Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on October 21, 2020, 05:28:16 PM
-
Progress from Frankie
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5f904704c5b6b005f5f1ac35/amp?__twitter_impression=true
-
Progress from Frankie
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5f904704c5b6b005f5f1ac35/amp?__twitter_impression=true
About bloody time!
Talk about dragging Catholicism kicking and screaming into the 21st Century!
-
Frankie is the best Pope the RCC has had since Pope John XX111. Frankie wants to watch his back there were rumours that Pope John was taken out as he was too liberal for the RCC's liking.
-
Rumours,rumours. Where owuld we be without conspiracy stories?
I agree with you about Francis, he's a good egg.
-
I am not saying those rumours are true, however the unpleasant reputation of the RCC over the centuries has given them some credibility, imo.
-
The debate about 'Is the Catholic Church a Force for Good in the World' is available on YouTube, Steven Fry's contribution is enough of a summing up on its own.
Geoffrey Robertson QC's book 'The Case of the Pope' is a very good read too.
Both of these summings up of Catholicism together tell most people who will listen and will take it all in all they need to know about this disreputable organisation.
ippy.
-
The debate about 'Is the Catholic Church a Force for Good in the World' is available on YouTube, Steven Fry's contribution is enough of a summing up on its own.
Geoffrey Robertson QC's book 'The Case of the Pope' is a very good read too.
Both of these summings up of Catholicism together tell most people who will listen and will take it all in all they need to know about this disreputable organisation.
ippy.
This debate is brilliant - the Archbishop and Anne Widdicome could not have done the Catholic stance more damage if they had tried! Fry and Hitchins destroyed them! The looks and their faces when the voting was announced at the end were priceless!
Owlswing
)O(
-
This debate is brilliant - the Archbishop and Anne Widdicome could not have done the Catholic stance more damage if they had tried! Fry and Hitchins destroyed them! The looks and their faces when the voting was announced at the end were priceless!
Owlswing
)O(
I was there Owl and just after Steven Fry demolished them about forty to fifty, I assume they were Catholics, all walked out en bulk, it was a terrific occasion what an evening.
ippy
-
I was there Owl and just after Steven Fry demolished them about forty to fifty, I assume they were Catholics, all walked out en bulk, it was a terrific occasion what an evening.
ippy
As ever those who rejoice in 'debate victories', enjoy a shallow idea. I could easily post a number of debates where Willian Lane Craig wins and wins the audience but you would, and should conclude that that doesn't give any evidence of something being true.
-
As ever those who rejoice in 'debate victories', enjoy a shallow idea. I could easily post a number of debates where Willian Lane Craig wins and wins the audience but you would, and should conclude that that doesn't give any evidence of something being true.
I don't agree.
The points made that were stated in order to show that the "bad" eclipsed "good" quite clearly changed the views of a significant number of those who, in the beginning, agreed with the subject of the debate.
OK, they were, the total audience, a minimal percentage of the population of the UK, of the city of London, of Catholics and/or non-Catholics in those same locations, but that does not change the fact that the alteration in entry votes and the end of debate vote was in favour of the 'No's' and not the 'Yes's' which, by my way of thinking indicates a striking win for the 'No's'!
The vote stated that as far as the audience was concerned the statement that "The Catholic Church is a force for good in the World" was NOT true!"
Owlswing
)O(
-
I don't agree.
The points made that were stated in order to show that the "bad" eclipsed "good" quite clearly changed the views of a significant number of those who, in the beginning, agreed with the subject of the debate.
OK, they were, the total audience, a minimal percentage of the population of the UK, of the city of London, of Catholics and/or non-Catholics in those same locations, but that does not change the fact that the alteration in entry votes and the end of debate vote was in favour of the 'No's' and not the 'Yes's' which, by my way of thinking indicates a striking win for the 'No's'!
The vote stated that as far as the audience was concerned the statement that "The Catholic Church is a force for good in the World" was NOT true!"
Owlswing
)O(
Debate is, in the main, a skill, a trick. The same argument you have made can, as I pointed out and you ignored be made about debates with William Lane Craig. It shows nothing other than the skill of those debating.
As for the numbers voting for something, that's just an ad populum argument.
-
I wonder if the Pope might consider the possibility of Catholic priests marrying, be they gay or straight? That would be a huge step forward.
-
Frankie is the best Pope the RCC has had since Pope John XX111. Frankie wants to watch his back there were rumours that Pope John was taken out as he was too liberal for the RCC's liking.
What nonsense. He was 81, ffs!
-
What nonsense. He was 81, ffs!
I think LR may be thinking about JP1 as regards rumours of his 'removal'
-
I think LR may be thinking about JP1 as regards rumours of his 'removal'
WHOOPS thanks for that NM, yes did I mean John-Paul 1st.
-
WHOOPS thanks for that NM, yes did I mean John-Paul 1st.
::)
-
::) (In response to LR)
And, of course, you have never, in your entire life, made a mistake!
Owlswing
)O(
-
And, of course, you have never, in your entire life, made a mistake!
Owlswing
)O(
Of course I have - and if someone put a rolling-eyes emoji in response, that'd be fair comment.
-
It's still a nasty rumour about the demise of JP1. Why on earth would anyone have wanted to murder him hoenstly. He was a good man by all accounts.
I don't think Francis is endorsing same sex unions but he is not bothered about them, doesn't consider them sinful. I agree that he is the right pope for the times, very compassionate and not bothered about the letter of the law.
-
I don't think Francis is endorsing same sex unions but he is not bothered about them, doesn't consider them sinful. I agree that he is the right pope for the times, very compassionate and not bothered about the letter of the law.
But on so many issues within the RCC it is actions needed, not words. And this is where Francis seems to fail - regularly he comes out with comments that appear progressive and a prelude to change, but this is rapidly followed by the church hierarchy dismissing them as merely personal opinion not papal dictate etc and nothing changes.
He seems to have very little authority and nothing seems to change. In a weird way I'd prefer a pope who is overtly conservative who will therefore mean critics of the RCC wont take their eye off the ball. The notion that he seems to be a nice, compassionate guy stands for nothing if he changes nothing, which seems to be the case. Worse if it means that people stop being critics of the RCC and challenging the organisation to change simply because the pope seems popular. We've been here before - JPII gained popularity way beyond core catholics and many saw him as modern and a breath of fresh air - yet his actual record was one of obdurate conservatism and as a road-block to reform, progress and change. Don't go down the same route with Francis - judge him on his record of changing things not on warm words which are a smokescreen masking no progress.
-
But on so many issues within the RCC it is actions needed, not words. And this is where Francis seems to fail - regularly he comes out with comments that appear progressive and a prelude to change, but this is rapidly followed by the church hierarchy dismissing them as merely personal opinion not papal dictate etc and nothing changes.
He seems to have very little authority and nothing seems to change. In a weird way, I'd prefer a pope who is overtly conservative who will therefore mean critics of the RCC won't take their eye off the ball. The notion that he seems to be a nice, compassionate guy stands for nothing if he changes nothing, which seems to be the case. Worse if it means that people stop being critics of the RCC and challenging the organisation to change simply because the pope seems popular. We've been here before - JPII gained popularity way beyond core Catholics and many saw him as modern and a breath of fresh air - yet his actual record was one of obdurate conservatism and as a road-block to reform, progress and change. Don't go down the same route with Francis - judge him on his record of changing things, not on warm words which are a smokescreen masking no progress.
Too bleedin' right!
