Languish.org

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/09/12/new_vatican_leader_raises_celibacy_question.html

QuoteThe Vatican's newly appointed Secretary of State, Italian Archbishop Pietro Parolin, caused a stir recently when he suggested the centuries' old tradition of celibacy for priests was open for discussion.

In an interview, Parolin told the Venezuelan newspaper El Universal that the Roman Catholic Church should be free to discuss the issue and consider "modifications."

"The work the church did to institute ecclesiastical celibacy must be considered," he said. "We cannot simply say that it is part of the past. It is a great challenge for the pope, because he is the one with the ministry of unity and all of those decisions must be made thinking of the unity of the church and not to divide it. Therefore we can talk, reflect, and deepen on these subjects that are not definite, and we can think of some modifications, but always with consideration of unity, and all according to the will of God. It is not about what I would like but what God wants for His church."

The full context of his statement can be found in the National Catholic Reporter, which published an English translation:

Parolin noted in the interview that celibacy for priests is not church dogma, but simply a long-standing practice. Priests were not forbidden to marry until the Second Lateran Council in 1139. Parolin said the church really began to enforce celibacy after the Council of Trent in 1563.

Parolin stopped a long way short of calling for an end to celibacy. In fact, he stressed that Pope Francis is no revolutionary. "I want to underline the theme of continuity," he said, "because sometimes it seems, and I don't know if I'm exaggerating here, that Pope Francis is going to revolutionize everything, he is going to change everything."

Still, Parolin has signaled an important shift. Francis' predecessor, the now retired Benedict XVI, flatly stated several times that celibacy for priests was here to stay. He once called it "sacred." On another occasion, while revelations of sex abuse by priests rocked the church, Benedict called celibacy a "sign of full devotion" to the Lord.

The issue, however, remains a hot one in the Catholic Church.  In Ireland, where sex scandals has seen the church toppled from its once dominant role, a public opinion poll conducted by an association of rebel priests found 87 per cent in favour of allowing priests to marry.

Celibacy is part of a bigger battle going on in the church. Under Benedict, priests across Europe rebelled against the centralization of power in Rome. The election of Pope Francis in March brought new hope. He made clear from the start that he was open to a more grassroots approach to decision making, what in church terms, is called "collegiality."

In his interview with El Universal, the Vatican's Secretary of State made clear that the need for a  more democratic church is the real challenge. "It has always been said that the church is not a democracy," he noted. "But it would be good during these times that there could be a more democratic spirit, in the sense of listening carefully, and I believe the pope has made of this one of his pontificate's objectives. A collegial movement of the church, where all the issues can be brought up, and afterward he can make a decision."

You can have an autocracy and still have consensus and consent important governing principals, like England back in the day.

I can see why Catholic conservatives would be wary of allowing priests to marry, that seems likely to bring up issues around women in the clergy and homosexual marriage and so forth.

Quote from: Valmy on September 13, 2013, 08:56:23 AM
You can have an autocracy and still have consensus and consent important governing principals, like England back in the day.

I can see why Catholic conservatives would be wary of allowing priests to marry, that seems likely to bring up issues around women in the clergy and homosexual marriage and so forth.

Are any of those dogma, or simply traditions, like the celibacy thing?

It's an honest question. I don't know.

I can't see how allowing catholic priests to marry would imply that women should be allowed to be priests.

Were women allowed to be priests before priests were celibate?

Quote from: Berkut on September 13, 2013, 09:23:22 AM
I can't see how allowing catholic priests to marry would imply that women should be allowed to be priests.

Because it would put them in much closer contact with the clergy and increase their influence.  Besides, it is not like there is not a strong faction also pushing for that and giving in to one pressure group would encourage the others.

Quote from: Berkut on September 13, 2013, 09:23:22 AM
I can't see how allowing catholic priests to marry would imply that women should be allowed to be priests.

Were women allowed to be priests before priests were celibate?

I think that women were allowed to be priests before the Nicene Council, but I'm not sure how they were forbidden during the Council. I'm not sure if it became dogma or no. I'm thinking that it did.

Quote from: merithyn on September 13, 2013, 09:27:10 AM
I think that women were allowed to be priests before the Nicene Council, but I'm not sure how they were forbidden during the Council. I'm not sure if it became dogma or no. I'm thinking that it did.

Where did the myth come from that the church was all woman friendly until the evil Nicene Council?  As far as I know nothing about women, and their role in the church, was even discussed in the Nicene council but I constantly hear how Constantine came in and did woman hating reforms and destroyed the hippy Christian Church.  I blame Dan Brown.

Quote from: merithyn on September 13, 2013, 09:27:10 AM

Quote from: Berkut on September 13, 2013, 09:23:22 AM
I can't see how allowing catholic priests to marry would imply that women should be allowed to be priests.

Were women allowed to be priests before priests were celibate?

I think that women were allowed to be priests before the Nicene Council, but I'm not sure how they were forbidden during the Council. I'm not sure if it became dogma or no. I'm thinking that it did.

I was mistaken. At least, according to one historian, women were ordained as recently as the 12th century.

