- Status
You got it toots.
I'm so glad to be a white, straight, male age 18-65. The world is my oyster![/QUOTE]
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.
Vatican condemns Halloween.
While I think that the Catholic church really needs to set other priorities higher and is overreacting, this is at least reasonably stated.
S
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.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".
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.
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.
But even on the terms of those Christians, however long and perfect that life was, death occurred and existed anyway.
W
WolfOfOdin
This is why, like most of America's elite, I worship Pan, the Goat God
C
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?
does this mean gay is ok now in the Roman Catholic belief?
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.
C
Chibibar
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.[/QUOTE]
Oh darn.
T
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.
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.
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.
T
The Pumes
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.[/QUOTE]
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.
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.[/QUOTE]
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?
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I hardly think "article written in Vatican Newspaper by a spanish priest" is setting policy.
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".
Green_Lantern
Staff member
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".
[/QUOTE]Nobody espects the Spanish Priest Vatican Newspaper Inquisition
I hardly think "article written in Vatican Newspaper by a spanish priest" is setting policy.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough.
S
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.
Hating on gays is apparently more important than helping the poor to this particular Archdiocese.
Green_Lantern
Staff member
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.
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!"
C
Chazwozel
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.
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."
Green_Lantern
Staff member
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.[/QUOTE]
My problem with "faith" is that it can easily lead to this thing, if you don't need evidence and you don't need justification is easy to fall in this kind of c...trap.
- Status