Owlswing
)O(
-
We could do with one or two practising Catholics, preferably moderate, on here to give their points of view, they would understand it better than any of us.
I know plenty of Catholics and always have some of whom I count as friends since childhood, a couple of clergy and a Justice & Peace group, but we've never talked about popes :-), neither would it occur to me to raise the subject. I expect they have opinions on the papacy though.
-
We could do with one or two practising Catholics, preferably moderate, on here to give their points of view, they would understand it better than any of us.
I know plenty of Catholics and always have some of whom I count as friends since childhood, a couple of clergy and a Justice & Peace group, but we've never talked about popes :-), neither would it occur to me to raise the subject. I expect they have opinions on the papacy though.
As someone married to a practicing catholic (as are her family) I can give some insight, at least from a UK catholic perspective.
First I think the view of catholics on popes is perhaps a bit similar to the view of monarchists on the monarch. What I mean is that you get the person you get and there isn't much debate about whether they are good or bad as it isn't going to change (unless the pope chooses) so discussion is rather pointless. So the pope you have at the moment is the best (or worst) you can have - end of story.
But there is another point - the views of UK catholics on issues such as homosexuality, contraception, abortion, women priests etc etc is far, far closer to the mainstream views of non catholics than it is to the orthodox teaching of the RCC. So rank and file catholics routinely disagree and ignore the teaching of the church on those matters, in which case it makes little difference whether the current pope is more liberal or more conservative as it isn't going to change the views and actions of individual catholics.
-
There is a worrying modern trend for pandering to popular opinion instead of seeking the truth of God's will through prayer and scripture. This is seen even in the Roman Catholic church with the RC bishops of England and Wales endorsing the compulsory teaching of LGBT issues in primary schools, and even in the Bishop of Rome's recent comments. My wife and I, along with many of our local congregation and our local priest feel deeply concerned about this.
The teachings of Jesus were not popular - He was crucified for them.
The posts on this thread certainly confirm that Pope Francis current proclamation is very popular, but is it God's will or the will of the people? The Christian bible warns us that the ways of the world are not God's ways.
-
The teachings of Jesus were not popular
And yet Jesus is not recorded as having uttered one word about homosexuality.
Education about LGBT issues is necessary to combat some of the prejudice still rife in society.
You need proof, read your post.
-
There is a worrying modern trend for pandering to popular opinion instead of seeking the truth of God's will through prayer and scripture. This is seen even in the Roman Catholic church with the RC bishops of England and Wales endorsing the compulsory teaching of LGBT issues in primary schools, and even in the Bishop of Rome's recent comments. My wife and I, along with many of our local congregation and our local priest feel deeply concerned about this.
The teachings of Jesus were not popular - He was crucified for them.
The posts on this thread certainly confirm that Pope Francis current proclamation is very popular, but is it God's will or the will of the people? The Christian bible warns us that the ways of the world are not God's ways.
Homophobic drivel
-
AB,
There is a worrying modern trend for pandering to popular opinion instead of seeking the truth of God's will through prayer and scripture.
“God's will through prayer and scripture” is just a faith belief you happen to have. So far at least, you’ve provided no sound reasons to think there’s any such thing.
This is seen even in the Roman Catholic church with the RC bishops of England and Wales endorsing the compulsory teaching of LGBT issues in primary schools, and even in the Bishop of Rome's recent comments.
The “compulsory teaching of LGBT issues in primary schools” is just the explanation to children that these “issues” exist and that there’s nothing to be ashamed of by those who experience them.
My wife and I, along with many of our local congregation and our local priest feel deeply concerned about this.
Really? Why? First, what consenting adults choose to do in private is none of your (or your wife’s or your congregation’s) business, and second what possible difference would the fact of LGBT issues make to your lives?
The teachings of Jesus were not popular - He was crucified for them.
So the story goes, but in any case so far as I know Jesus was entirely silent on LGBT issues in any case.
The posts on this thread certainly confirm that Pope Francis current proclamation is very popular, but is it God's will or the will of the people? The Christian bible warns us that the ways of the world are not God's ways.
Other supposedly “holy” books are available.
-
I wonder if Jesus didn't condemn homosexuality because he was gay? It is stated that he had a specific disciple whom he loved, presumably male. Some Christians will claim it was referring to his brother, but there is no verifiable evidence he had any siblings.
-
....
Other supposedly “holy” books are available.
They are mostly filled with homophobic drivel too, though
-
The Christian bible warns us that the ways of the world are not God's ways.
By condoning slavery, genocide, and homophobic bigotry...
-
NS,
They are mostly filled with homophobic drivel too, though
True enough, though some denominations at least do seem to be a bit more enlightened than others on this issue:
"At the same time, in the past two decades, several other religious groups also have moved to allow same-sex couples to marry within their traditions. This includes the Reform and Conservative Jewish movements, the Unitarian Universalist Association and the United Church of Christ."
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/21/where-christian-churches-stand-on-gay-marriage/
Maybe AB should consider changing allegiance?
-
NS,
True enough, though some denominations at least do seem to be a bit more enlightened than others on this issue:
"At the same time, in the past two decades, several other religious groups also have moved to allow same-sex couples to marry within their traditions. This includes the Reform and Conservative Jewish movements, the Unitarian Universalist Association and the United Church of Christ."
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/21/where-christian-churches-stand-on-gay-marriage/
Maybe AB should consider changing allegiance?
Yep, they have moved but they then cherry pick from their holy books which are filled with homophobic drivel. And I assume AB does too, unless he thinks it was ok to beat slaves as long as they didn't die
-
The teachings of Jesus were not popular - He was crucified for them.
The posts on this thread certainly confirm that Pope Francis current proclamation is very popular, but is it God's will or the will of the people? The Christian bible warns us that the ways of the world are not God's ways.
But if God made the world, then the way the world behaves must be God's way.
The RC view of sex and sexual behaviour is essentially developed from the writings of a 13th century monk named Thomas Acquinas, whose inspirational sources were from Aristotelian natural philosophy not the bible. The RC view of sexual behaviour has been that the sole purpose of coitus is reproduction (encouraged to ensure that the pews would always be full) and that coitus for any other purpose is sinful. After all, if you look at any other type of creature, sexual activity is followed by pregnancy.
The way the human world behaves is different from the animal world. Coitus, in fact sexual behaviour generally, serves a totally different purpose: it provides a mutual reward to the participants and encourages the maintenance of a close, affective relationship. From a purely procreational point of view, what purpose does sex serve for a post-menopausal woman?
Unlike any other animal on Earth, homo sapiens takes the best part of 20 years to reach full adulthood. The purpose of sexual behaviour can also be to ensure that human offspring are given the opportunity to develop in a relatively protective environment so that they stand a good chance of reaching adulthood. This, surely, is more likely to have been "God's way" than "be fruitful and multiply".
And as for non-reproductive, same sex, relationships? Mutual reward brings security, safety and fulfilment. Two people of the same sex may also have parental responsibilities. Their relationship affords stability for children in just the same way as a heterosexual relationship does. For a "loving God" this seems to be much more likely to me.
And how do we know that Jesus wasn't gay, anyway?
-
I don't know if he was gay or not, but in the opinion of at least half a dozen girls in my Second Form R E class stated that they considered him a total wanker!
-
I didn't know you taught RE Owlswing! Would love to be a fly on the wall.
-
I didn't know you taught RE Owlswing! Would love to be a fly on the wall.
Oh, I wish!
My RE teacher at the time was a little lady named Mrs Williams - Full-blown no-nonsense Chapel!