Link (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/religion/post/2009/05/67150989/1)

QuoteWomen's ordination is an simmering issue among some Catholics and now a Jesuit historian has put history on the women's side.

The Catholic Church ordained women for nearly 11 centuries before "virulent misogyny" and politics led to theological rules that wiped out the practice, Gary Macy, professor of Theology at Santa Clara University, said in a lecture Monday at Vanderbilt University.

Paulist Press tuned in to Macy's talk (podcast here) and coverage at California Catholic of Macy's book, The Hidden History of Women's Ordination.

According to Macy, until about the mid-12th century, women were ordained as deaconesses, served as bishops, distributed Communion and even heard confessions. "Women were considered to be as ordained as any man... they were considered clergy.

But, he says, the church by the 12th century

... sought to protect its property from feudal lords by inventing "a separate clerical class." Theologians came to view women as "metaphysically different from other people," so that, by the mere fact of being female, women were considered incapable of being ordained. Canonists adopted the position (that), "Women were never ordained, are not ordained now, and can never be ordained."

Quote from: Valmy on September 13, 2013, 09:31:59 AM

Quote from: merithyn on September 13, 2013, 09:27:10 AM
I think that women were allowed to be priests before the Nicene Council, but I'm not sure how they were forbidden during the Council. I'm not sure if it became dogma or no. I'm thinking that it did.

Where did the myth come from that the church was all woman friendly until the evil Nicene Council?  As far as I know nothing about women, and their role in the church, was even discussed in the Nicene council but I constantly hear how Constantine came in and did woman hating reforms and destroyed the hippy Christian Church.  I blame Dan Brown.

Well, I'd learned it in history class ages ago, so pre-Dan Brown. If I remember correctly, it was that prior to the Nicene Council, there were a ton of different sects of Christianity. The Nicene Council brought them all under a single doctrine, or at least tried to. In doing so, they determined that women were not acceptable as priests.

Wiki kind of says the same thing:

QuoteSome supporters of women's ordination have asserted that there have been ordained female priests and bishops in antiquity.[5] The Church's position is that, although "a few heretical sects in the first centuries, especially Gnostic ones, entrusted the exercise of the priestly ministry to women: this innovation was immediately noted and condemned by the Fathers who considered it as unacceptable in the Church."[6] In response some supporters of women's ordination argue those sects weren't heretical but orthodox.[7]

There is evidence that women were ordained by some groups within the Christian community. For example, Pope Gelasius I apparently condemned the practice of women officiating at altars; inscriptions near Tropea in Calabria refer to "presbytera", which could be interpreted as a woman priest or as a wife of a male priest.[7] Furthermore, a sarcophagus from Dalmatia is inscribed with the date 425 and records that a grave in the Salona burial-ground was bought from presbytera Flavia Vitalia: selling burial plots was at one time a duty of presbyters.[7] There have been some 15 records so far found of women being ordained in antiquity by Christians; the Church, as noted, states those ordinations were by heretical groups, while the Women's Ordination Conference contends those same groups were orthodox.[7]

Quote from: merithyn on September 13, 2013, 09:38:10 AM
Well, I'd learned it in history class ages ago, so pre-Dan Brown. If I remember correctly, it was that prior to the Nicene Council, there were a ton of different sects of Christianity. The Nicene Council brought them all under a single doctrine, or at least tried to. In doing so, they determined that women were not acceptable as priests.

The only sects the Nicene Council delt with were the Arians and variations on the Donatists who agreed with Orthodoxy on like 99.999% of issues.  There were lots of different sects of Christianity but them all being united under one doctrine was pretty much already done by the time the Nicene Council came around.  I think blaming it on Nicea though makes Constantine, aa pretty cruel and ruthless man, a handy scape goat for the corruption of the church.  Particularly as he got blamed for the material corruption by the phony 'donation of Constantine'.

Quote from: merithyn on September 13, 2013, 09:10:55 AM

Quote from: Valmy on September 13, 2013, 08:56:23 AM
You can have an autocracy and still have consensus and consent important governing principals, like England back in the day.

I can see why Catholic conservatives would be wary of allowing priests to marry, that seems likely to bring up issues around women in the clergy and homosexual marriage and so forth.

Are any of those dogma, or simply traditions, like the celibacy thing?

It's an honest question. I don't know.

I looked it up. The woman priests thing is doctrine. I'm fairly sure that means that it's pretty set in stone.

Quote from: Berkut on September 13, 2013, 09:23:22 AM
I can't see how allowing catholic priests to marry would imply that women should be allowed to be priests.

Were women allowed to be priests before priests were celibate?

There are in fact Catholic priests who are married right now.

My wife's family's church was run by a married Catholic priest - he performed the wedding service for us (he's dead now).

Ukranian rite.

Quote from: Malthus on September 13, 2013, 09:44:32 AM

Quote from: Berkut on September 13, 2013, 09:23:22 AM
I can't see how allowing catholic priests to marry would imply that women should be allowed to be priests.

Were women allowed to be priests before priests were celibate?

