Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Dicky Underpants on March 03, 2022, 04:28:05 PM
-
Considering the current events in Ukraine, I decided to have a look at what Christian End Time groups were making of the scenario, especially those in the USA. It is as I feared. The 'Rapture' enthusiasts (the reference is to 1 Thessalonians, I believe) are working themselves into a froth over the tragedy, led by some of the old-time fundie mouthpieces of yesteryear (especially Pat Robertson and Hal Lindsey). Would you believe that there is a "Rapture Index"? Indeed there is, and the top level is 188 - we currently stand on 186.
Naturally enough, so many of these American "enthusiasts" are all set to inflame an already terrible situation, in the belief that it will hasten their ultimate "redemption". Woe to the world.
-
Fortunately, there is a Democrat as President (albeit a Christian one), who is unlikely to be influenced by fruitloops.
However, Marjorie Taylor Greene, fired in a missile at Russia, might make an effective secret weapon.
-
Fortunately, there is a Democrat as President (albeit a Christian one), who is unlikely to be influenced by fruitloops.
However, Marjorie Taylor Greene, fired in a missile at Russia, might make an effective secret weapon.
A Democrat that thinks men are women if they say they are.
-
Considering the current events in Ukraine, I decided to have a look at what Christian End Time groups were making of the scenario, especially those in the USA. It is as I feared. The 'Rapture' enthusiasts (the reference is to 1 Thessalonians, I believe) are working themselves into a froth over the tragedy, led by some of the old-time fundie mouthpieces of yesteryear (especially Pat Robertson and Hal Lindsey). Would you believe that there is a "Rapture Index"? Indeed there is, and the top level is 188 - we currently stand on 186. Naturally enough, so many of these American "enthusiasts" are all set to inflame an already terrible situation, in the belief that it will hasten their ultimate "redemption". Woe to the world.
I well remember a deminar led by J. John, a UK Anglican evangelical, called "The RUPTURE index"....you may guess what his stance on certain US 'thinkers' (for want of a better word) is. He compared them to hedgehogs anonting themselves with their own saliva (which they really do(, and moving into the middle of the motorway in ecstatic expectation. I like that.
-
A Democrat that thinks men are women if they say they are.
Which has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the subject of this thread.
-
Which has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the subject of this thread.
In terms of the statement that Biden is unlikely to be influenced by fruitloops, it serms on point to me.
-
In terms of the statement that Biden is unlikely to be influenced by fruitloops, it serms on point to me.
No doubt some of his judgments are suspect, partly due to his age, but I should think he has far more insight into religious matters than the Yankee fundies.
Whatever the case, he's a vast improvement on Fanny Trump, who could certainly have counted on the fundie vote. But let us not have a re-run of the election here, of all places, and certainly not in this thread.
-
I well remember a deminar led by J. John, a UK Anglican evangelical, called "The RUPTURE index"....you may guess what his stance on certain US 'thinkers' (for want of a better word) is. He compared them to hedgehogs anonting themselves with their own saliva (which they really do(, and moving into the middle of the motorway in ecstatic expectation. I like that.
Unfortunately, American evangelicals are a very different breed from the British variety, and I wouldn't know where to draw the line between them and the fundies, except that the fundies tend to be angrier and more racist, particularly anti-semitic. I think they all tend to be extreme right wing and pro guns. Just supposing they know where Russia is, I'm sure the attitude of a lot of them would be "up and at'em".
-
In terms of the statement that Biden is unlikely to be influenced by fruitloops, it serms on point to me.
So everybody who disagrees with you on the status of transwomen is a fruit loop.
I see.
-
So everybody who disagrees with you on the status of transwomen is a fruit loop.
I see.
I think that the idea of gender as being some essence is the same fruitloopery as 'souls'. Your post is not what I have ever said, wrote, or implied.
-
Unfortunately, American evangelicals are a very different breed from the British variety, and I wouldn't know where to draw the line between them and the fundies, except that the fundies tend to be angrier and more racist, particularly anti-semitic. I think they all tend to be extreme right wing and pro guns. Just supposing they know where Russia is, I'm sure the attitude of a lot of them would be "up and at'em".
American evangelicalism is a bit of a syncretic religion with folk religious elements including astrology, numerology, spiritualism, magic, shamanism, capitalism and nationalism thrown in.
-
American evangelicalism is a bit of a syncretic religion with folk religious elements including astrology, numerology, spiritualism, magic, shamanism, capitalism and nationalism thrown in.
Nancy Regan?
-
American evangelicalism is a bit of a syncretic religion with folk religious elements including astrology, numerology, spiritualism, magic, shamanism, capitalism and nationalism thrown in.
...but are they Christians?
-
...but are they Christians?
They certainly believe in "the Signs of Christ's return" mentioned in Matthew 24. I don't think they read the tea leaves to come to conclusions about that (unfortunately they don't take into account the hundreds of failed predictions over the centuries on this matter, either).
-
...but are they Christians?
Galatians 5:22-23
New International Version
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
-
Galatians 5:22-23
New International Version
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
Sadly, neither St Paul nor you,, nor indeed Jesus himself lived up to those ideals on many an occasion.
No doubt you're trying, though.
-
Galatians 5:22-23
New International Version
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
Yes.
-
Galatians 5:22-23
New International Version
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
Is that a yes or a no answer?
Nice Ted Rogers impersonation by the way!
-
Sadly, neither St Paul nor you,, nor indeed Jesus himself lived up to those ideals on many an occasion.
No doubt you're trying, though.
And we're supposed to accept the judgment of someone who styles himself ''Underpants''?
-
Is that a yes or a no answer?
Nice Ted Rogers impersonation by the way!
I can't do the hand thing and always end up giving the V sign.
-
Nancy Regan?
Yes, she was into astrology I understand some of the ''prophets'' who predicted Trump's victory in 2020 refer to stars and numbers and Jim Bakker was selling colloidal silver for covid.
-
And we're supposed to accept the judgment of someone who styles himself ''Underpants''?
No; just check the words of the "Good Book". As for yourself, no doubt you're doing the best you can.
-
Galatians 5:22-23
New International Version
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
Even if the very earliest christians aimed at those aspirations, very rapidly and for most of the last 2000 years christian churches haven't come close to living those goals - quite the reverse.
And I think the key issue is that once the churches became establishment and powerful they focussed on maintaining those positions of power and establishment at the expense of ordinary people, particularly those who were not adherents of the established christian churches.
-
I can't do the hand thing and always end up giving the V sign.
Are you taking lessons from Boris on how not to answer the question actually asked?
-
Even if the very earliest christians aimed at those aspirations, very rapidly and for most of the last 2000 years christian churches haven't come close to living those goals - quite the reverse.
And I think the key issue is that once the churches became establishment and powerful they focussed on maintaining those positions of power and establishment at the expense of ordinary people, particularly those who were not adherents of the established christian churches.
Hi Prof
There is of course one "Christian" virtue not mentioned in Vlad's quote from Galatians: righteous indignation and the courage to act upon it. But even in this regard the scriptures don't always paint a convincing picture, even of Jesus, notwithstanding all his courage - if the writings are to be trusted to any extent.
Regarding St Paul, Romans 1 is mostly a hysterical rant, in large part homophobic. Not much peace and patience there.
-
I should mention that these moments of petulance and indeed violence in the NT are what the fundamentalists and their ilk tap into. I once heard the Reverend Ian Paisley justifying murders by Ulster Loyalists by quoting Christ's words "I come not to bring peace, but a SWORD"
No doubt others have seen fit to justify their actions by quoting Jesus' extraordinary words at Luke 22: 36-38
"Anyone who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one."
-
I should mention that these moments of petulance and indeed violence in the NT are what the fundamentalists and their ilk tap into. I once heard the Reverend Ian Paisley justifying murders by Ulster Loyalists by quoting Christ's words "I come not to bring peace, but a SWORD"
No doubt others have seen fit to justify their actions by quoting Jesus' extraordinary words at Luke 22: 36-38
"Anyone who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one."
Ah, the very atheist process of turning Christianity into something far more opposable has been captured....the moment Underpants changed Christianity into Swordism.
As far as I know Paisley became a model for reconciliation.
-
Ah, the very atheist process of turning Christianity into something far more opposable has been captured....the moment Underpants changed Christianity into Swordism.
As far as I know Paisley became a model for reconciliation.
What! You want to exonerate Paisley? Try learning something about his disgusting behaviour before he realised it was expedient not to keep pouring petrol on the flames.
If you want Paisley as a model 'Christian' on your side, you can have him.
Besides, it's fairly obvious for anyone with two brain cells that what Paisley was doing was the typical fundie trick of picking through the scriptures to justify any kind of inhuman behaviour. But the texts are there, and need convincing exegesis, not exploitation by those with blood on their hands.
-
Ah, the very atheist process of turning Christianity into something far more opposable has been captured....the moment Underpants changed Christianity into Swordism.
As far as I know Paisley became a model for reconciliation.
Nonsense - Paisley opposed the peace process, opposed the Good Friday Agreement, opposed the power sharing agreements. He only became a convert when the DUP won an election and therefore he had the opportunity to become First Minister and therefore gain power. His motivation was much more about power than reconciliation.
-
What! You want to exonerate Paisley? Try learning something about his disgusting behaviour before he realised it was expedient not to keep pouring petrol on the flames.
If you want Paisley as a model 'Christian' on your side, you can have him.
Besides, it's fairly obvious for anyone with two brain cells that what Paisley was doing was the typical fundie trick of picking through the scriptures to justify any kind of inhuman behaviour. But the texts are there, and need convincing exegesis, not exploitation by those with blood on their hands.
Oh and here we have Christianity turned into Paisleyism...as once it was turned into Phelpsism.
The upshot of this being that anything you don't like, christianity encompasses it?
-
Oh and here we have Christianity turned into Paisleyism...as once it was turned into Phelpsism.
The upshot of this being that anything you don't like, christianity encompasses it?
I don't quite know what's going on in your topsy-turvy world, Vlad, and I'll soon leave you to sink in the mire of your own misrepresentations. First you support Paisley, now you object because you think he's being put forward as a prime example of a Christian. The point I was making is that he is NOT. But Christianity has to take on board the 'hard sayings' and give a convincing explanation of them. Stop tilting at windmills.
-
I don't quite know what's going on in your topsy-turvy world, Vlad, and I'll soon leave you to sink in the mire of your own misrepresentations. First you support Paisley, now you object because you think he's being put forward as a prime example of a Christian. The point I was making is that he is NOT. But Christianity has to take on board the 'hard sayings' and give a convincing explanation of them. Stop tilting at windmills.
let's not forget your two unsubstantiated accusations here
You want to exonerate Paisley
and you want Paisley as a model 'Christian' on your side
.
As for ''Swordism''. Swords are often used as a metaphor and the advice to carry a sword was cultural given the situation in Palestine at that time. Anachronistic now. Shrivelling fig trees and kicking spivs up the rear? I'm not specifically exercised by the former and probably in favour of the latter.
-
As for ''Swordism''. Swords are often used as a metaphor and the advice to carry a sword was cultural given the situation in Palestine at that time. Anachronistic now. Shrivelling fig trees and kicking spivs up the rear? I'm not specifically exercised by the former and probably in favour of the latter.
Which elements someone decides are to be taken literally and which figuratively are decisions up to the individual, and there's no reliable way to say definitively who is right or wrong. I might, personally, prefer your take, but I can't offer anything to someone with the opposing view to say that they are objectively wrong in their interpretation, which is part of the problem with scripture.
Those 'swordists' are just as earnest in their belief, and equally (un?)justified. That ambiguity does nothing but call into question the idea of divine inspiration for the document itself - certainly the wisest being in existence would have been able to be clearer in its meaning?
O.
-
let's not forget your two unsubstantiated accusations hereand.
As for ''Swordism''. Swords are often used as a metaphor and the advice to carry a sword was cultural given the situation in Palestine at that time. Anachronistic now. Shrivelling fig trees and kicking spivs up the rear? I'm not specifically exercised by the former and probably in favour of the latter.
The fig tree incident shows that God the creator of Heaven and Earth and perfect being was capable of extreme petulance when a plant that he allegedly designed behaved in the way that he designed it.
In the face of incidents like that, it's no wonder that most people in the World don't take Christian claims seriously.
-
let's not forget your two unsubstantiated accusations hereand.
As for ''Swordism''. Swords are often used as a metaphor and the advice to carry a sword was cultural given the situation in Palestine at that time. Anachronistic now. Shrivelling fig trees and kicking spivs up the rear? I'm not specifically exercised by the former and probably in favour of the latter.
Unsubstantiated accusations? Are you taking the piss? I accuse Paisley of using the scriptures to promote violence (he did). Quick as a flash you come back and say "Paisley was a model for reconciliation".
Then you accuse me of wanting to turn Christianity into Paisleyism (with the implication that Paisley has suddenly become a negative figure in Christianity in your eyes).
Also, it might help if you read the opening post of mine in which I set the context of how principally American fundamentalists are using the scriptures to promote the most dangerous and possibly life-threatening ideas.
Get your head out of your arse.
P.S. Have you been taking lessons from the Sergei Lavrov handbook "The ABC of how to lie your head off and still keep a straight face"?
-
Unsubstantiated accusations? Are you taking the piss? I accuse Paisley of using the scriptures to promote violence (he did). Quick as a flash you come back and say "Paisley was a model for reconciliation".
Then you accuse me of wanting to turn Christianity into Paisleyism (with the implication that Paisley has suddenly become a negative figure in Christianity in your eyes).
Also, it might help if you read the opening post of mine in which I set the context of how principally American fundamentalists are using the scriptures to promote the most dangerous and possibly life-threatening ideas.
Get your head out of your arse.
P.S. Have you been taking lessons from the Sergei Lavrov handbook "The ABC of how to lie your head off and still keep a straight face"?
You confused me with Paisley thus proving my thesis of what you base your notions of Christianity on.
American evangelicalism has become a blend of Christianity, folk religion, shamanism, white nationalism. How Christian it is depends on the emphasis. And let's not forget black Christians which evangelicals and atheists seem to.
-
You confused me with Paisley thus proving my thesis of what you base your notions of Christianity on.
American evangelicalism has become a blend of Christianity, folk religion, shamanism, white nationalism. How Christian it is depends on the emphasis. And let's not forget black Christians which evangelicals and atheists seem to.
I don't think DU is confusing you with Paisley at all. I think he is merely stating that there are all sorts of christians - including ones you may find repulsive yourself.
And this is the key point as far as I am concerned - practicing christians come in all shapes and sizes, from the completely harmless and highly charitable elderly lady who attends a CofE church every Sunday and spends lots of time (which she has as she is retired) helping out with various charities and organisations. All the way through to the odious and highly harmful evangelical hate preachers who whip up hatred against those who they see as sinful, whether that be gay people or people who don't hold to their religious views, to those of different race etc.