Owlswing
)O(
-
Oh, I wish!
My RE teacher at the time was a little lady named Mrs Williams - Full-blown no-nonsense Chapel!
Owlswing
)O(
I was quite lucky because I went to a Jesuit school they didn't actually bother with much of that. They were much more interested in exam results
-
Owl, I wuz teazing u.
NS agree the Jes are highly academic. I have friend who was at Jesuit school with his brother and their dad went to prison. The Jesuits refused to take any school fees for the rest of the time they were there. Both brothers went to Oxford and did well, have fond memories of their school. Their sister on the other hand had to leave her posh convent school, other parents objected. Huh!
Back to pope - I bet Francis would have had a few words to say to that convent if he'd been the Pope then & known about it.
-
The RC view of sexual behaviour has been that the sole purpose of coitus is reproduction (encouraged to ensure that the pews would always be full) and that coitus for any other purpose is sinful.
You are wrong, Harrowby.
The RC church teaches that sex within marriage has a twofold purpose. To quote from item 2363 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
"... the good of the spouses themselves, and the transmission of life"
and from item 2362:
"Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure"
-
This is seen even in the Roman Catholic church with the RC bishops of England and Wales endorsing the compulsory teaching of LGBT issues in primary schools, and even in the Bishop of Rome's recent comments. My wife and I, along with many of our local congregation and our local priest feel deeply concerned about this.
I think, if you are going to argue that homosexuality is wrong or should have restrictions placed on it e.g. not allowing same sex marriage, you should at least have an understanding of the thing you are against.
What are you frightened of? That people might realise you are wrong?
-
A case in point of his timidity in action:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55617851
While he might talk the talk of being more progressive - in terms of actions they are either zero or, as in this case, so mind-bogglingly limited as to be almost insulting. Either he is terrified of the uber-traditionalist and uber-conservatives or he is, in reality totally uninterested in reforming and modernising the RCC but merely wants to be seen as a progressive by making the occasional pronouncement.
Lets not forget he's been pope for nearly 8 years now - in all that time what has he actually done (deeds not words) to move the RCC forward.
-
You make good point there NearlyS even allowing for the fact that the wheesl of Rome turn slowly. He's not entirely his own man though is he, can't just change protocols because he wants to. From what I understand a dogma cannot be pronounced without an international survey taking place first so probably similar for changing church teachings.
I suppose you could say he is laying the ground work. He's very popular at present so will have some effect in time but we don't know how long he will last.
-
You make good point there NearlyS even allowing for the fact that the wheesl of Rome turn slowly. He's not entirely his own man though is he, can't just change protocols because he wants to. From what I understand a dogma cannot be pronounced without an international survey taking place first so probably similar for changing church teachings.
I suppose you could say he is laying the ground work. He's very popular at present so will have some effect in time but we don't know how long he will last.
I think there is a further issue, which is that society is moving on. If the RCC moves to modernise at a snail's pace or not at all then all the time it becomes further and further detached from mainstream norms in society.
So I'd argue that the RCC is more out of touch with mainstream society today than it even has been (or certainly in centuries) as its failure to change means it is left behind by a rapidly changing society. So back in the 1950s then the RCC would have been fairly mainstream in its attitudes to women and gay people - now it is polls apart. And the notion that somehow allowing women to serve as lay alter-servers (but not deacons let alone priests) just seems so out of touch in 2021, not just with mainstream societal positions, but I suspect the mainstream views of rank and file catholics.
-
AB,
You are wrong, Harrowby.
The RC church teaches that sex within marriage has a twofold purpose. To quote from item 2363 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
"... the good of the spouses themselves, and the transmission of life"
and from item 2362:
"Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure"
Except of course it's a rigged deal because the RCC also teaches that marriage can only be heterosexual, so the "source of joy and pleasure" should be denied to homosexual couples. Does anything strike you as unreasonable about that?
Anything at all?
-
AB,
Except of course it's a rigged deal because the RCC also teaches that marriage can only be heterosexual, so the "source of joy and pleasure" should be denied to homosexual couples. Does anything strike you as unreasonable about that?
Anything at all?
And also catechism 2358 described homosexuality as 'objectively disordered' - for something to be objectively anything their must be an objectively justified approach to determining this. In this case there is clearly not - what they mean is that in the opinion of the RCC homosexuality is disordered - there is no objectivity whatsoever to this claim, merely a subjective opinion.
-
You are wrong, Harrowby.
The RC church teaches that sex within marriage has a twofold purpose. To quote from item 2363 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
"... the good of the spouses themselves, and the transmission of life"
Nice bit of selective quoting AB.
Sure 2363 indicates that sex has a twofold purpose, but it goes one to indicate that those two purposes cannot be separated, as follows:
'These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family. The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.'
So in effect you are not allowed to simply just enjoy sex as a pleasurable act as to do so would separate it from the other 'purpose' - fertility, i.e. the transmission of life. Presumably from this edict flows the non-sense of considering contraception to be a no-no, as it separates the pleasure of sex from its perceived purpose of fertility. Nonsense on stilts and also hugely damaging to societies across the world, whether by preventing condom use to stop the spread of HIV or preventing couples from making sensible and responsible decisions (for them and the planet) about the number of children they choose to have.
-
Prof Davey post 42
I think you are probably right about that, Prof.
-
Prof Davey post 42
I think you are probably right about that, Prof.
Only probably. Robbie?
I would say it is an absolute racing certainty!
Owlswing
)O(
-
Entirely possible, Owl ;).
-
Entirely possible, Owl ;).
Bloody Hell! Did I actually get something right!
Where the F's my diary, I just gotta note this!
Thanks Robbie!
Owlswing
)O(
-
You are most welcome.
-
'Moving on' means what exactly? Towards what?
Life is not a one way street that keeps going somewhere....liberal...super liberal...mega liberal...ultra liberal...hyper liberal etc.etc. Life is cyclical. Things move back to what they were, with certain changes that enable better adaptation, reproduction and survival.
How the coming generations will think and what values they will hold cannot be assumed by just extrapolating what people think today.
-
'Moving on' means what exactly? Towards what?
Life is not a one way street that keeps going somewhere....liberal...super liberal...mega liberal...ultra liberal...hyper liberal etc.etc. Life is cyclical. Things move back to what they were, with certain changes that enable better adaptation, reproduction and survival.
How the coming generations will think and what values they will hold cannot be assumed by just extrapolating what people think today.
Which just sounds like an excuse to say the slave trade is ok because it's all cyclical.
-
Which just sounds like an excuse to say the slave trade is ok because it's all cyclical.
I was thinking along similar lines! :o
-
'Moving on' means what exactly? Towards what?
I think it was me who used that term in reply 42, so I'll respond.
'Moving on' means society moving from a particular position in terms of its views on certain issues to a different position. Towards what - well that isn't really relevant, merely suffice to say that by 'moving on' society holds different views than it did at a point in the past.
My point wasn't actually about whether that change is positive or negative, that is a subjective judgement (although in my view the changes over the past 50 years in terms of attitudes towards women, gay people and people who aren't white has been overwhelmingly positive although there remains much to do). My point is that if you consider the views of the RCC and broader UK society on major moral issues, including abortion, contraception, gay rights, women's rights etc etc. If 50 years ago the views of the RCC and broader society were not massively far apart, but broader society changes its views (moves on) but the RCC does not change its views then necessity the orthodox views of the RCC become increasing detached from the views of broader society (and indeed rank and file catholics who seem to have 'moved on' in a manner much closer to broader society than 'stayed put', as the RCC has done).