There are in fact Catholic priests who are married right now.

My wife's family's church was run by a married Catholic priest - he performed the wedding service for us (he's dead now).

Ukranian rite.

Yeah but that is only if they start out as Orthodox priests and then convert right?  They get grandfathered in?  Or is that true for all Uniates like the Ukranians?  Anyway it is not like this tiny minority of married priests were routinely becoming Bishops, Cardinals, and Popes.

Quote from: merithyn on September 13, 2013, 09:44:11 AM
I looked it up. The woman priests thing is doctrine. I'm fairly sure that means that it's pretty set in stone.

:(

Quote from: Valmy on September 13, 2013, 09:46:57 AM

Quote from: Malthus on September 13, 2013, 09:44:32 AM

Quote from: Berkut on September 13, 2013, 09:23:22 AM
I can't see how allowing catholic priests to marry would imply that women should be allowed to be priests.

Were women allowed to be priests before priests were celibate?

There are in fact Catholic priests who are married right now.

My wife's family's church was run by a married Catholic priest - he performed the wedding service for us (he's dead now).

Ukranian rite.

Yeah but that is only if they start out as Orthodox priests and then convert right?  They get grandfathered in?  Or is that true for all Uniates like the Ukranians?  Anyway it is not like this tiny minority of married priests were routinely becoming Bishops, Cardinals, and Popes.

I think you have to be married before you get ordained, and if you are married, you can't become a bishop, cardinal or pope. But I'm no expert.

Point is, though, that it is in fact currently possible to be a married Catholic priest, so tyere can't be a binding religious rule prohibiting it.

Quote from: Malthus on September 13, 2013, 09:51:05 AM
I think you have to be married before you get ordained, and if you are married, you can't become a bishop, cardinal or pope. But I'm no expert.

Point is, though, that it is in fact currently possible to be a married Catholic priest, so tyere can't be a binding religious rule prohibiting it.

No it is something very specific involving the Eastern rites that occured as some sort of compromise during the Council of Florence (or perhaps shortly afterwards).  You cannot just get married and then get ordained or tons of Priests would do that.

Quote from: Valmy on September 13, 2013, 10:01:18 AM

Quote from: Malthus on September 13, 2013, 09:51:05 AM
I think you have to be married before you get ordained, and if you are married, you can't become a bishop, cardinal or pope. But I'm no expert.

Point is, though, that it is in fact currently possible to be a married Catholic priest, so tyere can't be a binding religious rule prohibiting it.

No it is something very specific involving the Eastern rites that occured as some sort of compromise during the Council of Florence (or perhaps shortly afterwards).  You cannot just get married and then get ordained or tons of Priests would do that.

I know it is specific to the Ukranian rite and not to Catholics generally. I assume it was intended as some sort of compromise. I'm saying that, wthin this rite, my understanding is that if you want to be a married priest, the way to go about it is to marry first and then become a priest.

My point is that, if the Church allows some priests to be married, it cannot with a straight face state that it is an invariable religious rule that priest cannot be married. It cannot be that God commands that all priests not be married (except, you know, those guys. Because we made a deal with them).  :lol:

Quote from: Valmy on September 13, 2013, 09:40:56 AM

The only sects the Nicene Council delt with were the Arians and variations on the Donatists who agreed with Orthodoxy on like 99.999% of issues.  There were lots of different sects of Christianity but them all being united under one doctrine was pretty much already done by the time the Nicene Council came around.  I think blaming it on Nicea though makes Constantine, aa pretty cruel and ruthless man, a handy scape goat for the corruption of the church.  Particularly as he got blamed for the material corruption by the phony 'donation of Constantine'.

I tend to blame the Lateran Councils more for the whole "hate women" thing.

Quote from: Malthus on September 13, 2013, 10:06:26 AM
I know it is specific to the Ukranian rite and not to Catholics generally. I assume it was intended as some sort of compromise. I'm saying that, wthin this rite, my understanding is that if you want to be a married priest, the way to go about it is to marry first and then become a priest.

That is wild because I thought even in that rite it was very rare and was reserved only for Orthodox Priests who joined the Catholic faith.

QuoteMy point is that, if the Church allows some priests to be married, it cannot with a straight face state that it is an invariable religious rule that priest cannot be married. It cannot be that God commands that all priests not be married (except, you know, those guys. Because we made a deal with them).  :lol:

Well yes that is true.  BUt as you see this deal with the Eastern Rite is really obscure, very few people outside the Uniates seem to be aware of it at all.  Is this ever mentioned by the media when they address the married priests issue?  Hardly ever that I see.

Quote from: Malthus on September 13, 2013, 10:06:26 AM

I know it is specific to the Ukranian rite and not to Catholics generally. I assume it was intended as some sort of compromise. I'm saying that, wthin this rite, my understanding is that if you want to be a married priest, the way to go about it is to marry first and then become a priest.