So these are both active christians, as are all in the spectrum from one to the other. The issue is that there are plenty of christians (including you Vlad) who seem to want to pretend that the christians you don't like, who's view you find questionable or worse aren't really christians. Well, here's the thing Vlad - they are, and their views (regardless of whether you like them or not) are motivated by their christian beliefs.
-
Considering the current events in Ukraine, I decided to have a look at what Christian End Time groups were making of the scenario, especially those in the USA. It is as I feared. The 'Rapture' enthusiasts (the reference is to 1 Thessalonians, I believe) are working themselves into a froth over the tragedy, led by some of the old-time fundie mouthpieces of yesteryear (especially Pat Robertson and Hal Lindsey). Would you believe that there is a "Rapture Index"? Indeed there is, and the top level is 188 - we currently stand on 186.
Naturally enough, so many of these American "enthusiasts" are all set to inflame an already terrible situation, in the belief that it will hasten their ultimate "redemption". Woe to the world.
Pat Robertson and Hal Lindsey and most (if not all) American pastors preach the deception of futurism. The so-called pre-trib, 'rapture' is a misinterpretation of scripture. The idea originates from two Jesuits, theologian Francisco Ribera and Cardinal Robert Bellarmine. It then seeped through to the protestant churches and took hold with John Nelson Darby, Cyrus Schofield and Clarence Larkin.
-
Pat Robertson and Hal Lindsey and most (if not all) American pastors preach the deception of futurism. The so-called pre-trib, 'rapture' is a misinterpretation of scripture. The idea originates from two Jesuits, theologian Francisco Ribera and Cardinal Robert Bellarmine. It then seeped through to the protestant churches and took hold with John Nelson Darby, Cyrus Schofield and Clarence Larkin.
If you by 'futurism' the literal interpretation of apocalyptic scripture as referring to real future events, I'd say it had a pretty long history. I'm also pretty sure most of the early Christians took these scriptures literally (hence the words in that letter attributed to Peter that "a day with the Lord is as a thousand years".) I think it was St Augustine who put forward the idea that the prophesied "Kingdom" had arrived with the establishment of the Church. Nonetheless, literal interpretations have never gone away down the ages, and indeed abounded during the Middle Ages (see Norman Cohn: In Pursuit of the Millennium)
-
So these are both active christians,
Please define active christianity. The point I think I want to make here is that my definition of active marxism for example would probably be much more on the mark than your definition of active christianity which itself is likely to be corrupted to classifybad things as ''christian''.as are all in the spectrum from one to the other. The issue is that there are plenty of christians (including you Vlad) who seem to want to pretend that the christians you don't like, who's view you find questionable or worse aren't really christians. Well, here's the thing Vlad - they are, and their views (regardless of whether you like them or not) are motivated by their christian beliefs.
I'm more concerned with how you see christian beliefs since you've pretty obviously stopped listening or paying attention to the mainstream in favour of focussing on the extreme.
What Christian beliefs shared by all Christians do you think Paisley is motivated by? I have my buzzer ready to eliminate 17th and 18th century british political motivations you may bring up.
-
Please define active christianity.
Err, someone who actively practices their religion, for example through one or more of the following:
1. Attending christian religious worship.
2. Engaging in christian prayer
3. Considering that what they do in their daily lives is motivated by their christian religious belief.
What Christian beliefs shared by all Christians do you think Paisley is motivated by?
A belief that Jesus is the son of god, died for our sins and was resurrected.
I have my buzzer ready to eliminate 17th and 18th century british political motivations you may bring up.
You can put your buzzer away - see above.
-
Please define active christianity. The point I think I want to make here is that my definition of active marxism for example would probably be much more on the mark than your definition of active christianity which itself is likely to be corrupted to classifybad things as ''christian''. I'm more concerned with how you see christian beliefs since you've pretty obviously stopped listening or paying attention to the mainstream in favour of focussing on the extreme.
What Christian beliefs shared by all Christians do you think Paisley is motivated by? I have my buzzer ready to eliminate 17th and 18th century british political motivations you may bring up.
I sense a Scotsman that doesn't eat porridge hoving into view.
Can you name any belief that is shared by all Christians?
-
I sense a Scotsman that doesn't eat porridge hoving into view.
Can you name any belief that is shared by all Christians?
Are you saying all christians believe totally incompatible thing from each other and whereas it is possible to tell a marxist or a mathematician it is impossible to spot a christian belief?
In which case we must assume that anything you say about christianity is made up?
-
In which case we must assume that anything you say about christianity is made up?
No. I think, more accurately, that particular statement applies to you.
-
No. I think, more accurately, that particular statement applies to you.
What have I made up about christianity then?........In your own time.
-
Err, someone who actively practices their religion, for example through one or more of the following:
1. Attending christian religious worship.
2. Engaging in christian prayer
3. Considering that what they do in their daily lives is motivated by their christian religious belief.
A belief that Jesus is the son of god, died for our sins and was resurrected.
You can put your buzzer away - see above.
Any definition of christianity which includes or is based on the word christian is rather inadequate isn't it Davey?
As far as believing that Jesus is the son of God, died for our sins and was resurrected is concerned I find nothing in that which would in evitably lead to Paisleyan behaviour. Do enlighten us, please.
-
Any definition of christianity which includes or is based on the word christian is rather inadequate isn't it Davey?
Sure - but it is rather self evident that a christian is a person who believes in the teachings of christianity and an active christian is someone who goes one step further and is active in following those beliefs. But you seemed to claim that there isn't some feature that defines christians and active christians.
As far as believing that Jesus is the son of God, died for our sins and was resurrected is concerned I find nothing in that which would in evitably lead to Paisleyan behaviour. Do enlighten us, please.
You may not, but Paisley presumably did. This is the point - while all christians may have a defining belief that Jesus is the son of God, died for our sins and was resurrected, thereafter their interpretation of those fundamental beliefs and how it motivates their actions divides.
-
Are you saying all christians believe totally incompatible thing from each other and whereas it is possible to tell a marxist or a mathematician it is impossible to spot a christian belief?
In which case we must assume that anything you say about christianity is made up?
I find it interesting that you were unwilling or unable to actually answer the question.
Which is it?...in your own time.
-
I find it interesting that you were unwilling or unable to actually answer the question.
Which is it?...in your own time.
And that question is?
-
Are you saying all christians believe totally incompatible thing from each other and whereas it is possible to tell a marxist or a mathematician it is impossible to spot a christian belief?
In which case we must assume that anything you say about christianity is made up?
No. I just want you to clarify which beliefs you think all Christians hold.
-
believing that Jesus is the son of God, died for our sins and was resurrected
I'll take this as your answer to my question. As long as you hold that belief, you are a Christian, yes?
Paisley was a Christian. The Pope is a Christian. Yet the followers of one and the followers of the other were often killing each other during the 70's and 80's.
-
I'll take this as your answer to my question. As long as you hold that belief, you are a Christian, yes?
Paisley was a Christian. The Pope is a Christian. Yet the followers of one and the followers of the other were often killing each other during the 70's and 80's.
That was sin first and foremost but 17th and 18th century politics thrown in. Most followers, I maintain, did not kill each other.
-
That was sin first and foremost but 17th and 18th century politics thrown in. Most followers, I maintain, did not kill each other.
I grant most followers didn't go around killing each other. Most of them just wanted to carry on living their lives. Unfortunately, there were enough Christians who did go round killing other Christians throughout history that it was often quite miserable being the wrong type of Christian. For example, Catholics in England in the 16th and 17th centuries were certainly persecuted by the protestants.
-
And that question is?
The one asked by jeremyp.
The one that you quoted but did not answer in your post that I referenced.
That question.
-
The one asked by jeremyp.
The one that you quoted but did not answer in your post that I referenced.
That question.
I think I have agreed with Jeremy that Jesus is the son of God, died for our sins and was resurrected and have asked people how that motivates people to evil.
If as many believe here that christian beliefs motivates people to evil we are entitled to ask what christian beliefs are you talking about.
The non receipt of an answer from those people is IMHO par for the course.
-
I think I have agreed with Jeremy that Jesus is the son of God, died for our sins and was resurrected and have asked people how that motivates people to evil.
If as many believe here that christian beliefs motivates people to evil we are entitled to ask what christian beliefs are you talking about.
The non receipt of an answer from those people is IMHO par for the course.
It is difficult to think that so much bloodshed in history could be in any way associated with the man who said "Blessed are the peacemakers" and "Put your sword into its sheath - those who live by the sword shall perish by the sword".
I hadn't intended this thread to develop into an appraisal of the whole of Christian history, but since it seems to have moved in this direction, it might well be worth considering the role that heresy played in the sorry tale.
" For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" Mark 8:36
There is no doubt that this concept was of supreme importance during the Thirty Years War, for instance. I believe it was Frederick of Bohemia who said he would rather his whole kingdom be destroyed than tolerate heresy for one day.
All those who considered themselves "True Christians" believed they were playing for very high stakes.
Now this is essentially your problem. No doubt most of us fear pain and possible imminent death, but many have moved on from fearing the wrath of the Bogeyman.
-
I think I have agreed with Jeremy that Jesus is the son of God, died for our sins and was resurrected and have asked people how that motivates people to evil.
If as many believe here that christian beliefs motivates people to evil we are entitled to ask what christian beliefs are you talking about.
The non receipt of an answer from those people is IMHO par for the course.
And that's the only Christian belief there is, is it? Is the virgin birth a Christian belief? What about the idea of transubstantiation? Also, were the Christians that didn't believe Jesus was God but perhaps a vessel for divinity really Christians? Before you answer no to that last one, it is precisely what the author of Mark thought. You probably think he was a Christian.
Christianity is not just the core beliefs but is everything that goes with it and suggesting that protestants persecuting catholics or vice versa had nothing to do with Christian beliefs is utter bullshit.
-
I think I have agreed with Jeremy that Jesus is the son of God, died for our sins and was resurrected and have asked people how that motivates people to evil.
In the specifics - institutionalised homophobia and misogyny would be high on my list, with pervasive remnants of racism still lurking here and there.
If as many believe here that christian beliefs motivates people to evil we are entitled to ask what christian beliefs are you talking about.
That white races are superior to darker skinned ones; that women have some sort of duty to be childbearers and homemakers first and foremost; that to be gay is to be immoral; that morality is somehow hereditary; that inherited guilt can be assuaged by blood sacrifice; that 'unconditional' love can come with conditions; that obedience is morally preferable to even-handedness; that genocide is fine if you're the right kind of person killing the wrong kind of person...
The non receipt of an answer from those people is IMHO par for the course.
"... and that's when this irony meter that you guaranteed me was so robust just gave up."
O.
-
And that's the only Christian belief there is, is it? Is the virgin birth a Christian belief? What about the idea of transubstantiation? Also, were the Christians that didn't believe Jesus was God but perhaps a vessel for divinity really Christians? Before you answer no to that last one, it is precisely what the author of Mark thought. You probably think he was a Christian.
Is parthenogenesis a scientific phenomena? Could Parthenogenesis not be artificially instigated....never say never. The incarnation sounds like Christ's humanity was a vessel for divinity in a way that others are base metal cauldrons for the pure 'gold' of the Holy spirit are not. The word vessel is IMHO a bit vague.
Christianity is not just the core beliefs but is everything that goes with it
That statement suggests that the core beliefs are insufficient and that is not so, besides sincere investigation demands the beating down and clearance of the peripheral to get to the heart of the matter and suggesting that protestants persecuting catholics or vice versa had nothing to do with Christian beliefs is utter bullshit.
And yet it is perfectly possible to be a catholic and protestant and not persecute. So we have to find what it is that triggers it.
Secondly, ''Everything that goes with it'' seems rather in the purvue of the person making the judgment and their bias and prejudices.
-
I think I have agreed with Jeremy that Jesus is the son of God,
Thanks for the clarification.
I'm not sure that all Christians do agree on that point though?
-
In the specifics - institutionalised homophobia and misogyny would be high on my list, with pervasive remnants of racism still lurking here and there.
That's just like saying a police force has to have institutionalised homophobia and misogyny.
That white races are superior to darker skinned ones
Jesus had dark skin. This is something that is not New Testament; that women have some sort of duty to be childbearers and homemakers first and foremost
Not new testament where being unmarried for the sake of the kingdom is recommended for some. Unknown for a society where Heterosexual marriage was the imperative for all ; that to be gay is to be immoral;
Everybody is immoral. No group is especially immoral, that is a modern belief. The real scandal is that there is forgiveness for the worst of sinners that morality is somehow hereditary;
Given that you probably blame upbringing when somebody does something wrong you believe that morality is transmitted across generations that inherited guilt can be assuaged by blood sacrifice
Only by God sacrificing his son ; that 'unconditional' love can come with conditions
Love invariably carries the risk of rejection that genocide is fine if you're the right kind of person killing the wrong kind of person...
Nothing is ''fine'' after the fall.
"... and that's when this irony meter that you guaranteed me was so robust just gave up."
Just about the same time as my ''Lumping everything outrider doesn't like under christianity'' meter.
-
It is difficult to think that so much bloodshed in history could be in any way associated with the man who said "Blessed are the peacemakers" and "Put your sword into its sheath - those who live by the sword shall perish by the sword".
I hadn't intended this thread to develop into an appraisal of the whole of Christian history, but since it seems to have moved in this direction, it might well be worth considering the role that heresy played in the sorry tale.
" For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" Mark 8:36
There is no doubt that this concept was of supreme importance during the Thirty Years War, for instance. I believe it was Frederick of Bohemia who said he would rather his whole kingdom be destroyed than tolerate heresy for one day.
All those who considered themselves "True Christians" believed they were playing for very high stakes.
Now this is essentially your problem. No doubt most of us fear pain and possible imminent death, but many have moved on from fearing the wrath of the Bogeyman.
So when heresy stopped being a thing, that was the end of warfare was it?
-
That's just like saying a police force has to have institutionalised homophobia and misogyny.
No, it isn't, the police do not have a foundational document so badly written that it can be interpreted as supporting homophobia and misogyny, and do not have a significant segment of their membership who believe that those are part of the purpose of being the police.
Jesus had dark skin. This is something that is not New Testament
I think it's likely that whomever the Jesus myth is based on was probably not a white European; it's not me that needs that explained to them.
Not new testament where being unmarried for the sake of the kingdom is recommended for some.
Again, that might be your interpretation, I might prefer your interpretation over others, but that doesn't change that massive swathe of Christianity that still, because of their take on Christianity, do cleave to those ideas.
Unknown for a society where Heterosexual marriage was the imperative for all
Not only are we not in such a culture now, but Christianity arose at a time when there were already a number of cultures around the world who discretely or overtly accepted gay relationship. Christianity has a long history of trying to suppress acceptance of gay relationships, and gay people, and continues to do so across the world.
Everybody is immoral.
Speak for yourself. Even if that were the case, being gay does not contribute to that.
No group is especially immoral, that is a modern belief.
