Pope on gays : "Who am I to judge?"

[crazy canuck]

The golden rule was used in it's superior masochim negating negative version "Do not do to others what you would not want done to you." by Confucius during the Axial age and famously by Rabbi Hillel hopping on one leg during the Hellenistic Age

Yeah, so didnt predate religious ethical teachings.  Thats what I thought.

[Viking]

They joined the whining side.

Losing leads to whining, whining leads to self hate, self hatred leads the zionist side.

[Viking]

The golden rule was used in it's superior masochim negating negative version "Do not do to others what you would not want done to you." by Confucius during the Axial age and famously by Rabbi Hillel hopping on one leg during the Hellenistic Age

Yeah, so didnt predate religious ethical teachings.  Thats what I thought.

It seems to have existed in all forms of ethical teaching to some extent. Though, I must note, not in Judaism before the exile to Babylon.

[Sheilbh]

On the Pope's interview there's a few lines that weren't translated into the English-language version for some reason. They echo something Benedict said a while ago about maybe creating space within 'ministerial service' for women. This would most likely be female deacons, plus there's historical evidence of female deacons in the early Church and there's nothing in doctrine against it. Deacons are ordained to ministry but not holy orders (priesthood) which is the only Church office barred to women.

But the Spanish press has gone further and suggested that Francis is considering naming some female cardinals. It's extremely unlikely but cardinals are independent of the priesthood - the Church's view is that Christ made priests, but he never made cardinals, they're a man-made institution. So there have been lay cardinals in the past and Paul VI reportedly considered naming some lay cardinals (who would become deacons, but not priests). Theoretically there's no reason a woman couldn't become a cardinal.

This isn't the first time this has come up. Cardinal Dolan tells a story he heard in Rome that someone suggested to JPII that he should make Mother Teresa a cardinal and he said 'I asked her. She doesn't want it.' But it is theoretically possible......

[Sophie Scholl]

Interesting.  When would this have the possibility of happening, Shelilbh?  Is it a within a few weeks/months time frame or more likely to be a further down the road thing?

[crazy canuck]

The golden rule was used in it's superior masochim negating negative version "Do not do to others what you would not want done to you." by Confucius during the Axial age and famously by Rabbi Hillel hopping on one leg during the Hellenistic Age

Yeah, so didnt predate religious ethical teachings.  Thats what I thought.

It seems to have existed in all forms of ethical teaching to some extent. Though, I must note, not in Judaism before the exile to Babylon.

I can agree with that.  Grumbler's claim was that it was somehow independant of religious ethical teaching.

[The Minsky Moment]

Christ made priests, but he never made cardinals, they were made by Branch Rickey

Fixed.

[Sheilbh]

Interesting.  When would this have the possibility of happening, Shelilbh?  Is it a within a few weeks/months time frame or more likely to be a further down the road thing?

With Francis, who knows?

It may not happen at all. But as I say none of these ideas are entirely new. The only door that's closed to women is priesthood. Cardinals are a bit of man-made bureaucracy. The Church could abolish the College of Cardinals tomorrow and it wouldn't be moving from sacred tradition, or doctrine. Similarly doctrinally there's no reason you couldn't have women deacons and there's some historical argument for them. I think they'd both require a bit of fiddling with Canon Law but as they're not doctrines, Francis is an absolute monarch - though obviously he'd consult.

I'd expect to see both within my lifetime - when you've got Benedict wondering aloud about creating space in 'ministerial service' then I think that's the direction things are moving.

[Neil]

There seems to be something both qualitative and quantitatively different about the religions I listed from the millions of other religions one might name.

Of course it seems that way to you.  The priests of Baal probably felt the same way.

The priests of Ba'al didn't have modern communications equipment to spread their ideas, nor modern storage media to preserve them.  I think the ideas of those religions are going to be around for quite some time.

[grumbler]

I can agree with that.  Grumbler's claim was that it was somehow independant of religious ethical teaching.

I said it appeared in secular writings before it appeared in religious ones, which is true.  I don't even know what "somehow independant [sic] of religious ethical teaching" even means, but the so-called "Golden Rule" certainly isn't a religious teaching, except inasmuch as religions have co-opted it.

[Iormlund]

I cannot prove that there isn't a 800lb invisible gorilla living on my left testicle.

Sure - you could just weigh your left testicle and establish it is less than 800lb. 

Unless it's being held by an invisible platypus that weighs -800lbs.

[crazy canuck]

I can agree with that.  Grumbler's claim was that it was somehow independant of religious ethical teaching.

I said it appeared in secular writings before it appeared in religious ones, which is true. 

Talk about basing a world view based on a false belief.

[Valmy]

Another factor to remember when discussing religion is that there are only two types of religions
(1) the millions of religions abandoned as false already, and
(2) the handful of religions that will be abandoned as false, but have't yet suffered that fate.

We know that the fate of a religion is to be abandoned, eventually.  When we assess the social utility of any religion (or religion in general), we should keep that in mind.

Indeed. The fate of humanity is ultimately extinction as well.  I guess we should keep that in mind as well?  I guess I fail to see the implications that require us to keep this in mind.

[grumbler]

Talk about basing a world view based on a false belief.

That's what I've noted several times about the religious types, so, yeah, that is what we are talking about.  Glad to see you are only a couple of pages behind; for you, that's excellent work.

[grumbler]

Indeed. The fate of humanity is ultimately extinction as well.  I guess we should keep that in mind as well?  I guess I fail to see the implications that require us to keep this in mind.

If you keep in mind that the "truths" on which you base your values are only temporary truths, then it helps keep you from the mistaken belief that you are being give "the answers" by some religious conviction or other.  I think that that is useful.

If you find the ultimate extinction of the race and/or the ultimate heat death of the universe useful to keep in mind, by all means do so.  Neither of those have to do with a discussion about religions or gods, though.