Surely that isn't a difficult concept to understand Sriram.
-
Well....all I am saying is that just because something is a trend today or is regarded as the correct way to do things....it need not be so forever. It is not necessarily 'correct' in any absolute sense. Societies evolve and change. Right and wrong are relative.
Whatever exits today will change inevitably sometime in the future.
There are no infinite ways in which things can change in society. We have only certain choices....which keep going round and round, with some variations.
-
Well....all I am saying is that just because something is a trend today or is regarded as the correct way to do things....it need not be so forever. It is not necessarily 'correct' in any absolute sense. Societies evolve and change. Right and wrong are relative.
Whatever exits today will change inevitably sometime in the future.
There are no infinite ways in which things can change in society. We have only certain choices....which keep going round and round, with some variations.
I agree that things within societies constantly change and also that societies evolve and change and what societies perceives to be right or wrong is relative and also changes.
I'm not sure I agree that things go round and round, implying that at some point in the future we will come back to the situation that we have today again. And that society at some future point will reflect Tudor society. I don't think that is true, not least from the fact that today's society benefits from, and is informed by, knowledge of all earlier societal structures including the Tudor's - while Tudor society cannot be informed by societal structures that have existed more recently than Tudor times.
So I see no real evidence of things going round and round - there is constant change but I don't see that it ever returns to the situation of earlier times.
-
For heavens sake....when I said that things go round and round I did not mean that past events will get repeated in the future.....and that one day we will be reliving world war 2 or anything of that kind.
Values, hopes and aspirations don't change radically. They remain broadly the same....which is why ancient books and stories written thousands of years ago are relevant even today and why they still inspire and provide solace to most people on earth.
-
....which is why ancient books and stories written thousands of years ago are relevant even today and why they still inspire and provide solace to most people on earth.
I'd suggest this is largely cultural rather than those books being fundamentally relevant to people today in an objective manner. Why do I say this - well because the book that people find 'relevant' tends to be the one that they were brought up to consider important. Very few people brought up as Hindu find the Koran or the Torah relevant and important for example - indeed I would go as far as to say that very few people from one religion have more than a passing knowledge of what is written in the sacred texts of another religion.
Secondly, there are countless ancient texts (or oral equivalent) considered at one point or another to be sacred or important - yet of those a tiny handful are the ones you consider to be providing 'solace to most people on earth'. And those that do only remain relevant because the religion they are associated with has embedded their relevance in its cultural DNA and created customs and ceremonies specifically aimed at ensuring that the next generation find them relevant.
-
I'd suggest this is largely cultural rather than those books being fundamentally relevant to people today in an objective manner. Why do I say this - well because the book that people find 'relevant' tends to be the one that they were brought up to consider important. Very few people brought up as Hindu find the Koran or the Torah relevant and important for example - indeed I would go as far as to say that very few people from one religion have more than a passing knowledge of what is written in the sacred texts of another religion.
Secondly, there are countless ancient texts (or oral equivalent) considered at one point or another to be sacred or important - yet of those a tiny handful are the ones you consider to be providing 'solace to most people on earth'. And those that do only remain relevant because the religion they are associated with has embedded their relevance in its cultural DNA and created customs and ceremonies specifically aimed at ensuring that the next generation find them relevant.
There isn't a lot of Greek pantheists about but I would suggest that the Iliad and the Odyssey are still relevant.
I think Sriram maybe making a wider point than just the 'sacred; books and looking at whether we are that different as individuals and a species. I think his idea of cycles is simplistic, rather we can read Confucius or Aristotle or the Bible or the Vedas and find wisdom and a fellow feeling. I've noted before on here that I find Ecclesiates chimes a lot with my thoughts and feelings.
-
There isn't a lot of Greek pantheists about but I would suggest that the Iliad and the Odyssey are still relevant.
Perhaps, although I doubt many people find that either provide 'solace' as Sriram suggests ;)
But I'd go further and suggest their continuing relevance and importance is inherently cultural. We have retained a culture of 'the classics' over many centuries and indeed for a long time education was considered primarily to involve study of the classics, alongside christian scripture. Hence they have been retained. How many similarly important works of philosophy from other cultures are completely lost to us, although they may be just as good/important as the Iliad and the Odyssey had culture retained their importance.
Also how many people today have any idea what is in the Iliad and the Odyssey, let alone have actually read them.
-
Perhaps, although I doubt many people find that either provide 'solace' as Sriram suggests ;)
But I'd go further and suggest their continuing relevance and importance is inherently cultural. We have retained a culture of 'the classics' over many centuries and indeed for a long time education was considered primarily to involve study of the classics, alongside christian scripture. Hence they have been retained. How many similarly important works of philosophy from other cultures are completely lost to us, although they may be just as good/important as the Iliad and the Odyssey had culture retained their importance.
Also how many people today have any idea what is in the Iliad and the Odyssey, let alone have actually read them.
I expanded the point with the rest of my post. So what you have created here is a strawman.
-
I expanded the point with the rest of my post. So what you have created here is a strawman.
I don't think it is a straw man and the points I've made also apply to your expanded argument - I will respond directly to them.
-
I don't think it is a straw man and the points I've made also apply to your expanded argument - I will respond directly to them.
No, they don't since I wan't arguing against things being 'cultural'.
-
There isn't a lot of Greek pantheists about but I would suggest that the Iliad and the Odyssey are still relevant.
I think Sriram maybe making a wider point than just the 'sacred; books and looking at whether we are that different as individuals and a species. I think his idea of cycles is simplistic, rather we can read Confucius or Aristotle or the Bible or the Vedas and find wisdom and a fellow feeling. I've noted before on here that I find Ecclesiates chimes a lot with my thoughts and feelings.
I think my arguments still apply to your expanded point.
There are cultural reasons why we, as a society, have retained Confucius or Aristotle or the Bible or the Vedas in our pantheon of 'important' texts, yet have lost many others from similar times that might have been considered just at important had they been retained. So what comes to us is inherently a product of our culture.
But in addition - how many people today have actually read Confucius, Aristotle, the Bible or the Vedas? I'd suggest very few and fewer still would have more than a passing knowledge of what they contained. So in most cases how the 'knowledge' of those texts comes to us is not directly at all, but translated into societal and cultural norms which align with, and have have their origins in, those texts, albeit with many generations of layering on top. Probably the nearest most people get to the actual text is the occasional well know sayings that have become embedded in colloquialism.
-
No, they don't since I wan't arguing against things being 'cultural'.
Were you arguing in favour of their being 'cultural'? In which case I agree. If you were simply not arguing against things being 'cultural', but not arguing that they are - a kind of neutrality, then I'd take issue because I don't think anything we retain today comes to us except through the prism of current and former culture and society.
-
I think my arguments still apply to your expanded point.
There are cultural reasons why we, as a society, have retained Confucius or Aristotle or the Bible or the Vedas in our pantheon of 'important' texts, yet have lost many others from similar times that might have been considered just at important had they been retained. So what comes to us is inherently a product of our culture.
But in addition - how many people today have actually read Confucius, Aristotle, the Bible or the Vedas? I'd suggest very few and fewer still would have more than a passing knowledge of what they contained. So in most cases how the 'knowledge' of those texts comes to us is not directly at all, but translated into societal and cultural norms which align with, and have have their origins in, those texts, albeit with many generations of layering on top. Probably the nearest most people get to the actual text is the occasional well know sayings that have become embedded in colloquialism.