Really? So the Old Testament does not explicitly call out homosexuality - "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."? The New Testament does not include the Pauline Epistle which says "God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for even their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful".
Those are not general references to that Christian notion of an inherent sinfulness, those are specific allegations of immorality against a particular group.
The real scandal is that there is forgiveness for the worst of sinners
I can't even begin to imagine what that's supposed to mean.
Given that you probably blame upbringing when somebody does something wrong you believe that morality is transmitted across generations
There is a vast difference between inheriting and learning; implicit in the idea of inheriting 'sin' is the idea that it's nothing related to you or your character, it's a fait accompli.
Only by God sacrificing his son.
Yes, that horrific concept.
Love invariably carries the risk of rejection
Rejection is not 'eternal fiery torment' (although if my teenage years are anything to go by it feels like it sometimes).
Nothing is ''fine'' after the fall.
So therefore God's explicit calls for genocide are absolutely fine? The ultimate throwing away of the baby with the imaginary bathwater..
Just about the same time as my ''Lumping everything outrider doesn't like under christianity'' meter.
I don't like soap operas, swimming or cabbage, but I've not managed to blame Christianity for that.
Yet.
O.
-
Thanks for the clarification.
I'm not sure that all Christians do agree on that point though?
Good point. Some Christians believe Jesus is God and some believe Jesus is God's son. Some Christians flip between the two beliefs depending on when it suits them and refuse to acknowledge the inherent contradiction in being your own son.
-
Is parthenogenesis a scientific phenomena?
Yes
Could Parthenogenesis not be artificially instigated....never say never.
Probably not in humans. I suppose you could clone somebody and that would count, but Jesus was not a clone of Mary.
The incarnation sounds like Christ's humanity was a vessel for divinity in a way that others are base metal cauldrons for the pure 'gold' of the Holy spirit are not. The word vessel is IMHO a bit vague. That statement suggests that the core beliefs are insufficient and that is not so, besides sincere investigation demands the beating down and clearance of the peripheral to get to the heart of the matter And yet it is perfectly possible to be a catholic and protestant and not persecute. So we have to find what it is that triggers it.
If you read Mark, you'll see that he was an ordinary human who had divinity thrust upon him. In John, Jesus is divine from the beginning, literally.
Secondly, ''Everything that goes with it'' seems rather in the purvue of the person making the judgment and their bias and prejudices.
Yes, but that doesn't mean the belief is not a Christian belief. For example, there are a lot of Christians that believe in transubstantiation, but it's not universal amongst all Christians. It's still a Christian belief.
-
So when heresy stopped being a thing, that was the end of warfare was it?
Heresy was a dominant theme in Christianity for hundreds of years, and the means of dealing with it seemed during that period to be justified by the end. No doubt you want to attribute mankind's aggression to original sin, whatever that means. I've yet to see any meaningful explanation of this concept, which seems to me St Paul's own idiosyncratic contribution to Christian discourse - his proposed antidote no doubt had great significance for his own personal circumstances and those of many law-bound Jews of the time, but its universal application down the ages has caused more confusion than enlightenment.
Maybe humans do have a deep-rooted destructive streak, but I find more convincing explanations for this in biology than arcane mystic scenarios. Whatever the case, Christianity saw fit to harness mankind's destructiveness for its own purposes whenever it suited - whichever faction of the various divisions people adhered to.
-
Heresy was a dominant theme in Christianity for hundreds of years, and the means of dealing with it seemed during that period to be justified by the end. No doubt you want to attribute mankind's aggression to original sin, whatever that means. I've yet to see any meaningful explanation of this concept, which seems to me St Paul's own idiosyncratic contribution to Christian discourse - his proposed antidote no doubt had great significance for his own personal circumstances and those of many law-bound Jews of the time, but its universal application down the ages has caused more confusion than enlightenment.
Maybe humans do have a deep-rooted destructive streak, but I find more convincing explanations for this in biology than arcane mystic scenarios. Whatever the case, Christianity saw fit to harness mankind's destructiveness for its own purposes whenever it suited - whichever faction of the various divisions people adhered to.
But heresy can still be found and yet does not motivate people to acts of violence. What then is the component that causes the violence
-
No, it isn't, the police do not have a foundational document so badly written that it can be interpreted as supporting homophobia and misogyny, and do not have a significant segment of their membership who believe that those are part of the purpose of being the police.
Interesting term, foundational document. I wonder what we can include in that. I'm sure police foundational documents include upholding the Law....and the Law as we know can be Homophobic. Even If we take the conservative interpretations of references to Homosexuality, we must also be aware that in the Jewish world at the time it was one's duty to be in a heterosexual faithful marriage whether you were homosexually oriented or not and in the greco Roman world sexual exploitation and recreational sex and prostitution were at record highs.
I think it's likely that whomever the Jesus myth
I didn't realise you were so fringe is based on was probably not a white European; it's not me that needs that explained to them.
Not only are we not in such a culture now, but Christianity arose at a time when there were already a number of cultures around the world who discretely or overtly accepted gay relationship. Christianity has a long history of trying to suppress acceptance of gay relationships, and gay people, and continues to do so across the world.
I'm afraid that society was still persecuting Gays long after it ceased, if it ever was, to be theocratic.
Really? So the Old Testament does not explicitly call out homosexuality - "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."? The New Testament does not include the Pauline Epistle which says "God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for even their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful".
It was possible biblically to ''sexually defile oneself'' with a woman and a man and not at the same time. In the harsh world of Greco roman sexual exploitation and the harsh discipline of a dangerous nomadic existence they obviously felt they needed rules over choice. Christianity in St Pauls time had no legal influence on Rome or non believers
Those are not general references to that Christian notion of an inherent sinfulness, those are specific allegations of immorality against a particular group.
The New testament has a whole list of groups, I would say a pretty comprehensive list of groups who do not make the kingdom so no I don't see any particular weighting to homosexual behaviour.
There is a vast difference between inheriting and learning; implicit in the idea of inheriting 'sin' is the idea that it's nothing related to you or your character, it's a fait accompli.
I think you are taking a modern interpretation of inheriting here. If say you inherited a slave plantation in the 18th century through a will, and either sold it on or kept it you have inherited the evil of your predecessors.
Rejection is not 'eternal fiery torment'
. Let's take the Orthodox view. All go to heaven. Would you want to be somewhere knowing God was there or would that constitute eternal fiery torment?
So therefore God's explicit calls for genocide are absolutely fine? The ultimate throwing away of the baby with the imaginary bathwater..
No they are not fine, but inevitable because of the fall of man.
-
Christianity in St Pauls time had no legal influence on Rome or non believers
So St Paul's words in Romans 1 only applied to Christians of his time, whereas his words on the imminence of Christ's return (and many other matters) apply to the end of time - or until Jesus does show up?
Let's take the Orthodox view. All go to heaven. Would you want to be somewhere knowing God was there or would that constitute eternal fiery torment?
That Orthodox Church theology which you recently took issue with? We are told that God is love - he would find some way to make sure it wasn't torment, surely?
-
"Christianity in St Pauls time had no legal influence on Rome or non believers"
So St Paul's words in Romans 1 only applied to Christians of his time, whereas his words on the imminence of Christ's return (and many other matters) apply to the end of time - or until Jesus does show up?
"Let's take the Orthodox view. All go to heaven. Would you want to be somewhere knowing God was there or would that constitute eternal fiery torment? "
That Orthodox Church theology which you recently took issue with? We are told that God is love - he would find some way to make sure it wasn't torment, surely?
I think Pauls' epistles were about where appropriate how Christians should be conducting themselves.
Love involves the risk of refusal. If we refuse Love then we are left with self and it's own attitudes. There are many ways of describing hell, whether it is the presence of God which torments or the absence of God which torments is the question. I guess it is the separation from the spirit of life and grace that some find horrific. For others the idea of separation from the beloved Christ.
-
Maybe humans do have a deep-rooted destructive streak, but I find more convincing explanations for this in biology than arcane mystic scenarios.
Can you give examples of this? Whatever the case, Christianity saw fit to harness mankind's destructiveness for its own purposes whenever it suited - whichever faction of the various divisions people adhered to.
Not as a whole and certainly it isn't essentially 'christian'. The better model is political pressure and personal power which overrides the Christ like in people.
-
Interesting term, foundational document. I wonder what we can include in that. I'm sure police foundational documents include upholding the Law....and the Law as we know can be Homophobic.
'Upholding the law' is not a document, it's an activity. Policing in the UK is by implicit consent, there is no 'foundational document' for the Police.
Even If we take the conservative interpretations of references to Homosexuality, we must also be aware that in the Jewish world at the time it was one's duty to be in a heterosexual faithful marriage whether you were homosexually oriented or not and in the greco Roman world sexual exploitation and recreational sex and prostitution were at record highs.
Whoop-de-doo. I just looked outside my window, and I'm in neither ancient Greece, Classical Rome or first millennium Israel. What's relevant is the current homophobic interpretation that is widespread throughout Christianity, today; the interpretation which is STILL bringing misery and pain to the lives of innocent people across the world.
I didn't realise you were so fringe
I've been quite open about the fact that whilst it seems likely that the stories of Jesus were at least partially based on someone real, the myth of divinely-blooded magician is so far removed from any possible reality as to constitute virtually an entirely separate concept.
I'm afraid that society was still persecuting Gays long after it ceased, if it ever was, to be theocratic.
The fact that other people doing the same thing are also wrong does not in any way diminish the evil that is being done by Christians because of their Christianity.
It was possible biblically to ''sexually defile oneself'' with a woman and a man and not at the same time.
That Christianity has a broader hang-up about sex and sexuality is a related, but separate discussion; it certainly neither justifies the writing, nor the current hateful interpretations of it.
In the harsh world of Greco roman sexual exploitation and the harsh discipline of a dangerous nomadic existence they obviously felt they needed rules over choice.
Why? And even if so, why depict it as an unalterably abominable choice? Why not something to the effect of 'not now, people'. Why wasn't it one of the things changed during any of the 'new' covenants that were made?
Christianity in St Pauls time had no legal influence on Rome or non believers
And, again, that's irrelevant when we're talking about the social evils (in some instances being written into law) being done now around the world because of Christianity.
The New testament has a whole list of groups, I would say a pretty comprehensive list of groups who do not make the kingdom so no I don't see any particular weighting to homosexual behaviour.
Except for the bits that say that homosexuality is an abomination and, implicitly, include gay people in the list who won't make it to the kingdom, regardless of anything else they might or might not do. You mean apart from that?
I think you are taking a modern interpretation of inheriting here.
Not really. The story runs that 'Adam' and 'Eve' did something, and so I am therefore vicariously guilty and liable.
If say you inherited a slave plantation in the 18th century through a will, and either sold it on or kept it you have inherited the evil of your predecessors.
No. How do you 'inherit' evil; evil is manifested, it's not passed on. I might be considered to have some financial liability, in terms of reparations, but there's no accusation of criminality or immorality there.
Let's take the Orthodox view. All go to heaven.
Why? We're talking about the view of Christians who have very definite ideas about who is or isn't being invited.
Would you want to be somewhere knowing God was there or would that constitute eternal fiery torment?
Given that I don't think either of them is a possibility, it's a moot point. Real people are being really hurt in the real world; which fairy tale ending I don't believe they're not going to get is irrelevant.
No they are not fine, but inevitable because of the fall of man.
Doesn't matter if some entire groups go early, because we're all doomed? What nonsense. What 'fall of man'? We are human - either we evolved this way, and there is no 'fall', or an all-knowing deity made us in which case it's a design flaw/choice, and still not on us. This fucked-up philosophy that because we aren't some irrational notion of perfection we are therefore hateful and need to be rescued from the person that made us hateful is a really demented version of a bad relationship writ large.
O.
-
'Upholding the law' is not a document, it's an activity. Policing in the UK is by implicit consent, there is no 'foundational document' for the Police.
Sorry but there were the 'instructions' to the newly established 'Peelers' and the acts of parliament which introduced police in the UK outside of London.
Whoop-de-doo. I just looked outside my window, and I'm in neither ancient Greece, Classical Rome or first millennium Israel.
And you are lucky to avoid unbelievable levels of sexual exploitation. A few posts ago you said this about that worldNot only are we not in such a culture now, but Christianity arose at a time when there were already a number of cultures around the world who discretely or overtly accepted gay relationship.
Which cultures? Ancient Greece and classical Rome the very centres of sexual exploitation and cruelty? That would be you applying modern conditions to historical contexts, Sexual exploitation of women, of slaves, of male prostitutes, and that's just the tip of it, but all forgotten because they weren't homophobic in the modern sense....Meaningless revisionist crap. .That Christianity has a broader hang-up about sex and sexuality is a related, but separate discussion
As I said, the context it grew up in was one of horrible sexual exploitation.
Why? And even if so, why depict it as an unalterably abominable choice? Why not something to the effect of 'not now, people'. Why wasn't it one of the things changed during any of the 'new' covenants that were made?
You ignore 'the broader hang up'. Remember society was more relaxed about adultery and fornication before it started to worry about how beastly it and the church was to gays
And, again, that's irrelevant when we're talking about the social evils (in some instances being written into law) being done now around the world because of Christianity.
Certainly Christianity was instrumental in the moral excesses of the Roman empire.
However atheists like Grayling complain that Christianity weakened the glory that was Rome and other atheists complain that Christianity put the break on Greek culture which people like Sagan and Dawkins revise into an empire of science forgetting the beastly social set up.
I cannot deny that there is still homophobia but I also maintain that we have long been secular and it is that about the culture where a lot of latent and ugly homophobia still resides. This darkness also expresses itself in the fact that tens of thousands were killed by a deliberate lack of public health and yet millions can shrug that off and Laud the people that did it.
-
Sorry but there were the 'instructions' to the newly established 'Peelers' and the acts of parliament which introduced police in the UK outside of London.
And which of those is being cited in the incidents of homophobia and misogyny that the members of the various police forces have exhibited?
And you are lucky to avoid unbelievable levels of sexual exploitation. A few posts ago you said this about that world Which cultures? Ancient Greece and classical Rome the very centres of sexual exploitation and cruelty? That would be you applying modern conditions to historical contexts, Sexual exploitation of women, of slaves, of male prostitutes, and that's just the tip of it, but all forgotten because they weren't homophobic in the modern sense....
No, they weren't significantly homophobic at all. That there were other issues within the cultures is not contested, that some of those issues had to do with sexual practices and a distasteful attitude towards things that we'd now call informed consent and grooming doesn't in any way change the fact that the institutional homophobia that Christianity pushes is all their own work.
Meaningless revisionist crap. As I said, the context it grew up in was one of horrible sexual exploitation.
Just because it has the word sex in it doesn't mean they are aspects of the same underlying problem.
You ignore 'the broader hang up'.
What 'broader hang up'?