My point is that, if the Church allows some priests to be married, it cannot with a straight face state that it is an invariable religious rule that priest cannot be married. It cannot be that God commands that all priests not be married (except, you know, those guys. Because we made a deal with them).  :lol:

The church is infallible. It absolutely can do just that. :mellow:

Quote from: Valmy on September 13, 2013, 10:09:19 AM

That is wild because I thought even in that rite it was very rare and was reserved only for Orthodox Priests who joined the Catholic faith.

Well yes that is true.  BUt as you see this deal with the Eastern Rite is really obscure, very few people outside the Uniates seem to be aware of it at all.  Is this ever mentioned by the media when they address the married priests issue?  Hardly ever that I see.

Anglicans can opt-in, too. The funny thing is that I think they can because Anglicans allow women to be ordained, and so for those Anglicans who disagree with this, they can choose to be Catholic priests, even if they're already married. :D

I imagine a lot of resistance to change comes from priests. People who are priests now signed up to join a priestly culture of unmarried men. A bunch of married guys joining up will wreck that culture. A stray orthodox or anglican convert won't.

Quote from: merithyn on September 13, 2013, 10:14:12 AM
Anglicans can opt-in, too. The funny thing is that I think they can because Anglicans allow women to be ordained, and so for those Anglicans who disagree with this, they can choose to be Catholic priests, even if they're already married. :D

See if I was British a woman in love with a man who wanted to become a priest I would totally deploy this as a cagey strategy.

Quote from: alfred russel on September 13, 2013, 10:18:19 AM
I imagine a lot of resistance to change comes from priests. People who are priests now signed up to join a priestly culture of unmarried men. A bunch of married guys joining up will wreck that culture. A stray orthodox or anglican convert won't.

There's also the fact that those priests gave up on the idea of a family in order to be priests. Now, they're talking about allowing the new guys that option. I think I might be a little upset about that, were it me.

Quote from: alfred russel on September 13, 2013, 10:18:19 AM
I imagine a lot of resistance to change comes from priests. People who are priests now signed up to join a priestly culture of unmarried men. A bunch of married guys joining up will wreck that culture. A stray orthodox or anglican convert won't.

No doubt.  The institution of the Priesthood would alter pretty siginificantly and would inevitably lead to many more changes.

Quote from: Valmy on September 13, 2013, 10:20:40 AM

Quote from: merithyn on September 13, 2013, 10:14:12 AM
Anglicans can opt-in, too. The funny thing is that I think they can because Anglicans allow women to be ordained, and so for those Anglicans who disagree with this, they can choose to be Catholic priests, even if they're already married. :D

See if I was British a woman in love with a man who wanted to become a priest I would totally deploy this as a cagey strategy.

Not just British. The same applies to Episcopalians. :)

Quote from: alfred russel on September 13, 2013, 10:18:19 AM
I imagine a lot of resistance to change comes from priests. People who are priests now signed up to join a priestly culture of unmarried men.

They're married to Christ.

Quote from: merithyn on September 13, 2013, 10:22:08 AM

Quote from: Valmy on September 13, 2013, 10:20:40 AM

Quote from: merithyn on September 13, 2013, 10:14:12 AM
Anglicans can opt-in, too. The funny thing is that I think they can because Anglicans allow women to be ordained, and so for those Anglicans who disagree with this, they can choose to be Catholic priests, even if they're already married. :D

See if I was British a woman in love with a man who wanted to become a priest I would totally deploy this as a cagey strategy.

Not just British. The same applies to Episcopalians. :)

Really?  Now that is just getting sloppy Rome.  Granted the Episcopalians would probably get suspicious if suddenly a man in a Catholic seminary suddenly wanted to convert and get ordained.

Quote from: The Brain on September 13, 2013, 10:22:19 AM

Quote from: alfred russel on September 13, 2013, 10:18:19 AM
I imagine a lot of resistance to change comes from priests. People who are priests now signed up to join a priestly culture of unmarried men.

They're married to Christ.

No, that's the women. The men are the embodiment of Christ.

That's actually the argument for why women cannot be priests. Women cannot become the embodiment of Christ since he was a man, so there is no possible way that women can become priests.

If you believe that priests become the embodiment of Christ, then this makes perfect sense. I can't see that changing in the Catholic church ever.

Oh sure the actual Christ can have millions of wives but the people embodying him cannot have any?

Quote from: Valmy on September 13, 2013, 10:25:47 AM
Oh sure the actual Christ can have millions of wives but the people embodying him cannot have any?

Pretty much, yep. :)

Quote from: merithyn on September 13, 2013, 10:24:23 AM

Quote from: The Brain on September 13, 2013, 10:22:19 AM

Quote from: alfred russel on September 13, 2013, 10:18:19 AM
I imagine a lot of resistance to change comes from priests. People who are priests now signed up to join a priestly culture of unmarried men.

They're married to Christ.

No, that's the women. The men are the embodiment of Christ.

Sure they are.

Quote from: Valmy on September 13, 2013, 09:31:59 AM

Quote from: merithyn on September 13, 2013, 09:27:10 AM
I think that women were allowed to be priests before the Nicene Council, but I'm not sure how they were forbidden during the Council. I'm not sure if it became dogma or no. I'm thinking that it did.

