in any way.

So basically espy, there IS textual places where it at least SEEMS like Women are forbidden from teaching, but there's arguments against such too. But it's not so simple as "it's not there" because it definitely is.

For more reading (more google results), try this one called "Paul and Women Teachers" as well. A lot more textual analysis and much more complete.

Nov 9, 2009#163

Espy

Sure, you are welcome to that interpretation and in some senses you are right, most scholars agree that there are cultural things at play in those particular churches that to a modern reader implies a less universal implication to the passages on teaching, particularly in light of the general equality preached and often allowed (despite some significant cultural barriers) in the New Testament times.
It would have been odd for Paul to allow women to teach and be missionaries then turn around and say "No women can do that". Textual critics spend a lot of time isolating these sorts of things and learning how to apply current cultural context to them. So when you have something that sticks out like that you dig deeper and often a cultural context explains the differences.
Again, it's something that is disputed, but in the overal context of the New Testament I see nothing that indicates it's a universal application or really anything beyond dealing with the local problems at the church in Corinth.
Of course you can disagree, that's fine, but this is what I study, it's what I do for a living and I go to textual criticism conferences. It's going to take a lot more than a tract from a random church website to change my mind on the current understanding of these passages. We have to understand these things in a bigger biblical picture rather than an isolated passage of scripture and that clues us in to a better understanding. Now uber-conservative folks are going to disagree, thats fine, but they, in my opinion, go to far in some of their interpretations. I'm not comfortable doing that.

Nov 9, 2009#164

Eriol

Hey, I'm actually with you that women ARE allowed to preach, etc, I'm just saying that the strongest argument is to REFUTE the passages above, not to say that "there really isn't anything in the NT against women" which seemed to represent your tone above. The second article linked is actually very pro-women, and gives VERY solid examples of the possible meanings of the translations, and where it's consistent, and concrete examples of Paul sending women to go teach.

I'm agreeing with you Espy, I'm just saying that I think you're arguing it wrong by totally ignoring those passages, rather than aggressively refuting them and showing how they don't mean what they seem to on the surface.

Nov 9, 2009#165

Espy

I'm not ignoring the passages in the least (I don't really understand where you got that from) but instead saying, they did mean something but it has to be taken in both a larger context of the overall themes of the NT, Paul's writing and the culture of the time.
When interpreted correctly they are not "against" women, but dealing with particular social issues facing the church Paul was writing to. In other words, they do not have widespread doctrinal ramifications about women but rather about (At least regarding 1 Corinthians 14:34-35) the function of the church and it's members.
I'm not sure how much more "aggressive" I can be on refuting them outside of saying "Here's how the majority of scholars approach these texts" and I agree with their approach.
I didn't read the second article and if it agrees with me that the NT and Paul preach equality overall and there are isolated instances that deal with issues that we are not meant to take as universal theology or doctrine then I would agree with it.
I'm not interested in being aggressive or attacking and I'm not in any way ignoring those passages, merely discussing them in the context appropriate to them. I don't have time to put together a paper with links and greek analysis here, so I'm just saving time by saying things in a basic fashion. The link you put in seems to have some good stuff and might be a great read for people who want to understand more about the subject, but I really don't know. I don't really have time to pick it apart but on first glance it looks pretty good or at the very least interesting.

Nov 9, 2009#166

Covar

TeKeo said:
Vatican condemns Halloween.

The Vatican issued the warning through its official newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, in an article headlined \"Hallowe'en's Dangerous Messages\".
The paper quoted a liturgical expert, Joan Maria Canals, who said: \"Hallowe'en has an undercurrent of occultism and is absolutely anti-Christian.\"
Parents should \"be aware of this and try to direct the meaning of the feast towards wholesomeness and beauty rather than terror, fear and death,\" said Father Canals, a member of a Spanish commission on church rites.

Click to expand...

While I think that the Catholic church really needs to set other priorities higher and is overreacting, this is at least reasonably stated.

I hardly think "article written in Vatican Newspaper by a spanish priest" is setting policy.

Nov 9, 2009#167

Krisken

Covar;294558][quote=TeKeo said:
Vatican condemns Halloween.

The Vatican issued the warning through its official newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, in an article headlined \"Hallowe'en's Dangerous Messages\".
The paper quoted a liturgical expert, Joan Maria Canals, who said: \"Hallowe'en has an undercurrent of occultism and is absolutely anti-Christian.\"
Parents should \"be aware of this and try to direct the meaning of the feast towards wholesomeness and beauty rather than terror, fear and death,\" said Father Canals, a member of a Spanish commission on church rites.

Click to expand...

While I think that the Catholic church really needs to set other priorities higher and is overreacting, this is at least reasonably stated.