Remember society was more relaxed about adultery and fornication before it started to worry about how beastly it and the church was to gays
Society is still improving when it comes to be being relaxed about 'fornication'. Sex isn't inherently problematic. The problem with adultery isn't really the sex, it's the breaking of an important agreement between people who have expressed a commitment and gone back on it.
Certainly Christianity was instrumental in the moral excesses of the Roman empire.
If you say so.
However atheists like Grayling complain that Christianity weakened the glory that was Rome and other atheists complain that Christianity put the break on Greek culture which people like Sagan and Dawkins revise into an empire of science forgetting the beastly social set up.
And one or more of them may have a point, but I fail to see how that speaks to current Christian manifestations of misogyny and homophobia.
I cannot deny that there is still homophobia but I also maintain that we have long been secular and it is that about the culture where a lot of latent and ugly homophobia still resides.
We are becoming more secular, but we haven't shaken off the entirety of a thousand and more years of Christian cultural influence. Within that secular space, we afford all groups the opportunity to speak, and many of the Christian groups depict their Christianity, in this increasingly secular world, as being homophobic and misogynistic. Yes, we as a culture are moving forward, but there are still anachronistic hold-outs, and many of those are explicitly Christian and their homophobia and misogyny are explicitly rooted in that Christianity. That's amongst the evil that Christianity is bringing to the world.
This darkness also expresses itself in the fact that tens of thousands were killed by a deliberate lack of public health and yet millions can shrug that off and Laud the people that did it.
On the one had I'm curious about what this is supposed to be bout (COVID?) but on the other hand it's just another Vlad attempt to move the topic on because you don't like the unavoidable conclusions that are being laid bare, here.
O.
-
No, they weren't significantly homophobic at all. That there were other issues within the cultures is not contested, that some of those issues had to do with sexual practices and a distasteful attitude towards things that we'd now call informed consent and grooming doesn't in any way change the fact that the institutional homophobia that Christianity pushes is all their own work.
Historical revisionism and a mealy mouth summation of the horror that was the cultural sexual exploitation going on..... added confirmation bias and the jobs a good'un.
We are becoming more secular, but we haven't shaken off the entirety of a thousand and more years of Christian cultural influence.
This suggests a greater influence of Christianity than is the case and ignores long held relaxation of attitudes toward fornication and adultery and the hope that homophobia is due to Christianity and cannot exist without it. Good luck with that
On the one had I'm curious about what this is supposed to be bout (COVID?).
Yes British society has shown how appalling it is and that it's humanism is a sham.
-
Historical revisionism and a mealy mouth summation of the horror that was the cultural sexual exploitation going on.....
Nobody's 'revising' anything, and focussing on the aspect that's relevant to the discussion rather than being distracted by your ventures into 'please don't say bad things about my religion' isn't 'mealy-mouthed', it's sticking to the point. Try it.
added confirmation bias and the jobs a good'un.
Oh, look, cover your irony meters people, Vlad's just attempted to drop an accusation of a potential future logical fallacy as an argument...
This suggests a greater influence of Christianity than is the case and ignores long held relaxation of attitudes toward fornication and adultery and the hope that homophobia is due to Christianity and cannot exist without it. Good luck with that
How does it? No-one had a problem with gay people, Christianity came along and inserted itself into culture and law, and gay was bad. We're finally beginning to strip the religion away, and only now are we culturally coming to accept gay people and gayness. How is that 'overstating' Christianity's influence?
As to the notion that the relaxation of attitudes to 'fornication' is due to Christianity and not despite it... I'd welcome the argument, but you might need to wait a week or so until I stop laughing at the absurdity.
Yes British society has shown how appalling it is and that it's humanism is a sham.
And that's a demonstration that Christianity is somehow not misogynistic or homophobic because....
O.
-
Nobody's 'revising' anything, and focussing on the aspect that's relevant to the discussion rather than being distracted by your ventures into 'please don't say bad things about my religion' isn't 'mealy-mouthed', it's sticking to the point. Try it.
Oh, look, cover your irony meters people, Vlad's just attempted to drop an accusation of a potential future logical fallacy as an argument...
How does it? No-one had a problem with gay people, Christianity came along and inserted itself into culture and law, and gay was bad. We're finally beginning to strip the religion away, and only now are we culturally coming to accept gay people and gayness. How is that 'overstating' Christianity's influence?
As to the notion that the relaxation of attitudes to 'fornication' is due to Christianity and not despite it... I'd welcome the argument, but you might need to wait a week or so until I stop laughing at the absurdity.
And that's a demonstration that Christianity is somehow not misogynistic or homophobic because....
O.
It's not that you say bad things about Christianity. It's the Christianity being the root of all evil implication as if homophobia was the Church's mission. It's whatever allows you to overlook sexual exploitation in the classic world and the horror with it as if any kick back against that is somehow misplaced, as if it was OK if being gay was OK. And you continue to do it with your assumption that Christianity introduced homophobia and that the classic world was OK with it. Yeah, as long as it could sexually exploit more people.
How the classic world was not misogynistic in the extreme over it's sexual exploitation of women, I can't figure out how you can skate over that.
-
It's not that you say bad things about Christianity.
No, it's that Christianity does bad things. If I stopped saying it, the bad things would still happen.
It's the Christianity being the root of all evil implication as if homophobia was the Church's mission.
I didn't say all evil was down to the Church. I didn't even say that Christianity's net impact on the world was negative, though I might be tempted to argue that. I said that Christianity does evil in the world, and you've spent a lot of time implicitly accepting that and then either trying to deflect from that admission, cloud it with nonsense, divert the conversation to one of your favourite bugbears, or claim that it's only as bad as other examples.
It's whatever allows you to overlook sexual exploitation in the classic world and the horror with it as if any kick back against that is somehow misplaced, as if it was OK if being gay was OK.
I think it's probably the fact that anyone being affected by the classic world's view on sexual exploitation has been dead for longer than the religion we're discussing has existed that allows me to overlook their plight. It's not that it wasn't bad, it's that neither they, nor anyone who was inflicting this upon them, or the societies in which it was happening, exists any more. Unless you're making the case that Christianity is somehow a continuation of that tradition then I don't see the relevance, and if you are that's an even worse non-argument that you usually deploy.
And you continue to do it with your assumption that Christianity introduced homophobia and that the classic world was OK with it.
I didn't suggest that Christianity was necessarily the original source of homophobia; I suggested that it was one of the primary causes of it being exported from the middle-East to any number of regions that weren't displaying it previously to any great extent, and that it's been one of the stronger factors in maintaining it, and it's certainly one of the major retarding factors in getting rid of homophobia around the world. You aren't the only evil, you might not even have been the first evil, you're just one of the significant current evils.
Yeah, as long as it could sexually exploit more people.
Again, historic sexual exploitation, like current sexual exploitation, was terrible. I've not suggested that Christianity is a major factor in that now, or then, so I'm still failing to see what you're waving that particular waffle-bat at.
How the classic world was not misogynistic in the extreme over it's sexual exploitation of women, I can't figure out how you can skate over that.
I haven't tried to. I've not suggested that Christian misogyny is markedly different to classical misogyny, I've drawn the distinction between the classical European view of homosexuality and the Christian one.
I can talk to the difference between a modern depiction of a woman's place in the world and any number of current Christian doctrines to demonstrate that misogyny, but you've pretty much tacitly accepted that it's out there so I don't see much point in beating you over the head with that particular evil that you've already accepted Christianity is still perpetrating.
So... when it comes to the point I'm making, which is that Christianity continues to be an evil in the world, in particular in the way it attempts to proliferate misogyny and homophobia in the world against a growing tide of acceptance and equality... what's your actual argument, or are you willing to just openly accept that this is actually the case, even if it's a face of Christianity which you don't particularly like?
O.
-
So... when it comes to the point I'm making, which is that Christianity continues to be an evil in the world, in particular in the way it attempts to proliferate misogyny and homophobia in the world against a growing tide of acceptance and equality... what's your actual argument, or are you willing to just openly accept that this is actually the case, even if it's a face of Christianity which you don't particularly like?
I disagree that it is a way of proliferating misogyny and homophobia.
A growing tide of acceptance and equality...I can't see it and I can't see it lasting, whatever it is you mean by it. It seems to be a distorted view of equality centred as it is around whether Gays should be married in church with other inequalities missing.
You already proved that you can forgive any amount of sexual exploitation by your mealy mouth concern over it as opposed to your condemnation of historic christianity vis ''Christianity continues being an evil.''(paranoid crap)
It seems your interpretation of Christian history matters but no one elses history does.
-
I disagree that it is a way of proliferating misogyny and homophobia.
You don't see the explicitly homophobic 'Don't say gay' type laws coming from the American Christian Right? You don't see the Russian Orthodox church's vocal support for Russian laws against 'propoganda of non-traditional sexual relationships'? You don't see the African churches campaigning against the ordination of women, or for homosexuality to continued illegality? You don't see the Australian Christian Lobby's attempts to stop schools teaching about gay relationships?
You don't see the 'Quiverful' movement's drive to make women housebound and subservient? You don't see campaign groups trying to update rape laws to say that marital rape isn't possible?
Maybe you need to look harder.
A growing tide of acceptance and equality...I can't see it and I can't see it lasting, whatever it is you mean by it.
You don't think that gay people will continue to be allowed to marry and adopt? We're in the middle of a nationwide social debate on whether women can BECOME men, I don't think we're going to be back to being worried if they're not fucking them.
It seems to be a distorted view of equality centred as it is around whether Gays should be married in church with other inequalities missing.
Not in church, at all. That the church, in this country, is limited to fighting that front is not evidence of their acceptance of homosexuality across the board, but rather the pragmatic backstop of a movement that's already had to give up that ground. It's not the entirety of equality, and we've not achieved equality entirely, but it's one of the fights, and it's one of the fights that's currently being won by the right side.
You already proved that you can forgive any amount of sexual exploitation by your mealy mouth concern over it as opposed to your condemnation of historic christianity vis ''Christianity continues being an evil.''(paranoid crap)
Except that I've been giving you specific examples, and you've failed to really address any of them. You've dismissed, you've tried to deflect, you've tried to equivocate, but you've not offered anything that even vaguely resembles an argument.
It seems your interpretation of Christian history matters but no one elses history does.
My interpretation of Christianity is as irrelevant here as yours. It's the interpretation of Christianity amongst the people who then see it as a divine mission to try to spread homophobia and misogyny that's the issue.
O.
-
You already proved that you can forgive any amount of sexual exploitation by your mealy mouth concern over it as opposed to your condemnation of historic christianity vis ''Christianity continues being an evil.''(paranoid crap)
It seems your interpretation of Christian history matters but no one elses history does.
Whatever good Christianity may have done historically in other areas (and that comprises a whole basket of Curate's Eggs), it can be pretty well asserted that in its attitude to homosexuality its influence has been almost wholly pernicious. The continent of Africa and the Indian sub-continent offer numerous examples of homosexual behaviour being not only tolerated, but pretty much embraced in many societies. Historic Nigeria and Buganda and even the rock carvings of the Kalahari Bushmen offer numerous examples. That is, until the Catholic missionaries came, and homosexuality was condemned as being sin and evil. In modern times, such human treasures as Mugabe and Kenyatta have condemned homosexuality as being a degenerate western import (as if it had never existed in Africa before the advent of the white man). Ironically, in present day Africa, part of the 'antidote' comes from another western import - fundamentalist Christianity of various types.
In India, the evidence of ancient rock-carvings indicates a toleration of homosexuality which was present until the advent of the British. At first a political take-over, it was not long before many aspects of Indian society were altered in line with the Christian values held by the British imperialists, among which was the idea that homosexuality was an evil not to be tolerated.
Noted historian Harbans Mukhia says one has to know India's history to understand why the British made gay sex illegal.
"The British brought their own rules to India, including the Section 377 which banned homosexuality and made it a criminal act. This law was enforced by them but it didn't conform with India's attitude toward homosexuality. It was more to do with their Christian belief systems," he says.
He adds that the court's decision has taken India back to its roots.
Other experts also believe that India had a more open attitude to homosexuality before the Raj and there is ample evidence of it in medieval history and mythology.
-
Can you give examples of this?
Do you mean the biological explanations or the 'arcane mystic scenarios'? If you mean the former, then the idea that mankind evolved from some kind of killer ape-like creature still has some traction. Other anthropologists, like Richard Leakey, put the violence down to population pressure. It can't be doubted that others fight for some ideal or other, be it Christian, Muslim, or communist, or imperial. I'm not saying it's a uniform thing.
As for the 'arcane mystic scenarios' - I'm of course referring to St Paul's bizarre idea that God by sacrificing his Son (who is also part of himself) is able to wipe away the mark of 'original sin' - "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive". There is also the concomitant idea that Christ by his death somehow wiped away the application of the Jewish law - "Christ became a curse for us".
Not as a whole and certainly it isn't essentially 'christian'. The better model is political pressure and personal power which overrides the Christ like in people.
As I said above, it's a mixed bag, and that truest of Hamish Macbeths lifts up his kilt again in your first sentence.
-
You don't see the explicitly homophobic 'Don't say gay' type laws coming from the American Christian Right? You don't see the Russian Orthodox church's vocal support for Russian laws against 'propoganda of non-traditional sexual relationships'? You don't see the African churches campaigning against the ordination of women, or for homosexuality to continued illegality? You don't see the Australian Christian Lobby's attempts to stop schools teaching about gay relationships? I see people who, like yourself seemed to have wandered from the heart of the matter who is Christ himself. It doesn't trouble me, or should it you if people express doubts about teaching gay relationships. It does worry me when people try to change christianity into an anti gay crusade and I include you in that not so illustrious company.
You don't see the 'Quiverful' movement's drive to make women housebound and subservient? You don't see campaign groups trying to update rape laws to say that marital rape isn't possible?
Peripheral to Christianity I'm afraid. I think we are getting back to the position where, as far as those like yourself are concerned, Fred Phelps was the architypal christian.
Maybe you need to look harder.
I certainly feel that none of the positions you put forward are necessarily Christian, They are not at the heart of the matter. I am quite happy to discuss these and I can assure you I have spent time studying the American Christian right. When Trump enters people's theology you know you have a real live heresy. When TV evangelists start using divination and numerology, astrology and necromancy you know they are spiritually off the rails and the normal christian experience has become boring for these thrill seekers, similarly if you turn Christianity into an anti gay crusade as you have in your own way.
-
I see people who, like yourself seemed to have wandered from the heart of the matter who is Christ himself.
Ah, the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy. I'm sure they'd be equally as dismissive of your perniciously liberal take on the 'Lion of Judaea'.
It does worry me when people try to change christianity into an anti gay crusade and I include you in that not so illustrious company.
Please, I'm trying to turn Christianity into a vaguely interesting cultural footnote alongside Zeus and Odin, fit for re-interpretation in graphic novels as an alien/robot/superhero/mutant story.
No-one's trying to turn Christianity into an anti-gay crusade, it's already an anti-gay crusade.