Where did the myth come from that the church was all woman friendly until the evil Nicene Council?  As far as I know nothing about women, and their role in the church, was even discussed in the Nicene council but I constantly hear how Constantine came in and did woman hating reforms and destroyed the hippy Christian Church.  I blame Dan Brown.

Agreed.  The Nicene Council gets a lot of hate for things that never happened there.

Quote from: merithyn on September 13, 2013, 10:14:12 AM

Quote from: Valmy on September 13, 2013, 10:09:19 AM

That is wild because I thought even in that rite it was very rare and was reserved only for Orthodox Priests who joined the Catholic faith.

Well yes that is true.  BUt as you see this deal with the Eastern Rite is really obscure, very few people outside the Uniates seem to be aware of it at all.  Is this ever mentioned by the media when they address the married priests issue?  Hardly ever that I see.

Anglicans can opt-in, too. The funny thing is that I think they can because Anglicans allow women to be ordained, and so for those Anglicans who disagree with this, they can choose to be Catholic priests, even if they're already married. :D

My understanding it that it's true for anyone who is a priest of another faith, is already married, and then converts.  But I could be mistaken.  It's gonna be a very rare thing anyway--how often does a member of the clergy convert?  Very rarely, I'd say.

It is now a private club of pedophiles with the occasional lost homosexual thrown in. Why would they want to lose what makes their club unique by letting heteros in?  :huh:

Quote from: dps on September 13, 2013, 10:46:15 AM

My understanding it that it's true for anyone who is a priest of another faith, is already married, and then converts.  But I could be mistaken.  It's gonna be a very rare thing anyway--how often does a member of the clergy convert?  Very rarely, I'd say.

I think it was meant to be an "instance" thing, rather than ongoing. It was Pope John Paul II that allowed for it, in the 80s, due to the changes in allowing women to be ordained, homosexual marriages to be done, and some other "liberal" interpretations of the Bible going on with the Anglicans and the Episcapalians. On top of that, there were those wanting to become Catholic who were Eastern Orthodox.

I read somewhere that there are only something like 200 married priests in the world. I don't know what percentage that is of all of the priests out there, but it strikes me as very few.

Quote from: Tamas on September 13, 2013, 10:53:51 AM
It is now a private club of pedophiles with the occasional lost homosexual thrown in. Why would they want to lose what makes their club unique by letting heteros in?  :huh:

:bleeding:

Quote from: Valmy on September 13, 2013, 10:09:19 AM

Well yes that is true.  BUt as you see this deal with the Eastern Rite is really obscure, very few people outside the Uniates seem to be aware of it at all.  Is this ever mentioned by the media when they address the married priests issue?  Hardly ever that I see.

Heh. First hit:


http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/11/20441159-debate-on-celibacy-for-catholic-priests-is-old-but-welcome-experts-say?lite

Quote
And George Weigel, who analyzes Vatican affairs for NBC News, notes that there has always been room for debate on the delicate issue of celibacy.

"That celibacy is disciplinary, not doctrinal, is obvious from the fact that there are married priests in the eastern Catholic Church, like the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church," Weigel said. And discussions about the issue of celibacy go on within the church "all the time," he said.

Pope Francis, who has been widely heralded for embracing a simpler lifestyle and dogma since he was elected to the papacy, spoke in a 2012 interview for the Spanish-language book "On the Heavens and the Earth" about his own experience of the celibate life.

"In Western Catholicism, some organizations are pushing for more discussion about the issue. For now, the discipline of celibacy stands firm. Some say, with a certain pragmatism, that we are losing manpower," then-Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio said in the interview, which was translated by the Catholic news site Aleteia.

"If, hypothetically, Western Catholicism were to review the issue of celibacy, I think it would do so for cultural reasons (as in the East), not so much as a universal option," he said at the time. "It is a matter of discipline, not of faith. It can change."

Also, it is funny how it is a news and debate as if it matters.

Quote from: merithyn on September 13, 2013, 10:11:16 AM

Quote from: Malthus on September 13, 2013, 10:06:26 AM

I know it is specific to the Ukranian rite and not to Catholics generally. I assume it was intended as some sort of compromise. I'm saying that, wthin this rite, my understanding is that if you want to be a married priest, the way to go about it is to marry first and then become a priest.

My point is that, if the Church allows some priests to be married, it cannot with a straight face state that it is an invariable religious rule that priest cannot be married. It cannot be that God commands that all priests not be married (except, you know, those guys. Because we made a deal with them).  :lol:

The church is infallible. It absolutely can do just that. :mellow:

Nope, not what the Catholic experts are saying - they claim it is a matter of "discipline, not faith". "Infalibility" has a specialized meaning in Catholicism, it only applies to certain matters.

So what do you guys think of the next Hobbit movie? I am not sure if the beard length of the dwarves was a doctrine, or something like a custom, that is free to be changed by the filmmakers.

Quote from: Tamas on September 13, 2013, 11:05:27 AM
So what do you guys think of the next Hobbit movie? I am not sure if the beard length of the dwarves was a doctrine, or something like a custom, that is free to be changed by the filmmakers.