You've just repeated the straw man. I'm not arguing that there are not 'cultural' reasons about why something is read - though I do think you make 'cultural' sound as if it is removed from society and people as some kind of outside influence.
The point is that it is still possible to read any of the above and find relevance, wisdom, and fellow feeling. Too often you see terns like 'bronze age goatherders' flung about, mainly incorrectly, as if to distance us now as being some homo superior.
-
Were you arguing in favour of their being 'cultural'? In which case I agree. If you were simply not arguing against things being 'cultural', but not arguing that they are - a kind of neutrality, then I'd take issue because I don't think anything we retain today comes to us except through the prism of current and former culture and society.
Things are obviously 'cultural' but I think that tells you nothing about whether you can find wisdom, relevance and fellow feeling in ancient texts. Indeed it's surely that people find such things that creates the culture?
-
Things are obviously 'cultural' but I think that tells you nothing about whether you can find wisdom, relevance and fellow feeling in ancient texts.
I'm not saying that you can't find wisdom etc in ancient text - indeed in a couple of weeks I will be nodding to Aristotle as I introduce my ethics students to the concept of Virtue Ethics.
But the reality is that most people do not find wisdom, relevance and fellow feeling in ancient texts because they have never read them. The closest they will come is the manner in which those ancient texts has been through the wheels of culture and society and is 'spat out' as a kind of cultural and societal back drop, mood music if you like. So the texts may, indeed, have wisdom, relevance and fellow feeling but it comes to us (in most cases) not directly, but second, 3rd or n-th hand.
-
I'm not saying that you can't find wisdom etc in ancient text - indeed in a couple of weeks I will be nodding to Aristotle as I introduce my ethics students to the concept of Virtue Ethics.
But the reality is that most people do not find wisdom, relevance and fellow feeling in ancient texts because they have never read them. The closest they will come is the manner in which those ancient texts has been through the wheels of culture and society and is 'spat out' as a kind of cultural and societal back drop, mood music if you like. So the texts may, indeed, have wisdom, relevance and fellow feeling but it comes to us (in most cases) not directly, but second, 3rd or n-th hand.
So when you are challenging Sriram's statement:
'Values, hopes and aspirations don't change radically. They remain broadly the same....which is why ancient books and stories written thousands of years ago are relevant even today and why they still inspire and provide solace to most people on earth.'
What you are challenging is that most people on earth won't have read those books but you agree with what I italicised?
-
So when you are challenging Sriram's statement:
'Values, hopes and aspirations don't change radically. They remain broadly the same....which is why ancient books and stories written thousands of years ago are relevant even today and why they still inspire and provide solace to most people on earth.'
What you are challenging is that most people on earth won't have read those books but you agree with what I italicised?
If you read my reply to Sriram you will see that I had edited down his post to emphasise the part I was responding to, which was this bit:
'....which is why ancient books and stories written thousands of years ago are relevant even today and why they still inspire and provide solace to most people on earth.'
-
If you read my reply to Sriram you will see that I had edited down his post to emphasise the part I was responding to, which was this bit:
'....which is why ancient books and stories written thousands of years ago are relevant even today and why they still inspire and provide solace to most people on earth.'
So what issue do you have with ;which is why ancient books and stories written thousands of years ago are relevant even today'?
-
So what issue do you have with ;which is why ancient books and stories written thousands of years ago are relevant even today'?
Did you actually read my response - perhaps I should repeat it:
'I'd suggest this is largely cultural rather than those books being fundamentally relevant to people today in an objective manner. Why do I say this - well because the book that people find 'relevant' tends to be the one that they were brought up to consider important. Very few people brought up as Hindu find the Koran or the Torah relevant and important for example - indeed I would go as far as to say that very few people from one religion have more than a passing knowledge of what is written in the sacred texts of another religion.
Secondly, there are countless ancient texts (or oral equivalent) considered at one point or another to be sacred or important - yet of those a tiny handful are the ones you consider to be providing 'solace to most people on earth'. And those that do only remain relevant because the religion they are associated with has embedded their relevance in its cultural DNA and created customs and ceremonies specifically aimed at ensuring that the next generation find them relevant.'
I was taking issue with the implication of Sriram's post (as I saw it) that the pantheon of ancient texts remain relevant today and that countless people routinely read those texts and gain inspiration and solace.
Firstly because very few people have understanding of ancient texts beyond the one (or an handful) that are embedded in their cultural upbringing. And there will be countless ancient texts completely lost to society, that could have been considered just as relevant had they not been lost, whether accidentally or through cultural/societal design.
So Sriram's implication (as I saw it) that around the world people are reading all sorts of ancient texts directly and gaining inspiration/solace I don't believe is true. Even most religious people often have scant knowledge of what is in the ancient texts relating to their own religion, and knowledge of ancient texts beyond their religion is often close to non-existent.
-
Did you actually read my response - perhaps I should repeat it:
'I'd suggest this is largely cultural rather than those books being fundamentally relevant to people today in an objective manner. Why do I say this - well because the book that people find 'relevant' tends to be the one that they were brought up to consider important. Very few people brought up as Hindu find the Koran or the Torah relevant and important for example - indeed I would go as far as to say that very few people from one religion have more than a passing knowledge of what is written in the sacred texts of another religion.
Secondly, there are countless ancient texts (or oral equivalent) considered at one point or another to be sacred or important - yet of those a tiny handful are the ones you consider to be providing 'solace to most people on earth'. And those that do only remain relevant because the religion they are associated with has embedded their relevance in its cultural DNA and created customs and ceremonies specifically aimed at ensuring that the next generation find them relevant.'
I was taking issue with the implication of Sriram's post (as I saw it) that the pantheon of ancient texts remain relevant today and that countless people routinely read those texts and gain inspiration and solace.
Firstly because very few people have understanding of ancient texts beyond the one (or an handful) that are embedded in their cultural upbringing. And there will be countless ancient texts completely lost to society, that could have been considered just as relevant had they not been lost, whether accidentally or through cultural/societal design.
So Sriram's implication (as I saw it) that around the world people are reading all sorts of ancient texts directly and gaining inspiration/solace I don't believe is true. Even most religious people often have scant knowledge of what is in the ancient texts relating to their own religion, and knowledge of ancient texts beyond their religion is often close to non-existent.
Yes, i did read it and also read it in the context of the thread where Sriram has been arguing that there is not really any difference between us as individuals and as a species in what is important now, and 2, 3, 4 thousand years ago and what was written by people then
Again you seem to see 'cultural' as somehow outside of what society is and that seems wrong. Culture makes us and wr make culture. There is no separation. So when you talk about people only knowing in the main their own 'culture', that's a truism.
EtA If Sriram's statement had said 'many people' rather than 'most people', would you have agreed with it?
-
What Sriram said was:
Values, hopes and aspirations don't change radically. They remain broadly the same....which is why ancient books and stories written thousands of years ago are relevant even today and why they still inspire and provide solace to most people on earth.
Two thoughts here:
First, the claim is too broadly drawn. Many of these “ancient books and stories written thousands of years ago” contain a lot of crap too (endorsing slavery for example) so the claim needs the pre-fix “some parts of…”.
Second, even if some parts of these stories are “relevant” (ie, appropriate to the current time etc) that leaves open the question of whether they’re necessary. If an ancient text says “murder is wrong” then fine, but no-one needs to go to that text to know that. Rather the point should I’d have thought be whether these texts can teach us things we don’t know already, perhaps by making arguments that bear scrutiny contrary to the Zeitgeist. Maybe some do but the case for that needs to be made and not just asserted.