Peripheral to Christianity I'm afraid. I think we are getting back to the position where, as far as those like yourself are concerned, Fred Phelps was the architypal christian.
I think you're mistakenly considering that the fact that modern liberal values have muted the nonsense coming out of the Church of England that therefore the rest of Christianity has been taught better as well.
I certainly feel that none of the positions you put forward are necessarily Christian.
Unfortunately for everyone, the Christians that espouse those positions do feel that they are necessarily Christian. And they appear to feel that strongly, in a wide range of places around the world, to the point that they are prepared to elect lawmakers, in part, on those platforms.
They are not at the heart of the matter.
Which matter? The homophobia and misogyny of the Christian church, they're sort of the entirety of the point, those misogynist homophobic Christians who espouse their misogyny and homophobia as the tenets of their Christian faith.... you know, the matter that we're talking about.
I am quite happy to discuss these and I can assure you I have spent time studying the American Christian right.
Then it's a bit rich of you to try to deny that they exist. You might not like them, you might disagree with their stance on what Christianity should be, but I don't see that you can say that they aren't there, aren't exactly as misogynist and homophobic as I've been attesting to, and aren't vocally trying to spread that as far and wide as they can.
When Trump enters people's theology you know you have a real live heresy.
This spite was there before Trump was, and I don't see any sign yet that it's going to diminish just because he does.
When TV evangelists start using divination and numerology, astrology and necromancy you know they are spiritually off
They should be relying on good, old-fashioned divine revelation, right, because real magic is reserved for Jesus?
the rails and the normal christian experience has become boring for these thrill seekers,
Worldwide you appear to be in the minority. This isn't shunning the normal Christian experience, this IS the normal Christian experience. At best you can hope that it's merely one of the normal Christian experiences, and that there are others.
similarly if you turn Christianity into an anti gay crusade as you have in your own way.
I can't 'turn Christianity' into anything, I don't have any of my own. All I can do is recognise it where I see it.
It doesn't trouble me, or should it you if people express doubts about teaching gay relationships.
It does trouble me if people express doubts about gay relationships, as it should anyone - however, people who express doubts are engaging with the topic, and can be talked to. People who have absolutely no doubt, because they know in their heart of hearts that God and Jesus despise homosexuality to the extent that they don't have a bad word to say about rape, they'll actively advocate genocide, but a bit of man on man action merits being described as abomination... those people do more than trouble me, they cause actual real-world problems for actual real-world people in their everyday lives.
It does worry me when people try to change christianity into an anti gay crusade and I include you in that not so illustrious company.
No one is changing Christianity into an anti-gay Crusade. Christianity brought the anti-gay crusade to innumerable places, and doesn't show any signs of wanting to let go.
O.
-
Ah, the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy. I'm sure they'd be equally as dismissive of your perniciously liberal take on the 'Lion of Judaea'.First off, how is this a no true scotsman fallacy when I haven't stated that a true christian cannot wander off from the heart of the Christian matter.
Please, I'm trying to turn Christianity into a vaguely interesting cultural footnote alongside Zeus and Odin, fit for re-interpretation in graphic novels as an alien/robot/superhero/mutant story.
Whatever floats your boat
No-one's trying to turn Christianity into an anti-gay crusade, it's already an anti-gay crusade.
Even a pessimist about Christianity would say it is an anti many things crusade. You are doing a special plead which ends updistorting the truth.
I think you're mistakenly considering that the fact that modern liberal values have muted the nonsense coming out of the Church of England that therefore the rest of Christianity has been taught better as well.
I am not bothered that in the world there are people who challenge whatever and neither should you you be. The Church exists in a secular society where the majority are not christian. You want a secular hegemony over everything though.
Unfortunately for everyone, the Christians that espouse those positions do feel that they are necessarily Christian.
Again they may be Christian but have wandered from Christianity. If a marxist rolls up in a top hat with a gold watchchain and cigar for a big spend up at Harrods, nobody would accuse him of marxism. And yet you are specially pleading Christianity i.e. However somebody who calls themself a christian however they behave that is what christianity is. And they appear to feel that strongly, in a wide range of places around the world, to the point that they are prepared to elect lawmakers, in part, on those platforms.
And in the UK secularists are prepared to elect right wing lawmakers.
Which matter? The homophobia and misogyny of the Christian church, they're sort of the entirety of the point, those misogynist homophobic Christians who espouse their misogyny and homophobia as the tenets of their Christian faith.... you know, the matter that we're talking about.
I thought we were talking about the central tenets of the christian faith, the bare minimum
Then it's a bit rich of you to try to deny that they exist.
I'm not trying to deny they exist
You might not like them, you might disagree with their stance on what Christianity should be,
I don't and I do. but I don't see that you can say that they aren't there, aren't exactly as misogynist and homophobic as I've been attesting to, and aren't vocally trying to spread that as far and wide as they can.Your anti misogeny and anti homophobia may probably be merely cover for hysterical antichristianity. Both are in society in Britain, a secular society. Where Homosexuality is accepted it is on a live and let live basis, in other words Homosexuality is not celebrated iMHO. You seem to blame the church on this rather than secular society. I think that is no longer feasible.
This spite was there before Trump was, and I don't see any sign yet that it's going to diminish just because he does.
Trump seems to have become necessary for one's salvation in certain quarters you mention. That ain't Christianity
-
First off, how is this a no true scotsman fallacy when I haven't stated that a true christian cannot wander off from the heart of the Christian matter.
The implication is that whilst they may or not be Christians, what they're espousing is not Christianity. Your error here is to presume that Christianity is a defined path that people attempt to follow or not, rather than just the collection of the activities and beliefs of Christians held and manifested because of what they think Christianity is.
Even a pessimist about Christianity would say it is an anti many things crusade. You are doing a special plead which ends up distorting the truth.
No. The fact that I'm focussing on one significant element doesn't make it a distortion, particularly when I'm quite open about it.
I am not bothered that in the world there are people who challenge whatever and neither should you you be.
Of course you should be; what if some of them succeed?
The Church exists in a secular society where the majority are not christian.
The Church of England, yes. Other churches less so.
You want a secular hegemony over everything though.
Secularism isn't achieved at the expense of religious viewpoints. Secularism is freedom for even the hateful to believe as they choose - and be called out for it.
Again they may be Christian but have wandered from Christianity.
And they'd say the same of you, and they'd have equally vehemently held scriptural and philosophical bases for those views. Who am - or you - to lay claim to the one true Christianity?
If a marxist rolls up in a top hat with a gold watchchain and cigar for a big spend up at Harrods, nobody would accuse him of marxism.
But if a Christian acts in accordance with scripture, in what way are they not a Christian doing Christianity?
And yet you are specially pleading Christianity i.e. However somebody who calls themself a christian however they behave that is what christianity is.
That's not special pleading, that's the definition of Christianity - the beliefs, and the resulting manifestations of those beliefs, of those who espouse a Christian viewpoint.
And in the UK secularists are prepared to elect right wing lawmakers.
And, as we've established, Christianity does not have a monopoly on regrettable stances. That other people also do things you or I might consider distasteful does not mean that Christianity isn't widely guilty of doing so too.
I thought we were talking about the central tenets of the christian faith, the bare minimum
No, we were talking about the homophobia and misogyny that is rife in Christianity around the world.
Your anti misogeny and anti homophobia may probably be merely cover for hysterical antichristianity.
It's not a cover it's a bloody reason. If you aren't against those Christians based upon their rampant homophobia and misogyny then there's something wrong with you.
Both are in society in Britain, a secular society.
Yes, and we as a society are increasingly addressing them, though we're a long way from finished. One of the brakes on that has been the institutions of the Christian churches. In other places it's not being addressed nearly so well.
Where Homosexuality is accepted it is on a live and let live basis, in other words Homosexuality is not celebrated iMHO.
Heterosexuality isn't 'celebrated', it simply is.
You seem to blame the church on this rather than secular society.
I think it's a hangover from a religiously regimented culture that we're throwing off. The modern Church of England has been liberalised by exposure to secular Britain, but we're not just talking about Britain, there are Christians all over the world.
Trump seems to have become necessary for one's salvation in certain quarters you mention. That ain't Christianity.
If you could just post the link where it explains what makes you the arbiter of 'True Christianity' TM this would all be much easier, because I'm pretty sure that these other Christians are just as convinced that their stance is right as you are that it's wrong, and because this is a faith and not anything based on reason or evidence there's absolutely no basis to judge. It's an aesthetic choice, it's which version of the baseless claims do you prefer.
O.
-
Whatever good Christianity may have done historically in other areas (and that comprises a whole basket of Curate's Eggs), it can be pretty well asserted that in its attitude to homosexuality its influence has been almost wholly pernicious.
Christianity is not primarily a social force which is why nominal christianity or societies that are christian because the king is never seems to work. The only christian theocracy as far as I can see is the vatican. The basic unit of Christianity is the believer. It is not specifically an anti gay movement, one could say it is an anti sex outside of marriage which it considered as between men and women and mass christianity has had formative centuries in the sexual exploitation that was Rome. Christianity's emphasis is love and faithfulness The continent of Africa and the Indian sub-continent offer numerous examples of homosexual behaviour being not only tolerated, but pretty much embraced in many societies. Historic Nigeria and Buganda and even the rock carvings of the Kalahari Bushmen offer numerous examples.
But were these societies sexually exploitative? That is, until the Catholic missionaries came, and homosexuality was condemned as being sin and evil
All extra marital sex would have been condemned as sinful and evil. In modern times, such human treasures as Mugabe and Kenyatta have condemned homosexuality as being a degenerate western import
Mugabe was a marxist, supposedly and would say that (as if it had never existed in Africa before the advent of the white man). Ironically, in present day Africa, part of the 'antidote' comes from another western import - fundamentalist Christianity of various types.
There is a lot of syncretism in Africa which westerners are quick to label Fundamentalist christian and that same mistake is being made with American fundamentalists, who as I have said previously are a a syncretic movement now incorporating Trump, Numerology, Astrology, Divination, and necromancy
In India, the evidence of ancient rock-carvings indicates a toleration of homosexuality which was present until the advent of the British. At first a political take-over, it was not long before many aspects of Indian society were altered in line with the Christian values held by the British imperialists, among which was the idea that homosexuality was an evil not to be tolerated.
Ancient rock-carvings yes, again , is there any evidence that indian society at any time any where near as sexually exploitative as the glory that was Rome? India was never a christian society...but it did have a large scale islamic influence so one wonders how tolerant of extramarital sexuality India was.
-
Do you mean the biological explanations or the 'arcane mystic scenarios'? If you mean the former, then the idea that mankind evolved from some kind of killer ape-like creature still has some traction. Other anthropologists, like Richard Leakey, put the violence down to population pressure. It can't be doubted that others fight for some ideal or other, be it Christian, Muslim, or communist, or imperial. I'm not saying it's a uniform thing.
As for the 'arcane mystic scenarios' - I'm of course referring to St Paul's bizarre idea that God by sacrificing his Son (who is also part of himself) is able to wipe away the mark of 'original sin' - "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive". There is also the concomitant idea that Christ by his death somehow wiped away the application of the Jewish law - "Christ became a curse for us".
As I said above, it's a mixed bag, and that truest of Hamish Macbeths lifts up his kilt again in your first sentence.
Violence is due to social pressure is a 'society made me do it' argument.
An alternative view of violence was covered In Kubrick and Clarkes '2001' A space Odyssey.
Of course morality is not at all covered by materialism or empiricism and as Chomsky says the more one moves into sociology the less effective science is.
Greed, lust, envy, power, exploitation...all can be carried out without violence as far as I am aware.
-
The implication is that whilst they may or not be Christians, what they're espousing is not Christianity. Your error here is to presume that Christianity is a defined path that people attempt to follow or not, rather than just the collection of the activities and beliefs of Christians held and manifested because of what they think
Christianity is a relationship with Christ. Jesus says ''I am the Way, The truth and the life
If you could just post the link where it explains what makes you the arbiter of 'True Christianity' TM this would all be much easier, because I'm pretty sure that these other Christians are just as convinced that their stance is right as you are that it's wrong, and because this is a faith and not anything based on reason or evidence there's absolutely no basis to judge. It's an aesthetic choice, it's which version of the baseless claims do you prefer.
Christ is the arbiter of true christianity, which is why he himself is the heart of the matter, not info about him nor the historic influence of mass christianity.
-
Christianity is a relationship with Christ. Jesus says ''I am the Way, The truth and the life.
From which it is a short step to "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" -Outside the Church there is no salvation.
You're not a catholic are you? Beware!
-
Christ is the arbiter of true christianity, which is why he himself is the heart of the matter, not info about him nor the historic influence of mass christianity.
So, will the real Christ please stand up? It seems you think he's the Christ of John's gospel.
-
From which it is a short step to "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" -Outside the Church there is no salvation.
You're not a catholic are you? Beware!
Beg Pardon.
-
Beg Pardon.
No cigar for you, senorita.
BTW - the text from John continues "No one comes unto the Father except BY me". That has rather more theological implications than the worthy slant you give to it.
-
No cigar for you, senorita.
BTW - the text from John continues "No one comes unto the Father except BY me". That has rather more theological implications than the worthy slant you give to it.
This is the divine mechanism if you like to overcome the consequence of human alienation from God.
Of course there are theological implications. Which trouble you?
-
Christianity is a relationship with Christ. Jesus says ''I am the Way, The truth and the life."
And these other Christians have their relationship with Jesus; indeed, many of them are happy to spend an extended period of time telling you all about it.
Christ is the arbiter of true christianity, which is why he himself is the heart of the matter, not info about him nor the historic influence of mass christianity.
Well, until he gets back off his extended fag-break and actually holds forth strongly enough to stop anyone, all those claims have equal validity. So that misogyny, that homophobia, those bits and pieces of casual racism that still hang around some of the fringes, they're all manifestations of Christianity. I totally accept that you are as saddened by them as I am, but our disappointment does not change the fact that they believe, and because they believe that adopt the written word that is purported to be from God, and that written word espouses homophobic and misogynistic concepts.
O.
-
And these other Christians have their relationship with Jesus; indeed, many of them are happy to spend an extended period of time telling you all about it.
Well, until he gets back off his extended fag-break and actually holds forth strongly enough to stop anyone, all those claims have equal validity. So that misogyny, that homophobia, those bits and pieces of casual racism that still hang around some of the fringes, they're all manifestations of Christianity. I totally accept that you are as saddened by them as I am, but our disappointment does not change the fact that they believe, and because they believe that adopt the written word that is purported to be from God, and that written word espouses homophobic and misogynistic concepts.
O.
See my reply to Dicky Underpants. The written word expresses pushback against sex outside of marriage. Yes there is criticism of the Pagan world in the written word but it constitutes guidance for Christian conduct not a prescription for unbelievers and one has, I believe, to put it in the context of the sexual exploitation of the day since that is when it was written. Any separation of homosexual intercourse from adultery and fornication is an artificial reading. I don't see that the new testament carries misogyny or racism and certainly, the glory that was Rome Empire was Misogynistic.