Hobbits are fantasy.  Not allowing priests to marry has consequences for real people. 

Quote from: merithyn on September 13, 2013, 10:11:16 AM
The church is infallible. It absolutely can do just that.

:huh:  No it isn't.

Quote from: Habbaku on September 13, 2013, 11:08:10 AM

Quote from: merithyn on September 13, 2013, 10:11:16 AM
The church is infallible. It absolutely can do just that.

:huh:  No it isn't.

I meant that as a joke.

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2013, 11:07:54 AM

Quote from: Tamas on September 13, 2013, 11:05:27 AM
So what do you guys think of the next Hobbit movie? I am not sure if the beard length of the dwarves was a doctrine, or something like a custom, that is free to be changed by the filmmakers.

Hobbits are fantasy.  Not allowing priests to marry has consequences for real people.

Consequences for people who put their lives in the service of the Ancient Era`s Hobbit.

Quote from: Tamas on September 13, 2013, 11:31:01 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2013, 11:07:54 AM

Quote from: Tamas on September 13, 2013, 11:05:27 AM
So what do you guys think of the next Hobbit movie? I am not sure if the beard length of the dwarves was a doctrine, or something like a custom, that is free to be changed by the filmmakers.

Hobbits are fantasy.  Not allowing priests to marry has consequences for real people.

Consequences for people who put their lives in the service of the Ancient Era`s Hobbit.

It has consequences for more people than just the priests, dumbass.

Quote from: dps on September 13, 2013, 11:36:55 AM

Quote from: Tamas on September 13, 2013, 11:31:01 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2013, 11:07:54 AM

Quote from: Tamas on September 13, 2013, 11:05:27 AM
So what do you guys think of the next Hobbit movie? I am not sure if the beard length of the dwarves was a doctrine, or something like a custom, that is free to be changed by the filmmakers.

Hobbits are fantasy.  Not allowing priests to marry has consequences for real people.

Consequences for people who put their lives in the service of the Ancient Era`s Hobbit.

It has consequences for more people than just the priests, dumbass.

Consequences for people who believe the Ancient Era`s Hobbit is actually true.

Quote from: Tamas on September 13, 2013, 11:38:55 AM
Consequences for people who believe the Ancient Era`s Hobbit is actually true.

Never go full retard man.

Quote from: Tamas on September 13, 2013, 11:38:55 AM

Quote from: dps on September 13, 2013, 11:36:55 AM

Quote from: Tamas on September 13, 2013, 11:31:01 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2013, 11:07:54 AM

Quote from: Tamas on September 13, 2013, 11:05:27 AM
So what do you guys think of the next Hobbit movie? I am not sure if the beard length of the dwarves was a doctrine, or something like a custom, that is free to be changed by the filmmakers.

Hobbits are fantasy.  Not allowing priests to marry has consequences for real people.

Consequences for people who put their lives in the service of the Ancient Era`s Hobbit.

It has consequences for more people than just the priests, dumbass.

Consequences for people who believe the Ancient Era`s Hobbit is actually true.

Even if it were true that the consequences are limited just to Catholics (which it ain't), that's still something around 1/6 of the worlds population.

Quote from: Tamas on September 13, 2013, 11:38:55 AM

Consequences for people who believe the Ancient Era`s Hobbit is actually true.

So, how much have you had to drink tonight, Tamas? :)

Tamas, your trolling here is actually not too bad, but few are falling for it.  I'd recommend you bail from this attempt and try  to display your intolerance later, on another subject.

Quote from: merithyn on September 13, 2013, 11:28:42 AM

Quote from: Habbaku on September 13, 2013, 11:08:10 AM

Quote from: merithyn on September 13, 2013, 10:11:16 AM
The church is infallible. It absolutely can do just that.

:huh:  No it isn't.

I meant that as a joke.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ft.qkme.me%2F3rao0x.jpg&hash=a42616d00b5a28574368cb93ea4a84798605d070)

I am showing the same level of tolerance to the people believing the Bible is true, as much as I am showing to people who believe the Hobbit is true. I have every right to do that, based on the amount of evidence available to support those two points.
:sleep:

Quote from: Habbaku on September 13, 2013, 11:55:02 AM

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ft.qkme.me%2F3rao0x.jpg&hash=a42616d00b5a28574368cb93ea4a84798605d070)

Work won't let me see this. :)

Quote from: Tamas on September 13, 2013, 11:57:38 AM
I am showing the same level of tolerance to the people believing the Bible is true, as much as I am showing to people who believe the Hobbit is true. I have every right to do that, based on the amount of evidence available to support those two points.
:sleep:

You have every right, but you just look kind of ignorant in the way you're doing it. :console:

Quote from: Tamas on September 13, 2013, 11:57:38 AM
I am showing the same level of tolerance to the people believing the Bible is true, as much as I am showing to people who believe the Hobbit is true. I have every right to do that, based on the amount of evidence available to support those two points.
:sleep:

:ike:

Quote from: Tamas on September 13, 2013, 11:57:38 AM
I am showing the same level of tolerance to the people believing the Bible is true, as much as I am showing to people who believe the Hobbit is true. I have every right to do that, based on the amount of evidence available to support those two points.
:sleep:

Um...you are aware there was actually a Pharoah in Egypt, there was a Cyrus the Great, and there was a Roman Empire right?  This is the sort of idiocy that led people to just assume Troy and Mycenae were entirely fictional, despite never actually checking for evidence.  Really?  Equal evidence supporting the Bible as the Hobbit?  :bleeding:

I mean I do not even believe the Bible as true but that freaking over the top idiotic.