-
What Sriram said was:
Two thoughts here:
First, the claim is too broadly drawn. Many of these “ancient books and stories written thousands of years ago” contain a lot of crap too (endorsing slavery for example) so the claim needs the pre-fix “some parts of…”.
Second, even if some parts of these stories are “relevant” (ie, appropriate to the current time etc) that leaves open the question of whether they’re necessary. If an ancient text says “murder is wrong” then fine, but no-one needs to go to that text to know that. Rather the point should I’d have thought be whether these texts can teach us things we don’t know already, perhaps by making arguments that bear scrutiny contrary to the Zeitgeist. Maybe some do but the case for that needs to be made and not just asserted.
Your first point is a strawman. Sriram does nit claim everything to be relevant or correct.
The second part seems to me both narrow in its interpretation of 'relevant', dangerous in its implication, and irrelevant to Sriram's main claim.
It's too narrow in ignoring that there may well be a benefit in recognising that we haven't really changed, particularly in avoiding a false sense of superiority.
Dangerous in its implication that we should merely maintain the necessary parts of culture, erasing those that might be repetitive. Damgerous too in the hint of objective claims to what is necessary ignoring that we as individuals will respond to different approaches to the same issue differently. It reads to me as if there was one novel about loneliness, you would see other novels about loneliness as wastes of time.
Irrelevant to Sriram's point that we are not really different from those thousands of years ago.
-
Yes, i did read it and also read it in the context of the thread where Sriram has been arguing that there is not really any difference between us as individuals and as a species in what is important now, and 2, 3, 4 thousand years ago and what was written by people then
I actually chose not to respond to the part where Sriram implies were are effectively very similar to how we were thousands of years in terms of what it important to us - I don't really agree with this point, and it is certainly too nebulous so would have required a lot of clarification and discussion. For another time.
Again you seem to see 'cultural' as somehow outside of what society is and that seems wrong. Culture makes us and wr make culture. There is no separation. So when you talk about people only knowing in the main their own 'culture', that's a truism.
Nope, and apologies if that was how you have read my posts. Culture and society are interwoven explicitly - I guess I just didn't want to constantly write cultural/societal.
EtA If Sriram's statement had said 'many people' rather than 'most people', would you have agreed with it?
Firstly 'many' is harder to define than 'most' - in the context of the world, we know what most means - more than half. What does many mean? Is one million many? It is a lot of people, but a tiny proportion of the world's population.
But actually the many/most point isn't my issue. My main issue is the pluralisation of books - Sriram's statement:
'which is why ancient books and stories written thousands of years ago are relevant even today and why they still inspire and provide solace to most people on earth'
Perhaps this is merely not written tightly enough, but the implication to me is that 'most people' are being inspired and gaining solace from multiple books, not just one. And also that the inspiration/solace is directly from the books (i.e. from actually reading them) rather than via broader cultural/societal mood music. I don't think that is true. Sriram is clearly referring to religion and religious books/texts - and in that case I think people who are religious do not (on the whole) gain inspiration/solace from multiple books/texts from across religious and cultural spectrum. Rather, they gain inspiration/solace from a single book (or small number of linked books) that are specifically part of their religion. And as I have suggested the knowledge of (let alone direct experience of actually reading) texts from other religions or philosophical cultures tends to be pretty woeful.
By the way the knowledge of non religious people of ancient texts (certainly through direct reading) tends to be just as woeful.
-
First, the claim is too broadly drawn. Many of these “ancient books and stories written thousands of years ago” contain a lot of crap too (endorsing slavery for example) so the claim needs the pre-fix “some parts of…”.
That is correct - I suspect very few people (certainly not most) gain inspiration from ancient books in their entirety. In most cases the focus is on limited parts, sometimes because the other parts are largely padding, sometimes some parts seem completely irrelevant to the modern world and in other cases because the other parts contain deeply unpalatable elements that we'd certainly not be inspired by.
Second, even if some parts of these stories are “relevant” (ie, appropriate to the current time etc) that leaves open the question of whether they’re necessary. If an ancient text says “murder is wrong” then fine, but no-one needs to go to that text to know that. Rather the point should I’d have thought be whether these texts can teach us things we don’t know already, perhaps by making arguments that bear scrutiny contrary to the Zeitgeist. Maybe some do but the case for that needs to be made and not just asserted.
And a further point is where the inspiration for those texts came from in the first place. I doubt that many (if indeed any) of those texts we have now are genuinely original in thought. All will have built on earlier cultural/societal positions. So these texts are merely a staging post in a continuum that originate somewhere largely lost to us. So the point on necessity is well taken. So if no-one had written the bible would the notion of 'turn the other cheek' never have arisen. I'd argue that it would, not least because it could have easily arisen more recently, but more significantly there are almost certainly older and more ancient cultures that embedded the same mantra, albeit perhaps using different phrasing, so the bible may have redundancy in terms of this mantra transmitting itself to current times.
-
Are we not straying from the topic now?
-
I think there is a further issue, which is that society is moving on. If the RCC moves to modernise at a snail's pace or not at all then all the time it becomes further and further detached from mainstream norms in society.
So I'd argue that the RCC is more out of touch with mainstream society today than it even has been (or certainly in centuries) as its failure to change means it is left behind by a rapidly changing society. So back in the 1950s then the RCC would have been fairly mainstream in its attitudes to women and gay people - now it is polls apart. And the notion that somehow allowing women to serve as lay alter-servers (but not deacons let alone priests) just seems so out of touch in 2021, not just with mainstream societal positions, but I suspect the mainstream views of rank and file catholics.
But what drives the views which emanate from mainstream society?
Is it the self centred attitudes which are an inevitable result of increasing secularism?
God's love does not change, but we are in danger of being separated from God by following the ways of he world.
-
Is it the self centred attitudes which are an inevitable result of increasing secularism?
I know what you mean.
Heterosexuals are so self centred. Always making little copies of themselves that they treat like little Princes and Princesses. No regard for the effect that their profligate mating rituals have on our planet. Total absorption in their own selves, I find it morally repugnant.
I mean it's enough to turn one gay.
-
I know what you mean.
Heterosexuals are so self centred. Always making little copies of themselves that they treat like little Princes and Princesses. No regard for the effect that their profligate mating rituals have on our planet. Total absorption in their own selves, I find it morally repugnant.
I mean it's enough to turn one gay.
That's me, convinced by your logic, I have to quote Cary Grant, to whom Happy Birthday, in Bringing Up Baby 'went gay all of a sudden'
https://youtu.be/EQDbDIz1Y0E
-
But what drives the views which emanate from mainstream society?
People.
Is it the self centred attitudes which are an inevitable result of increasing secularism?
I think it is just people being people.
-
But what drives the views which emanate from mainstream society?
Is it the self centred attitudes which are an inevitable result of increasing secularism?
I am not gay, yet I fully support gay people having the same rights as me to get married - how is that me being self-centred, seeing as I am supporting other people being able to benefit from something that I can already benefit from.
The self-centred approach is to believe that if your religion doesn't agree with gay marriage then you should ban it for everyone, not just members of your religion. That is a self centred attitude AB.
-
Is it the self centred attitudes which are an inevitable result of increasing secularism?
Secularism is about society being neutral with regard to religion - so that religions and religious people are neither privileged nor discriminated against compared to non religious people.