-
I don't see that the new testament carries misogyny or racism and certainly, the glory that was Rome Empire was Misogynistic.
The question of misogyny in the New Testament is complex. A case can be argued that it wasn't misogynistic at the time Paul wrote the last chapter of Romans but, by the time the six forged letters of Paul were written, it had become misogynistic and when it took over the Roman Empire in the fourth century, it was bad news for women. Read about Hypatia if you want to know what Christianity did for women.
-
The written word expresses pushback against sex outside of marriage.
'The' written word - remembering that there are all sorts of apocrypha that some people have decided don't count, and there have been sequels to be the best-seller which are considered to be canon by some fans... but the written word is exactly what these exact Christians that I'm talking about that neither of us likes is using.
Yes there is criticism of the Pagan world in the written word but it constitutes guidance for Christian conduct not a prescription for unbelievers and one has, I believe, to put it in the context of the sexual exploitation of the day since that is when it was written.
Those Christians we don't like are using it as their guidance, look where it's gotten us. You may not think it places an onus on 'us' non-believers (bearing in mind that at least some of those gay people and women that are targeted are believers themselves), but these other Christians do.
As to whether it should be put into the context of the times... the people are are (mis?)using aren't, they're applying it now. It's if not written directly then allegedly inspired by God, but it can't foresee changing cultural mores? Even if it was only a vessel of the time, how come it took time out to subjugate women and implement moral opprobrium on homosexuality, but doesn't have a word to say about rape or slavery being bad things, and actively encourages genocide? If at least bits of it are 'of their time', where's the current guidance? If what's moral changes with time, in what way is Christianity an absolute morality?
Any separation of homosexual intercourse from adultery and fornication is an artificial reading.
Only if you ban gay people from marrying. Only if you choose to define gay sex as something morally different from straight sex. Only if, to clear, you introduce artificial distinctions.
I don't see that the new testament carries misogyny or racism and certainly, the glory that was Rome Empire was Misogynistic.
Maybe you don't, I'm pretty sure the people that espouse it don't see it as misogyny or racism when they espouse it, but that's what it is, and it's springing directly from their own 'relationship with Christ' and what they believe he wants them to be bringing to the world.
O.
-
.
Of course there are theological implications. Which trouble you?
No, they do not trouble me, but perhaps they should trouble you.
I was pointing out the difference between seeing Christ as a supreme exemplar of how humans should behave (the implication of your first truncated quote) and the theological implications which derive from St Paul's statement of the same doctrine implied in the part of the verse which you didn't quote : "There is one mediator between humans and God" *(which is probably where St John got the idea from).
*That's from the spurious 1 Timothy (Pastoral Eps) which was probably written just before the end of the1st century, so in time to influence John.
-
The question of misogyny in the New Testament is complex. A case can be argued that it wasn't misogynistic at the time Paul wrote the last chapter of Romans but, by the time the six forged letters of Paul were written, it had become misogynistic and when it took over the Roman Empire in the fourth century, it was bad news for women. Read about Hypatia if you want to know what Christianity did for women.
Spot on. I might accuse Paul of many things, but he wasn't misogynistic to any great degree. But the early Church acted upon the spurious writings, and many 'Christian' sects continue to do so right down to our time.
-
No, they do not trouble me, but perhaps they should trouble you.
I was pointing out the difference between seeing Christ as a supreme exemplar of how humans should behave (the implication of your first truncated quote) and the theological implications which derive from St Paul's statement of the same doctrine implied in the part of the verse which you didn't quote : "There is one mediator between humans and God" *(which is probably where St John got the idea from).
*That's from the spurious 1 Timothy (Pastoral Eps) which was probably written just before the end of the1st century, so in time to influence John.
Why should everyone conclude that Christ is a supreme exemplar of how humans should behave unless there is something pointing us to his example.
If it's just about being like good blokes surely that depends on your definition of Good. Mohammed lived an exciting militaristic life and held decisions of life and death over people presumably tempering mercy with justice and was a successful businessman. I can think of loads of people who would see this man as a supreme exemplar over Jesus who looks Hippyish in comparison.
Jesus IS an example of how people should behave, in any case. To me only one rattled would baulk at Jesus being God's way, truth and Life since without this element we are back to commandment observance,works and a remoteness of God.
Jesus is God's way of taking the spiritual effects of sin onto himself. He takes an active role in one's salvation
-
The question of misogyny in the New Testament is complex. A case can be argued that it wasn't misogynistic at the time Paul wrote the last chapter of Romans but, by the time the six forged letters of Paul were written, it had become misogynistic and when it took over the Roman Empire in the fourth century, it was bad news for women. Read about Hypatia if you want to know what Christianity did for women.
This completely ignores the wholesale sexual exploitation of the Roman Empire.
What happened to Hypatia was not good of course but to make her the supreme example of what Christianity did for women is farcical considering what Christianity led many women out of. This distortion and focus on one person is of course redolent of the Great person view of history.
Throughout history this has cast the great Hypatia as a martyr of philosophy, a Christian saint, and recently a martyr of science( although I think the library is mourned perhaps more than Hypatia) and most recently a feminist Icon. The sexual exploitation of hundreds of thousands of historical 'nobodies' is thus swept aside.
-
This completely ignores the wholesale sexual exploitation of the Roman Empire.
What wholesale sexual exploitation of the Roman Empire?
What happened to Hypatia was not good of course but to make her the supreme example of what Christianity did for women is farcical considering what Christianity led many women out of. This distortion and focus on one person is of course redolent of the Great person view of history.
What did Christianity lead women out of?
-
What happened to Hypatia was not good of course but to make her the supreme example of what Christianity did for women is farcical considering what Christianity led many women out of. This distortion and focus on one person is of course redolent of the Great person view of history.
Well, I think you might well contemplate the two following passages, which illustrate the way Christianity degenerated in its attitude to women.
The first is from St Paul in Galatians:
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
And then from the Church Father, Tertullian a century or two later:
"And do you not know that you are (each) an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil's gateway: you are the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account of your desert — that is, death — even the Son of God had to die."
I think these sum up exactly the point that Jeremy was making.
PS. I hope you're not going to say that Tertullian became a heretic :)
-
Jesus IS an example of how people should behave, in any case. To me only one rattled would baulk at Jesus being God's way, truth and Life since without this element we are back to commandment observance,works and a remoteness of God.
Jesus is God's way of taking the spiritual effects of sin onto himself. He takes an active role in one's salvation
I do not baulk at Jesus being something more than "a good bloke". However, I've learned to live with what you call "remoteness from God". Trust me, it doesn't hurt after a time, and you get to realise that there was nothing 'missing' in the first place.
It's pretty obvious that Jesus had enormous courage - certainly far more than most of us. As for his teaching - well, you have to work out what that was, and trust how reliable his journalists were. You could of course accept everything written in the NT, regardless of all the contradictions in action and teaching, and end up a fundie. Or you choose what you wish to believe, which seems to be what the various and committees and councils (in the first few hundred years after Christ) decided was what you ought to be believing.
Your final sentence is just a doctrinal statement which is just so much woo. If he is God, he damn well deserves to take 'sin' on himself, since he was responsible for creating us and it in the first place. Or maybe he's not God, or only God some of the time when he's not being the Son of God.
-
Well, I think you might well contemplate the two following passages, which illustrate the way Christianity degenerated in its attitude to women.
The first is from St Paul in Galatians:
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
And then from the Church Father, Tertullian a century or two later:
"And do you not know that you are (each) an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil's gateway: you are the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account of your desert — that is, death — even the Son of God had to die."
I think these sum up exactly the point that Jeremy was making.
PS. I hope you're not going to say that Tertullian became a heretic :)
Well, he can't be accused of putting women on a pedestal. Other church fathers are available.
-
Well, he can't be accused of putting women on a pedestal. Other church fathers are available.
I prefer to judge people and organisations by their actions, not their words.
So, even today, the largest christian denomination still refuses to allow women to be priest, bishops, cardinals, pope etc. They continue to institutionally discriminate in a direct manner against women. And it is therefore unsurprising that the RCC's teaching (which is, of course, overwhelmingly developed by man) aims to deny fundamental rights of women over their bodies and reproduction.
Oh - and although the CofE is certainly better than the RCC it still doesn't provide full equality for women - parishes are able to refuse the jurisdiction of a woman bishop.
This about this in terms of any other organisation - the RCC position is like a company saying that no-one on the board or in any senior position can be a woman. The CofE is the equivalent of an employee in a company being able to refuse being line managed by a woman. We'd think those positions to be deeply unethical, highly discriminatory and flat out illegal. Yet we allow religious organisations to perpetuation such discrimination with impunity.
-
I prefer to judge people and organisations by their actions, not their words.
So, even today, the largest christian denomination still refuses to allow women to be priest, bishops, cardinals, pope etc. They continue to institutionally discriminate in a direct manner against women. And it is therefore unsurprising that the RCC's teaching (which is, of course, overwhelmingly developed by man) aims to deny fundamental rights of women over their bodies and reproduction.
Oh - and although the CofE is certainly better than the RCC it still doesn't provide full equality for women - parishes are able to refuse the jurisdiction of a woman bishop.
This about this in terms of any other organisation - the RCC position is like a company saying that no-one on the board or in any senior position can be a woman. The CofE is the equivalent of an employee in a company being able to refuse being line managed by a woman. We'd think those positions to be deeply unethical, highly discriminatory and flat out illegal. Yet we allow religious organisations to perpetuation such discrimination with impunity.
The designation of specific priests is but a tradition. I tolerate the idea of a full time clergy but for me it isn't the heart of the matter and throughout church history the designated priest I think has done the job with the support of mainly local women parishioners. So a male priesthood is an ever so slightly a bit of a sham.
Tertullian funnily enough joined a church, the montanist where woman had headed the church for all his apparent misogyny.
The ability to refuse female bishops is I think a transition but I hardly think that satisfies the desire for instant vengeance on the church.
But the perhaps the biggest single mocker on the primacy of a male priesthood is the biblical concept of a priesthood of all believers.
First Epistle of Peter, 2:9:
But you are not like that, for you are a chosen people. You are royal priests, a holy nation, God’s very own possession. As a result, you can show others the goodness of God, for he called you out of the darkness into his wonderful light.
In terms of denying women rights Churches can only campaign for that and it is usually rejected in secular democracies. I am not one of those who are disturbed that there are people who do not agree with abortion laws although I am rather intrigued about how people like you are going to make everyone in society think like you.
-
The designation of specific priests is but a tradition.
So what - not allowing women to attend university was once but a tradition - that something is a tradition doesn't justify its acceptability, does it Vlad.
Most of the rest of the post is waffle and guff, and totally irrelevant to the point of the discrimination. It doesn't matter to me how and why people try to justify discrimination or try to claim it is somehow not discrimination. It makes no difference whatsoever to the fact of discrimination in reality. And if women are treated less favourably than men within the RCC and the CofE (and they clearly are) then this is, without doubt, discrimination.
-
The ability to refuse female bishops is I think a transition but I hardly think that satisfies the desire for instant vengeance on the church.
Where have I used the term 'vengeance' or suggested anything that could come close to vengeance. I think the word you are looking for is justice - effectively justice for women within the CofE that means they aren't treated less favourably than a man if they are a Bishop. Currently they are - the church could have ensured this was not the case through a couple of manners - they have chosen not to, they have taken a deliberate decision to embed discrimination within their organisation.
-
Where have I used the term 'vengeance' or suggested anything that could come close to vengeance. I think the word you are looking for is justice - effectively justice for women within the CofE that means they aren't treated less favourably than a man if they are a Bishop. Currently they are - the church could have ensured this was not the case through a couple of manners - they have chosen not to, they have taken a deliberate decision to embed discrimination within their organisation.
Pope John Paul II
'Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgement is to be definitively heard by all the Church's faithful.'
-
So what - not allowing women to attend university was once but a tradition - that something is a tradition doesn't justify its acceptability, does it Vlad.
Most of the rest of the post is waffle and guff, and totally irrelevant to the point of the discrimination. It doesn't matter to me how and why people try to justify discrimination or try to claim it is somehow not discrimination. It makes no difference whatsoever to the fact of discrimination in reality. And if women are treated less favourably than men within the RCC and the CofE (and they clearly are) then this is, without doubt, discrimination.
Already you've been supplied with biblical passages which state that there is no male nor female in Christ and that there is a priesthood of all believers and yet you choose to ignore these completely. I am not compelled to accept therefore that there must be a male priest in front of me. I can take a congregationalist view and still maintain my relationship with Christ because that is the heart of the matter.
For me the concept of moral failure in any guise is confirmation of the notion of sin. By which I do not mean the atheist caricature definition ''sin is merely about God'' but the anglican version where you can sin against your fellow man.
In your understanding wrongdoing is mainly the preserve of the other feller and religion is the root of all evil and when challenged you can deny that evil is even a thing, a kind of strange flip flop between logic and science where you can park one if it doesn't provide the answer.
Oh and if you discount christians who believe in the priesthood of all believers because they are not as big as the RC church then I'm afraid you are indulging in argumentum ad populum.
-
Already you've been supplied with biblical passages which state that there is no male nor female in Christ and that there is a priesthood of all believers and yet you choose to ignore these completely.
I'm not interested in biblical passages - I'm interested in justice and ensuring that people are not discriminated against because of their sex. Moreover, the passage has no bearing in reality as the major denominations discriminate against women - some more than others, but using the examples I gave, neither the RCC nor the CofE are close to affording women equality with men in terms of their ability to be priests/bishops nor if they are able ensuring that they have equality with a man in the same role.
-
Oh and if you discount christians who believe in the priesthood of all believers because they are not as big as the RC church then I'm afraid you are indulging in argumentum ad populum.
No - I'm not. Franky I'm not interested in the argument about whether all believers are priests or just some that are appointed by the church. That is a little internal spat that you can have with you fellow christians. I am interested in justice and getting rid of discrimination. If some christian denominations do not deliberately discriminate, well good for them - but they a hardly deserve a medal do they as they are just like virtually all organisations in this country who are required, by law not to discriminate.
No, I am concerned about those denominations (and yes that includes all the biggies) that do discriminate - I want to see that end because I believe in justice and equality.
-
Already you've been supplied with biblical passages which state that there is no male nor female in Christ and that there is a priesthood of all believers and yet you choose to ignore these completely.
It doesn't matter whether or not we accept them or not, there are any number of Christians who put those tenets behind others. Their Christianity is not yours, and vice versa.
I am not compelled to accept therefore that there must be a male priest in front of me. I can take a congregationalist view and still maintain my relationship with Christ because that is the heart of the matter.
Again, for you. Does that in any way stop millions of other Christians manifesting their religion differently?