There are people who live in cellars. There are dwarfs (regardless of what Foreign Affairs claims). There are old farts who like to hang out with much younger people. There are human bears. Need I go on?

Quote from: Tamas on September 13, 2013, 11:57:38 AM
I am showing the same level of tolerance to the people believing the Bible is true, as much as I am showing to people who believe the Hobbit is true. I have every right to do that, based on the amount of evidence available to support those two points.
:sleep: 

The problem with trolls like this is that they are weak sauce, not that the Bible (which has plenty of documented historical "truths," whether you accept the evidence or not) is no more credible than a work created as a fiction.  The town of Jerico, for instance, turns out to be a real place, according to scientific investigations.  That you dismiss these scientific claims as no better than Tolkien's admitted fictions says much about you, but nothing about the topic.

As i said, bail now, regroup, and come back on another topic.  I don't think anyone is crossing your bridge on this one.

 :rolleyes: Yeah folks. That's what I meant when I wrote the Bible was fiction. The Pharaos and Jericho.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: Tamas on September 13, 2013, 12:49:28 PM
:rolleyes: Yeah folks. That's what I meant when I wrote the Bible was fiction. The Pharaos and Jericho.  :rolleyes:

Well it is those bits that make it credible to people.

Quote from: Tamas on September 13, 2013, 12:49:28 PM
:rolleyes: Yeah folks. That's what I meant when I wrote the Bible was fiction. The Pharaos and Jericho.  :rolleyes: 

Please don't try to weasel out of the failed troll.  Just take your lumps, learn your lessons, and wait for the bridge traffic to resume.  :rolleyes:  :rolleyes:

Tamas's compelling argument has caused me to question my faith :D

Quote from: Valmy on September 13, 2013, 12:56:01 PM

Quote from: Tamas on September 13, 2013, 12:49:28 PM
:rolleyes: Yeah folks. That's what I meant when I wrote the Bible was fiction. The Pharaos and Jericho.  :rolleyes:

Well it is those bits that make it credible to people.

Scientologists mention real stuff as well like their hatred of psychology. Does that prove that Xenu exists? Puhleaze.

Gabriellu exists though, right?

Quote from: Tamas on September 13, 2013, 01:51:05 PM

Quote from: Valmy on September 13, 2013, 12:56:01 PM

Quote from: Tamas on September 13, 2013, 12:49:28 PM
:rolleyes: Yeah folks. That's what I meant when I wrote the Bible was fiction. The Pharaos and Jericho.  :rolleyes:

Well it is those bits that make it credible to people.

Scientologists mention real stuff as well like their hatred of psychology.

I'm pretty sure that their hatred of psychology is real. 

@meri Ordination != priesthood. Further, many ordained men can marry. Since Vatican II when the Order of Deacons was restored you've had quite a good many ordained married men. In the Catholic church there is no such thing as "lay deacons" although some people misunderstand what it means to be a deacon.

When you become a deacon you go through the sacrament of ordination, performed by a Bishop. They are also considered parts of the clergy, but not part of the priesthood. There are three degrees of ordination: deacon, presbyter, and bishop. Only the latter two are considered part of the priesthood. Before Vatican II the deacon position only existed to cover individuals who were working toward becoming priests, as a temporary rank before being ordained to the full priesthood. Something that did actually happen at the Council of Nicea was the diaconate was closed to all but aspiring priests, a situation that persisted until Vatican II when it was reopened to persons not intending to be raised to the priesthood.

Married priests is a very different matter, both politically and in terms of Church teachings than women priests. Eastern Catholic Churches (Churches that are in full communion with the Pope but do not follow the Latin Rite) as has been mentioned does allow for married priests. However, unlike non-Catholic Christian denominations where the religious leaders being married is common place or even expected that isn't the case with Eastern Catholics. Due to their semi-autonomous nature, some of the twenty odd Eastern Catholic Church groups have adopted complete priest celibacy and for them there is no real difference in the practice from the Latin Rite.

For the rest, there are two classes of priest: monastic and non-monastic. Monastic priests take a vow of celibacy, and cannot be married, period. Additionally, unlike in the Latin Rite, the monastic path is almost exclusively the path to higher church leadership in Eastern Catholic Churches, monastic priests almost exclusively are the priests raised to bishop. Of the non-monastic priests, celibacy is valued, favored, and emphasized as a great virtue--but not required. Because of that combined with the fact the bishops are monastic priests and already pretty committed to celibacy you have a situation where married priests in these churches are quite rare. Especially because, even for the non-monastic priests who can their marriage has to predate their being ordained to the diaconate (not before being ordained as priests, but before being created deacons during their training.)