That is inherently the opposite of being self centred as it involves treating people who aren't like you equally. Societies that privilege religion, often an established religion, are inherently more self centred as the people typically making the decisions to privilege religion tend to be members of that religion.
-
A welcome clarification from Pope Francis
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/pope-francis-says-catholic-priests-141630276.html
-
A welcome clarification from Pope Francis
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/pope-francis-says-catholic-priests-141630276.html
Another example of the timidity and flip-flopping of Frankie.
Time and time again he seems to imply some progress and modernisation only to do a complete u-turn a couple of weeks or months later. Sometimes this involves the Vatican basically giving him a dressing down by saying the previous remarks were merely personal and that nothing changes.
-
A welcome clarification from Pope Francis
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/pope-francis-says-catholic-priests-141630276.html
Yes. Nice to see a return to bigoted normality.
-
A welcome clarification from Pope Francis
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/pope-francis-says-catholic-priests-141630276.html
Surely you jest: someone needs to help Frankie move on from the 15th century.
-
Surely you jest: someone needs to help Frankie move on from the 15th century.
I jest not, Gordon
God is the same now as He was in the 15th century - as He was at the beginning of time.
God does not move on.
The human race may well be moving on somewhere, but unfortunately the evidence is that they are moving away from God.
The current trend of gender ideology is causing irreparable damage to young people:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF4KIaTSQmA
-
God is the same now as He was in the 15th century - as He was at the beginning of time.
Indeed he/she/it is - doesn't exist now just as he/she/it didn't exist in the 15thC or at the beginning of time.
-
The idea of of god is the same as it has ever been, a belief without any verifiable evidence to support its existence.
-
I wonder if Jesus didn't condemn homosexuality because he was gay? It is stated that he had a specific disciple whom he loved, presumably male. Some Christians will claim it was referring to his brother, but there is no verifiable evidence he had any siblings.
Check your facts before spouting cobblers. James is referred to as the brother of Jesus.
-
Check your facts before spouting cobblers. James is referred to as the brother of Jesus.
That isn't a 'fact', but an assertion that cannot be verified. Jesus may have had a brother called James, but the evidence for this is paper thin.
-
Check your facts before spouting cobblers. James is referred to as the brother of Jesus.
It doesn't state James was the disciple whom he loved.
-
will,
Check your facts before spouting cobblers. James is referred to as the brother of Jesus.
Given that the myth is that a god impregnated a (presumably non-consenting) Mary, unless James had the same parentage I'd have though he'd be a half-brother at most, no?
-
will,
Given that the myth is that a god impregnated a (presumably non-consenting) Mary, unless James had the same parentage I'd have though he'd be a half-brother at most, no?
You check your facts before spouting cobblers, as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annunciation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnificat
-
The current trend of gender ideology is causing irreparable damage to young people:
Which is completely irrelevant to a conversation about same sex marriage.
-
You check your facts before spouting cobblers, as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annunciation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnificat
You do seems to have only a passing acquaintance with the definition of the word 'fact'.
-
will,
You check your facts before spouting cobblers, as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annunciation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnificat
First, the annunciation story isn't a fact.
Second, how in any case would that get you off the hook of James being a half-brother rather than a full brother? Was Jesus the "son of god" but James the son of a different father, or not?
Third, if the annunciation is the "announcement by the Archangel Gabriel to the Blessed Virgin Mary that she would conceive and become the mother of Jesus, the Jewish messiah and Son of God" in what sense was that consensual? Did your man Gabriel also add some small print: "Customer is free to reject this offer within 14 days. God's impregnating activities are governed by the Virgin Impregnation Regulation Authority. Terms & Conditions apply" type of thing?
The clue here is that Gabriel announced it (supposedly) - he didn't ask her whether she'd like to accept the offer.
-
will,
First, the annunciation story isn't a fact.
.Where are you getting this from and whereever it is is it the earliest extant copy?
Third, if the annunciation is the "announcement by the Archangel Gabriel to the Blessed Virgin Mary that she would conceive and become the mother of Jesus, the Jewish messiah and Son of God" in what sense was that consensual? Did your man Gabriel also add some small print: "Customer is free to reject this offer within 14 days. God's impregnating activities are governed by the Virgin Impregnation Regulation Authority. Terms & Conditions apply" type of thing?
From the Catholic Exchange.com
''According to the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium , “The Father of mercies willed that the Incarnation should be preceded by assent on the part of the predestined mother, so that just as a woman (Eve) had a share in the coming of death, so also should a woman contribute to the coming of life.” St. Irenaeus, one of the early Church Fathers, stated, “Being obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race.''
and Luke.
And the angel answered her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God. And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. For nothing will be impossible with God." And Mary said, "Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word." And the angel departed from her.
-
One should take most things the Vatican has to say with a huge pinch of salt. ::)
-
One should take most things the Vatican has to say with a huge pinch of salt. ::)
Mary's words Let it Be are from the New Testament.
I have a standing order for a delivery of Salt from the mines in Cheshire for the purposes of taking part on this Board. The County highways department have asked to buy off any leftover from replying to posts but I have told them that a surplus is highly unlikely.
-
Vlad,
Where are you getting this from and whereever it is is it the earliest extant copy?
To be called a fact legitimately stories have to satisfy certain epistemological principles. The annunciation story doesn't do that.
From the Catholic Exchange.com
''According to the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium , “The Father of mercies willed that the Incarnation should be preceded by assent on the part of the predestined mother, so that just as a woman (Eve) had a share in the coming of death, so also should a woman contribute to the coming of life.” St. Irenaeus, one of the early Church Fathers, stated, “Being obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race.''
First, is this claim of prior assent in the "holy" texts or is is it just a handy post rationalisation the Vatican decided to add to get them out of the consent problem?
Second, people who are "obedient" obey something - in what sense would that have been a free choice? "So here's the deal Mary: an all wise, all powerful, ever present god who created the universe wants you to have his baby. No pressure though. How does that sound to you?..." Sounds a bit like the kind of "offer" the Mafia would make don't you think: "So Fat Tony would consider it a great personal favour if you agreed to his offer to stash the gun and the loot. How does that sound to you? By the way, how's your Mother? Keeping well is she?"...
-
Mary's words Let it Be are from the New Testament.
I have a standing order for a delivery of Salt from the mines in Cheshire for the purposes of taking part on this Board. The County highways department have asked to buy off any leftover from replying to posts but I have told them that a surplus is highly unlikely.
The Bible cannot be relied upon where credibility is concerned.
-
Vlad,
To be called a fact legitimately stories have to satisfy certain epistemological principles. The annunciation story doesn't do that.
First, is this claim of prior assent in the "holy" texts or is is it just a handy post rationalisation the Vatican decided to add to get them out of the consent problem?
Second, people who are "obedient" obey something - in what sense would that have been a free choice? "So here's the deal Mary: an all wise, all powerful, ever present god who created the universe wants you to have his baby. How does that sound to you?. No pressure though..." Sounds a bit like the kind of "offer" the Mafia would make don't you think: "So Fat Tony would consider it a great personal favour if you agreed to his offer to stashing the gun and the loot. How does that sound to you? By the way, how's your Mother? Keeping well is she?"...
Oh yes I knew you would question obedience and then as justification inject your own brand of fantasy theology, the God is like a mafia boss. Shear hysterical bollocks. Are you hoping by it to get the more exciteable bouncing up and down?
What was it it then Hillside? Obedience or determined to?