In your understanding wrongdoing is mainly the preserve of the other feller and religion is the root of all evil and when challenged you can deny that evil is even a thing, a kind of strange flip flop between logic and science where you can park one if it doesn't provide the answer.
No, it's just that sin doesn't mean anything (although moral judgements can); religion is not the root of all evil, but it is a force for evil.
Oh and if you discount christians who believe in the priesthood of all believers because they are not as big as the RC church then I'm afraid you are indulging in argumentum ad populum.
No, it's acknowledging that Christianity is a broad church, and some of the elements of that broad church are hateful, homophobic, misogynist and/or racist manifestations of that religion.
O.
-
In your understanding wrongdoing is mainly the preserve of the other feller and religion is the root of all evil and when challenged you can deny that evil is even a thing, a kind of strange flip flop between logic and science where you can park one if it doesn't provide the answer.
I have said none of those things. Stop misrepresenting what I have said.
-
I am not compelled to accept therefore that there must be a male priest in front of me. I can take a congregationalist view and still maintain my relationship with Christ because that is the heart of the matter.
Your personal opinion on the matter seems to be completely irrelevant.
Just because you might not accept that the priest in front of you doesn't have to be a man (good for you) doesn't change the fact that if that particular church does not allow women to become priests women are suffering direct discrimination from that organisation. Your opinion won't change that unless you are successful in persuading that religious organisation to stop discriminating (good luck with that!).
-
Your personal opinion on the matter seems to be completely irrelevant.
I don't see why.
-
I don't see why.
Because it has no effect on whether women are being discriminated against by those organisations. Unless you are able to persuade those organisations to stop discriminating against women your opinion that a priest can be a man or a woman (or just any old Jo or Joe in the crowd) isn't worth anything, is it Vlad, as it doesn't prevent the discrimination.
-
Because it has no effect on whether women are being discriminated against by those organisations. Unless you are able to persuade those organisations to stop discriminating against women your opinion that a priest can be a man or a woman (or just any old Jo or Joe in the crowd) isn't worth anything, is it Vlad, as it doesn't prevent the discrimination.
I am just reiterating the biblical notion of the priesthood of all believers. That is what has the effect. It isn't something i've just made up.
-
I am just reiterating the biblical notion of the priesthood of all believers. That is what has the effect. It isn't something i've just made up.
So you say - but others will use different biblical sections to justify the need for a specific ordained clergy within a church and that those clergy must be male. For example see the quote from JPII that Sebastian Toe referred to previously, that refers to Luke.
I don't wish to intrude in the internal battles about what the bible means and how it should be interpreted - there are already too many varying views amongst christians. What I am concerned about is that these churches discriminate against women. Just as I don't care how people might justify racism - I will oppose it regardless of its claimed justification, I don't care how people might justify discrimination against women - I will oppose it regardless.
-
I am just reiterating the biblical notion of the priesthood of all believers. That is what has the effect. It isn't something i've just made up.
No, you're reiterating your preferred interpretation of you preferred translation of one amongst a number of varying and contradictory Biblical notions. Other Christians interpret their chosen translations differently.
O.
-
So you say - but others will use different biblical sections to justify the need for a specific ordained clergy within a church and that those clergy must be male. For example see the quote from JPII that Sebastian Toe referred to previously, that refers to Luke.
Yes and weighing it up I am perfectly OK for a volunteer organised institution to run on those lines because at the end of the day they might be right and I might be wrong although I at this time consider myself as the purist here. How clergy are organised is also for me not the heart of the matter. Secondly, I question your definition of misogyny, thirdly your insistence on secular thinking in a religious issue where there is no question of a secular substitute to all of this....and that makes your complaint more backdoor ''de-religion'' than anything else IMHO.
How many catholic women are lining up to be priests, I wonder.
-
No, you're reiterating your preferred interpretation of you preferred translation of one amongst a number of varying and contradictory Biblical notions. Other Christians interpret their chosen translations differently.
O.
If you are saying that there is no concept of ''The priesthood of all believers'' I would beg to differ.
-
For anybody interested:
https://catholic-womens-ordination.org.uk/
-
How many catholic women are lining up to be priests, I wonder.
A reasonable number I'd imagine, were they to be allowed. You aren't really going to know unless the rules change. There has certainly been no lack of women wanting to be priests in the CofE since they changed their rules. I gather that we've now reached a position where more women than men are coming forward for ordination in the CofE.
-
If you are saying that there is no concept of ''The priesthood of all believers'' I would beg to differ.
You may well beg to differ - but in a practical sense the main denominations beg to differ from your view, as they consider that not all believers are priests, only a small number who are only considered to be priests following intensive training and ordination. And for the RCC they consider that only men can be priests.
-
Yes and weighing it up I am perfectly OK for a volunteer organised institution to run on those lines because at the end of the day they might be right and I might be wrong although I at this time consider myself as the purist here. How clergy are organised is also for me not the heart of the matter.
But the law disagrees - organisations, whether voluntary or not are required to abide by the Equalities legislation and therefore not discriminate on the basis of sex. I don't see why the voluntary nature of an organisation should make any ethical distinction - discrimination is discrimination, I see no distinction between an organisation refusing to allow a woman to be in paid employment and an organisation refusing to allow a woman to be an unpaid volunteer.
Secondly, I question your definition of misogyny,
I don't think I've used this term in the current discussion. I am talking about discrimination and justice - and where there is discrimination there isn't justice.
... thirdly your insistence on secular thinking in a religious issue where there is no question of a secular substitute to all of this....and that makes your complaint more backdoor ''de-religion'' than anything else IMHO.
I disagree profoundly - what you are suggesting is that religious organisations should be able to play the 'religious card' and exempt themselves from the law of the land. I cannot accept that - the law must apply to all organisations, whether religious or otherwise. To permit religion to be used for exemptions from the law is deeply discriminatory to those who cannot play that card (i.e. individuals and organisations that aren't religious) and there cannot be justice within that context.
-
For anybody interested:
https://catholic-womens-ordination.org.uk/
Good for them in their opinion. However, I do question why any of these people remain in an organisation whose fundamental values seem to be in such gross opposition to their own. An organisation that fundamentally does not respect or value women as they will not allow them in the key positions that are considered essential to be in a leadership position in the RCC.
But then I've often thought this of many catholics, who so often have views in complete opposition to the teaching of the RCC on marriage, LGBT rights, abortion, contraception, women priests etc etc.
-
You may well beg to differ - but in a practical sense the main denominations beg to differ from your view, as they consider that not all believers are priests, only a small number who are only considered to be priests following intensive training and ordination. And for the RCC they consider that only men can be priests.
Another argumentum ad populum? The priesthood of all believers is biblical.
As far as I know in the west only the RCC is a main denomination holding out. Where I have sympathy with your modern view of the equality of all people, the accusation of only having a small number of females could be levelled at a number of fields including and especially academia where there is apparently real misogeny.
-
But the law disagrees - organisations, whether voluntary or not are required to abide by the Equalities legislation and therefore not discriminate on the basis of sex.
But the churches are exempt, probably because there is no secular equivalent of a priest. I don't see why the voluntary nature of an organisation should make any ethical distinction - discrimination is discrimination, I see no distinction between an organisation refusing to allow a woman to be in paid employment and an organisation refusing to allow a woman to be an unpaid volunteer.
As far as I know the RC church is voluntary and allows women unpaid roles
what you are suggesting is that religious organisations should be able to play the 'religious card' and exempt themselves from the law of the land. I cannot accept that - the law must apply to all organisations, whether religious or otherwise.
I'm saying that there is no secular equivalence to a priest or a nun. That is why sensible people do not seek to impose secular thinking on this To permit religion to be used for exemptions from the law is deeply discriminatory to those who cannot play that card (i.e. individuals and organisations that aren't religious) and there cannot be justice within that context.
slippery slope argument. Again a priest is a religious office for which there is no secular equivalent and religion is voluntary. It is not like say preventing gay adoption because parenting can be done by people of the same sex. RCC priestly orders are in a complimentarian tradition where there are agreed rolls that are sex related. Should that change it will be down to the members surely.
-
Good for them in their opinion. Yes, they too believe in the priesthood of all believers.
However, I do question why any of these people remain in an organisation whose fundamental values seem to be in such gross opposition to their own.
Because what is of vital importance to you is not to them. For them, as I keep telling you this is not the heart of the matter, it isn't a deal breaker...in fact these are people who want to get deeper into it. Not like you, where what they want is what you are trying to entomb and roll the stone over the entrance. For them there is no secular role in which they can sublimate the services they want to perform An organisation that fundamentally does not respect or value women as they will not allow them in the key positions that are considered essential to be in a leadership position in the RCC.
They don't just want to be at the top like a probably sociopathic boss in a secular setting. They want to serve Christ
But then I've often thought this of many catholics, who so often have views in complete opposition to the teaching of the RCC on marriage, LGBT rights, abortion, contraception, women priests etc etc.
Obviously not deal breaking enough. I certainly don't think there is any encouragement to defect to the New atheism which apparently in it's short timespan has already courted accusation of Misogeny.
-
Another argumentum ad populum? The priesthood of all believers is biblical.
Then I suggest you take that up with the major denominations who don't agree with you and consider that you can only be a priest if you are trained and ordained.
But as I've said this is a sterile christian on christian argument - what I care about is justice and ensuring that discrimination doesn't happen.
-
As far as I know the RC church is voluntary and allows women unpaid roles
But it doesn't ensure equality - as it bans women from becoming priests, so your argument is pointless. If a company or voluntary organisation allowed women to be in paid or unpaid administrative roles, but prevented them from being on the board, would you consider that fine. I wouldn't as they would be clearly discriminatory.
-
I'm saying that there is no secular equivalence to a priest or a nun.
Really - I think there are plenty of equivalents or roles which are considered vocational and support people. But it really doesn't matter if it is tricky to find an equivalent role - as to do so suggests you are demanding exceptionalism. I could image plenty of jobs and roles that don't seem to have equivalents - yet we don't allow those roles to be exempt from equalities legislation.
-
Then I suggest you take that up with the major denominations who don't agree with you and consider that you can only be a priest if you are trained and ordained.
But as I've said this is a sterile christian on christian argument - what I care about is justice and ensuring that discrimination doesn't happen.
Another argumentum ad populum?
-
However, I do question why any of these people remain in an organisation whose fundamental values seem to be in such gross opposition to their own.Because what is of vital importance to you is not to them. For them, as I keep telling you this is not the heart of the matter, it isn't a deal breaker...in fact these are people who want to get deeper into it. Not like you, where what they want is what you are trying to entomb and roll the stone over the entrance. For them there is no secular role in which they can sublimate the services they want to perform They don't just want to be at the top like a probably sociopathic boss in a secular setting. They want to serve ChristObviously not deal breaking enough. I certainly don't think there is any encouragement to defect to the New atheism which apparently in it's short timespan has already courted accusation of Misogeny.
Perhaps - although I think there is another element - in my experience (and I have a lot of it) people brought up as catholic consider their catholicism as something inherent, almost genetic. Not something that they can actually ditch. So they might be non practicing, might disagree with pretty well everything that the RCC stands for, yet they will still consider themselves catholic.
So the people you are talking about could 'serve christ' as you describe it by joining a different christian denomination which includes the 'good' elements of the RCC christianity while jettisoning the discrimination and other elements that they profoundly disagree with. But by and large they don't - why - because they are catholic.
-
Another argumentum ad populum?
Nope - it is an argument I'm not interested in. But one that if you consider every believer is a priest you will need to take up and try to win with christian denominations that disagree with you.
I am interested in justice and concerned about discrimination - I cannot see how these concerns are somehow an argumentum ad populum - quite the reverse. In many cases (albeit not on sex) discrimination is about minorities being disadvantaged.
-
But it doesn't ensure equality - as it bans women from becoming priests, so your argument is pointless. If a company or voluntary organisation allowed women to be in paid or unpaid administrative roles, but prevented them from being on the board, would you consider that fine. I wouldn't as they would be clearly discriminatory.
And yet how many secular companies have anything but a token female presence? The managing director of the RCC should be the last not the first, that's biblical and that would be world changing if a Pope actually followed the bible on that one. That he is seen as like a normal secular ''boss'' by spectators such as yourself is a failure. As far as I can see the BVM is considered ''On the board''.
-
Really - I think there are plenty of equivalents or roles which are considered vocational and support people.
Like what? A humanist celebrant?
-
Perhaps - although I think there is another element - in my experience (and I have a lot of it) people brought up as catholic consider their catholicism as something inherent, almost genetic. Not something that they can actually ditch. So they might be non practicing, might disagree with pretty well everything that the RCC stands for, yet they will still consider themselves catholic.
So the people you are talking about could 'serve christ' as you describe it by joining a different christian denomination which includes the 'good' elements of the RCC christianity while jettisoning the discrimination and other elements that they profoundly disagree with. But by and large they don't - why - because they are catholic.
Or work to change things from within. I can see merits in what you are trying to say here but I could ask therefore why you are still attached to academia given it's misogyny?
-
Like what? A humanist celebrant?
Perhaps, or a midwife, or a counsellor etc. But as I've said it is irrelevant whether you can find a clear equivalent - if you think priests shouldn't be subject to the same rules as other roles then you are demanding exceptionalism, regardless of whether there is a secular equivalent.
You could just as easily claim that there is no civilian equivalent to a member of the military and therefore that it is fine to ban women from being in the military. We used to ban women, but we don't anymore.
-
Or work to change things from within.
Sure I get that, although I suspect it is a pretty challenging task to persuade the RCC to change its rules.
I can see merits in what you are trying to say here but I could ask therefore why you are still attached to academia given it's misogyny?
Massive non-equivalence - sure academia have challenges with equality, but name me a sector that doesn't to one extent or another. However universities do not ban women from being academics (they once did, but not for years), they don't prevent women from becoming professors, they don't ban women from being Vice Chancellors and run universities etc etc. There is simply no equivalence to the RCC which does ban women from being priests, bishops, cardinals and the pope etc.
-
Perhaps, or a midwife, or a counsellor etc. But as I've said it is irrelevant whether you can find a clear equivalent - if you think priests shouldn't be subject to the same rules as other roles then you are demanding exceptionalism, regardless of whether there is a secular equivalent.
You could just as easily claim that there is no civilian equivalent to a member of the military and therefore that it is fine to ban women from being in the military. We used to ban women, but we don't anymore.
Your suggestions are again another ''dereligiousing'' tactic. I don't see the link between priestlyness and being a midwife particularly when you could be both priest and midwife at the same time, ditto counsellor and priest. But you are suggesting a secular society where people are forced to have pure secular motives where the role of serving God is abolished in an Orwellian frenzy.
We did ban women from the military but in 1914 that didn't stop them coming out in squadron numbers with white feathers brow beating men into the horrors of the trench.
-
Sure I get that, although I suspect it is a pretty challenging task to persuade the RCC to change its rules.