I hardly think "article written in Vatican Newspaper by a spanish priest" is setting policy.[/QUOTE]
Everybody knows Spanish Priest policy only applies on every second and fourth Tuesday in months that end in "ER".

Nov 9, 2009#168

Green_Lantern

Krisken;294563][quote=Covar;294558][quote=TeKeo said:
Vatican condemns Halloween.

The Vatican issued the warning through its official newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, in an article headlined \"Hallowe'en's Dangerous Messages\".
The paper quoted a liturgical expert, Joan Maria Canals, who said: \"Hallowe'en has an undercurrent of occultism and is absolutely anti-Christian.\"
Parents should \"be aware of this and try to direct the meaning of the feast towards wholesomeness and beauty rather than terror, fear and death,\" said Father Canals, a member of a Spanish commission on church rites.

Click to expand...

While I think that the Catholic church really needs to set other priorities higher and is overreacting, this is at least reasonably stated.

[/QUOTE]

Nobody espects the Spanish Priest Vatican Newspaper Inquisition

Nov 10, 2009#169

SpecialKO

Covar;294558][quote=TeKeo said:
Vatican condemns Halloween.

The Vatican issued the warning through its official newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, in an article headlined \"Hallowe'en's Dangerous Messages\".
The paper quoted a liturgical expert, Joan Maria Canals, who said: \"Hallowe'en has an undercurrent of occultism and is absolutely anti-Christian.\"
Parents should \"be aware of this and try to direct the meaning of the feast towards wholesomeness and beauty rather than terror, fear and death,\" said Father Canals, a member of a Spanish commission on church rites.

Click to expand...

While I think that the Catholic church really needs to set other priorities higher and is overreacting, this is at least reasonably stated.

I hardly think "article written in Vatican Newspaper by a spanish priest" is setting policy.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough.

Nov 12, 2009#170

Steven Soderburgin

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/11/AR2009111116943_pf.html

Hating on gays is apparently more important than helping the poor to this particular Archdiocese.

Nov 12, 2009#171

Green_Lantern

Kissinger said:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/11/AR2009111116943_pf.html

Hating on gays is apparently more important than helping the poor to this particular Archdiocese.

You don't UNDERSTAND the gays are destroying the family falues and this is what destroying society!!!!! Because a child needs a mother and a father to understand that girls are weak and useless unless they are baby-making-machines and boys are suppose to be strong and manly and be unable to actual feel love or emotion because this is a girly thing

[/CatholicWackyJob]

edit: just to make it clear (and avoid offeding anyone) this is joke only to the extreme nutjobs that actually think that way.

Nov 12, 2009#172

Hailey Knight

Kissinger said:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/11/AR2009111116943_pf.html

Hating on gays is apparently more important than helping the poor to this particular Archdiocese.

I was pretty damn surprised to read that this morning in the paper.

Saying they cannot help secularly... so you can only help people who agree with your organization.

"Convert or suffer!"

Nov 17, 2009#173

Chazwozel

Kissinger said:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/11/AR2009111116943_pf.html

Hating on gays is apparently more important than helping the poor to this particular Archdiocese.

Ok this I agree is complete bullshit. They're trying to sway political motives by holding their social services at ransom.

Church separate from government bitches.

Nov 17, 2009#174

Rob King

Chazwozel;300915][quote=Kissinger said:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/11/AR2009111116943_pf.html

Hating on gays is apparently more important than helping the poor to this particular Archdiocese.

Ok this I agree is complete bullshit. They're trying to sway political motives by holding their social services at ransom.

Church separate from government bitches.[/QUOTE]

Are you fucking kidding? That's so goddamned ridiculous. That's exactly the kind of bullshit that makes people uncomfortable when they hear that the Salvation Army is a Christian Evangelical organization.

"No soup for you, unless you convert."

CHRISTIANITY: UR DOING IT WRONG.

EDIT: Having a second read through that article (post blind rage), I can see that it's not actually as bad as I thought it was. But it's still goddamned bullshit. The church will still be able to deny use of Church facilities, so that isn't the problem. The problem is that they want to be able to deny employee benefits to married homosexuals hired by the charities they run.

So, it's not just a "Let gays marry, and you'll be sorry." But it's not a "We need to be able to practice our religion without state-induced obligations" either. It's downright "If you make us acknowledge those gay couples that found another church to marry them, by treating them like a married couple, and giving them the same benefits as other married couples ... we won't talk to you anymore."

Nov 17, 2009#175

Green_Lantern

Rob King;300969][quote=Chazwozel;300915][quote=Kissinger said:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/11/AR2009111116943_pf.html

Hating on gays is apparently more important than helping the poor to this particular Archdiocese.

Forums