-
Oh yes I knew you would question obedience and then as justification inject your own brand of fantasy theology, the God is like a mafia boss. Shear hysterical bollocks. Are you hoping by it to get the more exciteable bouncing up and down?
What was it it then Hillside? Obedience or determined to?
Poor Vlad, I suggest you take a lot more water with whatever you have been imbibing, it is you who sounds hysterical. ::)
-
Vlad,
Oh yes I knew you would question obedience…
Your stock-in-trade evasion is noted. People who are “obedient” obey something. Why is this truism difficult for you to comprehend?
…and then as justification inject your own brand of fantasy theology, the God is like a mafia boss. Shear hysterical bollocks. Are you hoping by it to get the more exciteable bouncing up and down?
I was merely explaining to you by an analogy (forgetting that the concept of the analogy has always been beyond you) that some “offers” come loaded with consequences. You’re right though – it’s not an exact fit: you can escape the Mafia by dying. Your god on the other hand…
What was it it then Hillside? Obedience or determined to?
Do you want to have a go at turning that "thought" into something coherent?
-
Vlad,
Your stock-in-trade evasion is noted. People who are “obedient” obey something. Why is this truism difficult for you to comprehend?
I was merely explaining to you by an analogy (forgetting that the concept of the analogy has always been beyond you) that some “offers” come loaded with consequences. You’re right though – it’s not an exact fit: you can escape the Mafia by dying. Your god on the other hand…
Do you want to have a go at turning that "thought" into something coherent?
You'll be lucky! ;D
-
will,
First, the annunciation story isn't a fact.
You were the one saying the virgin birth was God raping Mary! How come that's a fact, and not the annunciation? The point is that Mary consented.
Second, how in any case would that get you off the hook of James being a half-brother rather than a full brother? Was Jesus the "son of god" but James the son of a different father, or not?
Of course, if you accept the Biblical account (which you seem to do when it suits you, but not when it doesn't), James was a half-brother.
Third, if the annunciation is the "announcement by the Archangel Gabriel to the Blessed Virgin Mary that she would conceive and become the mother of Jesus, the Jewish messiah and Son of God" in what sense was that consensual? Did your man Gabriel also add some small print: "Customer is free to reject this offer within 14 days. God's impregnating activities are governed by the Virgin Impregnation Regulation Authority. Terms & Conditions apply" type of thing?
The clue here is that Gabriel announced it (supposedly) - he didn't ask her whether she'd like to accept the offer.
The point of the Magnificat is that it is Mary's hymn of praise to God for choosing her to give birth to the Messiah. That implies consent.
-
The point is that Mary consented.
On the basis of what we have of the story in the bible, she most definitely did not consent, or at least did not in the context of the elements we would require for consent to be valid in legal terms.
One of the key elements is that consent must be completely voluntary and not coerced in any way. Anyone who knows anything of the matter (and I do as I teach the topic to masters level students) will know that power relationships need to be carefully considered. This is where there is an imbalance of power between the person asking for something and the person 'consenting' - where this exists even if the person agreed to the thing being asked of them there is no valid consent as the person may not feel they could refuse due to an imbalance of power.
If you believe god exists then god asking someone to do something has to be the greatest power relationship going and realistically someone believing in god and with an angel in front of them asking them to do something for god will be in no position to refuse. Therefore there is no voluntariness and therefore no valid consent.
But of course this is all meaningless conjecture as there is no credible evidence that the events reported in Luke chapter 1 actually happened.
-
will,
You were the one saying the virgin birth was God raping Mary! How come that's a fact, and not the annunciation?
Wow. OK, first principles: when I say, “this story would mean that…” etc I’m not saying that I also think the story to be true. It just means that a story you think to be true carries with it certain (unpleasant) implications. When NS tells Spud he worships a thuggish god do you think that means that NS has suddenly become a theist, or just that he’s reasoned his way to what Spud’s god narrative implies?
The point is that Mary consented.
Hardly – see later on though.
Of course, if you accept the Biblical account (which you seem to do when it suits you, but not when it doesn't), James was a half-brother.
I do no such thing, and yes that would make James a half-brother rather than a brother as you previously said.
The point of the Magnificat is that it is Mary's hymn of praise to God for choosing her to give birth to the Messiah. That implies consent.
Would you say that the “hymns of praise” the people of North Korea offer up to Kim Jong-un imply their consent? Why not?
The point here is the power dynamic – an all-knowing, all-powerful, ever-present, universe-creating god making an “offer” to a teenage Jewish girl is not an unfettered choice. It’s just Fat Tony asking you to hide the loot while solicitously asking whether your Mum’s keeping well.
Short version: you have an idiosyncratic understanding of the meaning of “consent”.
-
If the less than credible story of Jesus being god's son is true, it doesn't say much about that entity's morality getting a girl in the family way when she was betrothed to a man. I reckon, as I have said many times previously, the Virgin Mary myth was invented to cover the embarrassment of Mary being up the duff prior to her marriage to Joseph.
-
News just in.
The gays aren't blessing the Vatican on account of all the ostentatious gown wearing by men, and far too much kissing of rings going on.
Gay people cannot condone such sinful behaviour.
-
On the basis of what we have of the story in the bible, she most definitely did not consent, or at least did not in the context of the elements we would require for consent to be valid in legal terms.
One of the key elements is that consent must be completely voluntary and not coerced in any way. Anyone who knows anything of the matter (and I do as I teach the topic to masters level students) will know that power relationships need to be carefully considered. This is where there is an imbalance of power between the person asking for something and the person 'consenting' - where this exists even if the person agreed to the thing being asked of them there is no valid consent as the person may not feel they could refuse due to an imbalance of power.
If you believe god exists then god asking someone to do something has to be the greatest power relationship going and realistically someone believing in god and with an angel in front of them asking them to do something for god will be in no position to refuse. Therefore there is no voluntariness and therefore no valid consent.
But of course this is all meaningless conjecture as there is no credible evidence that the events reported in Luke chapter 1 actually happened.
Every now and then God or the Bible is taken to court, we here about it and then we all go quiet.
I'd like to see how you think the courts would treat a virgin birth. Would it for instance be categorised as an act of God?
Would the archangel and Mary be called as witnesses. Would Tacitus give expert unbiased historic testimony.
As for unbalance of power, there are any number of instances of disobeying God with no absolute consequences. The trouble comes when it is a symptom of one's alienation from God.
-
If the less than credible story of Jesus being god's son is true, it doesn't say much about that entity's morality getting a girl in the family way when she was betrothed to a man. I reckon, as I have said many times previously, the Virgin Mary myth was invented to cover the embarrassment of Mary being up the duff prior to her marriage to Joseph.
And when Mrs Dawkins was expecting the Blessed Richard was she ''up the Duff'' too?
-
And when Mrs Dawkins was expecting the Blessed Richard was she ''up the Duff'' too?
I suggest you sleep it off before you post on this forum. ::)
-
Vlad,
Every now and then God or the Bible is taken to court, we here about it and then we all go quiet.
I'd like to see how you think the courts would treat a virgin birth. Would it for instance be categorised as an act of God?
Would the archangel and Mary be called as witnesses. Would Tacitus give expert unbiased historic testimony.
Irrelevant rambling. A court wouldn’t “treat a virgin birth” – it would examine the quality of the evidence attempted to justify that claim.
As for unbalance of power, there are any number of instances of disobeying God with no absolute consequences. The trouble comes when it is a symptom of one's alienation from God.
And Fat Tony sometimes didn’t go after the people who disobeyed him either. That’s not the point though is it.