Massive non-equivalence - sure academia have challenges with equality, but name me a sector that doesn't to one extent or another. However universities do not ban women from being academics (they once did, but not for years), they don't prevent women from becoming professors, they don't ban women from being Vice Chancellors and run universities etc etc. There is simply no equivalence to the RCC which does ban women from being priests, bishops, cardinals and the pope etc.
So the misogyny in Academia is therefore like the misogyny in the metropolitan police?
Part of the psychological make up of the recruit rather than appeal to tradition or scripture.
-
So the misogyny in Academia is therefore like the misogyny in the metropolitan police?
Part of the psychological make up of the recruit rather than appeal to tradition or scripture.
How said that academia is misogynist - certainly not me. And I'm not sure an organisation can be misogynist, I think misogyny applies to individuals.
So are there individuals in academia that are misogynist - sure there are, just as there are in pretty well any other organisation. But note that misogyny and lack of equality aren't the same thing - organisations can fail to achieve equality in practice even if their policies and practices are scrupulously equal and none of the people in the organisation are prejudiced.
So how does this apply to academia - well I think I have a much better understanding than you, and I can tell you that the whole EDI agenda is massive in academia to the extent that people in many other walks of life would be astonished at what is in our policies and practices to support equality and the pro-active approach taken. Is this completely successful - no, it isn't. There is further to go - but one of the reasons why academia understands this is because of the huge level of data gathering that we undertake compared to many other sectors. And one of the reasons academia does this is to support its Athena Swan submissions - this is where universities submit their data, action plans, and outcomes on EDI to an independent external body who then rates the organisation Gold, Silver, Bronze etc on its progress on EDI.
So are universities like the Met Police - well I have no inside view of the Met so it isn't easy to know, but from what I can see from the outside universities are hugely different (and better) in terms of support for EDI generally and for equality for women specifically.
But of course, this little side-line is a diversionary tactic, as we were talking about lack of equality in churches and here there is no comparison with universities. The former (e.g. RCC, CofE) have in place policies and practices that are directly and deliberately discriminatory, while the latter may not achieve full equality in practice I can be confident that none of our policies and practices are directly and deliberately discriminatory.
-
Another argumentum ad populum? The priesthood of all believers is biblical.
Citation needed.
As far as I know in the west only the RCC is a main denomination holding out. Where I have sympathy with your modern view of the equality of all people, the accusation of only having a small number of females could be levelled at a number of fields including and especially academia where there is apparently real misogeny.
Worse than the misogyny in the Catholic Church? Nope.
-
... the accusation of only having a small number of females could be levelled at a number of fields including and especially academia where there is apparently real misogeny.
Says someone who doesn't work in academia. While I am aware that there isn't full equality for women in academia, Universities are bending over backwards to address this issue and don't believe I've never encountered open misogeny in my time in academia - certainly not in the past couple of decades.
And actually, although there is more to do, academia isn't too bad in terms of female representation and there has been very strong progress over the past few years. Nearly one third of all University Vice Chancellors (the person who runs a university) are female, and when you look at the overall senior leadership teams that proportion rises to nearly 40%. Still some way off full equality, but the equivalent proportions a decade ago were significantly lower.
So nearly one third of UK universities are run by women - lets compare that with major christian denominations. How many major christian denominations are led by women (e.g. role of pope, ABofC, Patriarch (note even the name) of the Orthodox churches). Come on then Vlad, how many are run by women - I'm not aware of any now, nor in the past, but perhaps you can point to all the women in the chief leadership positions.
So Vlad, I'm not saying that academia is perfect - it isn't but it is working extremely hard to improve. But don't insult universities by comparing them with churches, many (probably most) of whom have deliberate, directly discriminatory policies in place.
-
How said that academia is misogynist -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism_in_academia
The priesthood of all believers is biblical.Citation needed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priesthood_of_all_believers
So Vlad, I'm not saying that academia is perfect - it isn't but it is working extremely hard to improve.
But so is the church of England and yet you have belittled those efforts. Also, you have treated the sacramental and liturgical role of the priest in main denomination as the equivalent of management. Since the first should be last and the last first in the kingdom it is wrong running a ''priesthood'' like that but equally wrong to perpetuate that view by making an argument that women aren't allowed the ''top positions'' in the church.
Misogyny in academia has zero rationale behind it so women, you will find, will not get behind any of it in other words there is no complimentarian argument or finding of ''no authority'' (since the pope had no divine leading on the matter) to ordain women priests like the RCC to be made and never has been to justify academics' misogyny. Academia=Job, ecclesia =vocation.
-
Wikipedia is in the Bible now is it.
-
Academia=Job, ecclesia =vocation.
Really?!?
I suggest you need to define vocation first using some accepted definition and then we can discuss whether academia is just a job rather than a vocation. Precious few of my academic colleagues seem to consider it to be just a job.
The amount of time and effort it takes to become an academic, the hours worked by academics and the notion that many of my colleagues see academia as their life, not their job to the extent that we've recently hired a couple of academics in their 80s who desperately want to continue to be able to conduct their academic research but had been forced to retire by Cambridge suggests it is rather more than just a job.
-
Really?!?
I suggest you need to define vocation first using some accepted definition and then we can discuss whether academia is just a job rather than a vocation. Precious few of my academic colleagues seem to consider it to be just a job.
The amount of time and effort it takes to become an academic, the hours worked by academics and the notion that many of my colleagues see academia as their life, not their job to the extent that we've recently hired a couple of academics in their 80s who desperately want to continue to be able to conduct their academic research but had been forced to retire by Cambridge suggests it is rather more than just a job.
So, you think you were "called" to academia? Who called you?
-
So, you think you were "called" to academia? Who called you?
Classic goalpost moving - I thought we were talking about a 'vocation' not a 'calling'.
So let's stick to the term you used - vocation. Here is a classic definition:
'a type of work that you feel you are suited to doing and to which you should give all your time and energy, or the feeling that a type of work suits you in this way'
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/vocation
Yup sounds like the kind of attitude that most academics I know have towards academia. And if you want to throw in calling (yes I am aware of the origins of the word vocation) then the calling is a strong inclination towards a profession that it deemed to be particularly worthy and important and that the individual is prepared to devote huge time and effort towards. Hence medicine, teaching etc are considered to be vocations too, along with academia. In each case these vocations are far more than just a job.
-
Classic goalpost moving - I thought we were talking about a 'vocation' not a 'calling'.
So let's stick to the term you used - vocation. Here is a classic definition:
'a type of work that you feel you are suited to doing and to which you should give all your time and energy, or the feeling that a type of work suits you in this way'
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/vocation
Yup sounds like the kind of attitude that most academics I know have towards academia. And if you want to throw in calling (yes I am aware of the origins of the word vocation) then the calling is a strong inclination towards a profession that it deemed to be particularly worthy and important and that the individual is prepared to devote huge time and effort towards. Hence medicine, teaching etc are considered to be vocations too, along with academia. In each case these vocations are far more than just a job.
vocation originally applied to a religious calling, a word from God. The modern meaning is the equivalent of a job.
Indeed as I have pointed out you call office in the church a job and inflict secular views of management on it.
While apparently seeking some kind of priesthood for yourself
.......it's more than a job ooooooooooooo.
-
vocation originally applied to a religious calling, a word from God. The modern meaning is the equivalent of a job.
It actually derives from the latin words voice and vocatio - which has a much broader context than a religious calling and refers to any kind of summons or calling. So the notion of a vocation has never exclusively referred to a religious calling, and clearly doesn't now as I suspect most of the vocations people will consider will be secular, for example nursing, medicine or teaching.
So, as so often, you fail to understand the broader context, not being able to see beyond your religious blinkers.
Indeed as I have pointed out you call office in the church a job and inflict secular views of management on it.
While apparently seeking some kind of priesthood for yourself
.......it's more than a job ooooooooooooo.
As you have no real idea of academia, then I suggest we all take anything you say about it with a pinch of salt. But, yes it is more than just a job - hence the academic calling (vocation) and the intellectual calling. People devote their lives to their intellectual academic endeavours in the same manner that no doubt some clergy devote their lives to their religious calling. I suspect there are plenty of other clergy who see their role a job too, albeit one with weird hours (a bit like academia - if you knew anything about it you'd know that it isn't uncommon to find academics working and emailing you in the early hours).
-
So, you think you were "called" to academia? Who called you?
You are aware, are you not Vlad, that the concept of academia predates christianity by hundreds of years, and that its origins clearly involved intellectuals being 'called' to a specific place to engage in philosophy and learning. And while academics were being 'called' to the academy as early as 385BC, the christian use of the derived word vocation didn't arise until the middle ages.
Academics have been being called (voco, vocatia) to the academy for nearly 2,500 years.
-
vocation originally applied to a religious calling, a word from God. The modern meaning is the equivalent of a job.
And you'll no doubt be aware that the notion of a 'calling' in the legal profession, i.e. called to the bar, likely predated the use of the term vocation as a religious calling by at least a century.
And of course the modern meaning is not equivalent to a job - the whole point about a vocation is that it is far more than just a job. It is an occupation that someone is exceptionally suited to, usually seen to be worthy or good and that the person is prepared to devote themselves to above and beyond the notion of a mere job.
-
And you'll no doubt be aware that the notion of a 'calling' in the legal profession, i.e. called to the bar, likely predated the use of the term vocation as a religious calling by at least a century.
And of course the modern meaning is not equivalent to a job - the whole point about a vocation is that it is far more than just a job. It is an occupation that someone is exceptionally suited to, usually seen to be worthy or good and that the person is prepared to devote themselves to above and beyond the notion of a mere job.
Yes but my question is who is doing the calling?
You seem to be the one turning vocations into jobs, equating religious vocations into secular corporate heirarchies.
Who is doing the calling to the bar?
Who is doing the calling to academia?
-
Yes but my question is who is doing the calling?
You seem to be the one turning vocations into jobs, equating religious vocations into secular corporate heirarchies.
Who is doing the calling to the bar?
Who is doing the calling to academia?
I recall telling you a few times to be careful with all the straw you seemingly had at your disposal. I think I should also warn you about playing with concrete: it affects the thinking you know, but it may be that in your case my warning is already too late.
-
Yes but my question is who is doing the calling?
You seem to be the one turning vocations into jobs, equating religious vocations into secular corporate heirarchies.
Who is doing the calling to the bar?
Who is doing the calling to academia?
There is no need for a specific person to be calling someone - a calling can, of course, come from within - you are called to do something due to your inner passion for it. Hence if anyone is doing the calling it is the person 'called' themselves.
But in a much more specific sense, both the legal profession and academia have traditions whereby when individuals join they are welcomed/called by others in more senior positions in that organisation. And in both cases that element of a traditional calling of the novice by the senior pre-dates the use of the term vocation in a christian context.
And while neither the Church of England (for example) nor Universities are 'for profit' organisations both have very clear hierarchies and indeed they use the same terminology in certain cases to denote people in more senior positions - for example Dean (I had that title for a while) and Rector. Congregation is also another term used by both academia and churches.
-
There is no need for a specific person to be calling someone - a calling can, of course, come from within - you are called to do something due to your inner passion for it. Hence if anyone is doing the calling it is the person 'called' themselves.
But in a much more specific sense, both the legal profession and academia have traditions whereby when individuals join they are welcomed/called by others in more senior positions in that organisation. And in both cases that element of a traditional calling of the novice by the senior pre-dates the use of the term vocation in a christian context.
And while neither the Church of England (for example) nor Universities are 'for profit' organisations both have very clear hierarchies and indeed they use the same terminology in certain cases to denote people in more senior positions - for example Dean (I had that title for a while) and Rector. Congregation is also another term used by both academia and churches.
You cannot have both calling and organisation based on standard models imo.
Male hierarchies in the so called "callings" tend to favour males and where there are gender or serial quotas the essential misogyny finds different outlets. Did you infact consult the wikipedia article on sexism in academia?
-
So, you think you were "called" to academia? Who called you?
Next time, you should be more specific about which particular definition of "vocation" you mean.
-
Yes but my question is who is doing the calling?
Well since the Christian god doesn't exist, who is it that calls people to the priesthood?
-
You cannot have both calling and organisation based on standard models imo.
Of course you can - people can feel 'called' into all sorts of organisations with all sorts of organisational structures.
And, of course, if you cannot be called into an organisation with a hierarchical organisational structure then there cannot be a 'calling' to be a RCC or CofE priest as those organisations have some of the most hierarchical and organised operational models going.
-
Male hierarchies in the so called "callings" tend to favour males and where there are gender or serial quotas the essential misogyny finds different outlets.
Blimey - my irony meter has just exploded.
You mean like the male hierarchies in the RCC that ban women from being priest, bishops, cardinals and pope. Or the misogeny by policy within the CofE that while allowing women bishops accepts that it is reasonable for the rank and file to reject the notion of a woman bishop and, by policy, allow them to refuse to be under the organisational leadership of a woman.
-
The fig tree incident shows that God the creator of Heaven and Earth and perfect being was capable of extreme petulance when a plant that he allegedly designed behaved in the way that he designed it.
In the face of incidents like that, it's no wonder that most people in the World don't take Christian claims seriously.
Hosea 9:10 and Micah 7:1-6 say that fig trees could produce 'early fruit'. Perhaps when Jesus noticed leaves he hoped there could also be some figs. Mark's comment that it wasn't the season for figs should probably be taken to mean the main crop.
-
Blimey - my irony meter has just exploded.
You mean like the male hierarchies in the RCC that ban women from being priest, bishops, cardinals and pope. Or the misogeny by policy within the CofE that while allowing women bishops accepts that it is reasonable for the rank and file to reject the notion of a woman bishop and, by policy, allow them to refuse to be under the organisational leadership of a woman.
I look forward to your explanation for why it is irrational for people to request a male priest then maybe why it is rational for a woman to request a woman doctor.
-
I look forward to your explanation for why it is irrational for people to request a male priest then maybe why it is rational for a woman to request a woman doctor.
Can women request a female priest?
-
Can women request a female priest?
I guess they can request one - but in the CofE their request can be ignored, while the CofE has enshrined in its laws the right to request a male priest, a request which must be granted. Clear direct discrimination against women, and direct discrimination by deliberate policy.
Good luck with anyone requesting a female priest in the RCC.
-
I look forward to your explanation for why it is irrational for people to request a male priest then maybe why it is rational for a woman to request a woman doctor.
Souls are gender neutral, genitals aren't?
O.
-
Souls are gender neutral, genitals aren't?
O.
So is it then irrational for me to put my genitals in the hands of both male or female doctors? Actually I suppose these days I have to entrust the left one to male doctors, The right to female doctors and Hector to Trans doctors.
-
So is it then irrational for me to put my genitals in the hands of both male or female doctors? Actually I suppose these days I have to entrust the left one to male doctors, The right to female doctors and Hector to Trans doctors.
That's a fetish I've not heard of before. But whatever floats your boat.