All the Bishop was really saying on the issue of married priests if you read the full interview is it's a matter where there can be different opinions. I could see the Pope perhaps adopting more liberal policies on allowing men, married prior to ordination, to become priests. I would be surprised if we ever permitted already ordained men to marry.

It's also worth mentioning the Anglicans are "special", the Eastern Catholics are their own rite, their own dog and pony show so to speak with their own rules. Anglicans coming in basically have a special arrangement. Unlike Eastern Catholics, they are considered Latin Rite Catholics and expected to practice as Latin Rite Catholics. But where certain Anglican traditions conflict in certain ways with the Latin Rite, they are permitted to continue their old practice. The most notable example is marriage, so Anglican clergy who are married and convert to Catholicism can remain married, and unlike the Eastern Catholics they are full Latin Rite priests.

Also worth mentioning, we do not view Anglican ordination as valid at all. So Anglican clergy have to be ordained again to be Catholic Priests. Before being ordained as priests if they are married they actually have to request the Pope directly, on a case-by-case basis, to grant a dispensation allowing for it. It is not an automatic process, and no one who isn't celibate can ever be raised to bishop (not that a great many of people become bishops in general.)

So that's basically the story on married priests.

Women priests have been rejected in basically the strongest possible terms we have for rejecting stuff as a church. The Church rejects as a matter of history that there have been any significant numbers of ordained women in the past. Where the Church acknowledges women in the distant past have been ordained, it views them as members of heretical sects and not validly ordained.

In the modern era, Popes have reaffirmed in strong terms that women may not be ordained, and that any person participating in an ordination of a woman is considered excommunicated Latae sententiae.

In the Catechism women ordination is specifically rejected (Art. 6 1577):

Quote1577 "Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination."66 The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry.67 The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ's return. the Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.68

Canon 1024 also explicitly mentions only baptized males can receive the sacrament of ordination.

If it was solely a matter of canon law it would be one thing. However this matter goes even further.

Core  to the teaching is that Jesus, after a night of prayer, selected the male apostles. To ordain females would (as the Church teaches it) be saying that mortal men have superior judgment to Christ, and are free to disregard his example. For this reason a male only priesthood is seen as a matter of true divine law. Previous Popes when investigating the issue have literally said "the Church lacks the authority to ordain women, as it directly contradicts the actions of Christ."

The only possible loophole for female ordination would be differentiating between ordination as a presbyter and a deacon. For it is currently only stated that ordination to the presbyter or episcopate (bishop) rank is male only as a matter of doctrine. So the only impediment to ordination as a deacon is canon law (which is still a significant impediment).

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 13, 2013, 07:07:22 PM
Core  to the teaching is that Jesus, after a night of prayer, selected the male apostles. To ordain females would (as the Church teaches it) be saying that mortal men have superior judgment to Christ, and are free to disregard his example. For this reason a male only priesthood is seen as a matter of true divine law. Previous Popes when investigating the issue have literally said "the Church lacks the authority to ordain women, as it directly contradicts the actions of Christ."

This.  No chicks in the Holy Honeycomb Hideout, dammit.

Quote from: derspiess on September 13, 2013, 01:22:47 PM
Tamas's compelling argument has caused me to question my faith :D

My faith in Eastern Europeans is shattered.

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2013, 11:07:54 AM

Quote from: Tamas on September 13, 2013, 11:05:27 AM
So what do you guys think of the next Hobbit movie? I am not sure if the beard length of the dwarves was a doctrine, or something like a custom, that is free to be changed by the filmmakers.

Hobbits are fantasy.  Not allowing priests to marry has consequences for real people.

For some people believing in hobbits has very real world consequences.   :P

As usual, Languish is missing one key issue in this debate.

If priests are allowed to marry, does this mean that nuns become accessable as well?  :P

Quote from: Tonitrus on September 13, 2013, 09:01:33 PM
If priests are allowed to marry, does this mean that nuns become accessable as well?  :P

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ft.qkme.me%2F3ragdo.jpg&hash=30c262a0d0f0a69a1a559616a46fb02c8666b685)

Quote from: mongers on September 13, 2013, 08:08:01 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2013, 11:07:54 AM

Quote from: Tamas on September 13, 2013, 11:05:27 AM
So what do you guys think of the next Hobbit movie? I am not sure if the beard length of the dwarves was a doctrine, or something like a custom, that is free to be changed by the filmmakers.

Hobbits are fantasy.  Not allowing priests to marry has consequences for real people.

For some people believing in hobbits has very real world consequences.   :P

:lol:

I love how Otto will come into a thread and throw up a wall of text restating the last 20+ posts as if it's now true because he has now said it. :lol:

He did go into a lot more detail than they did.

Quote from: The Brain on September 13, 2013, 01:52:34 PM
Gabriellu exists though, right?

She was always the cuter Thetan.

Quote from: merithyn on September 13, 2013, 11:07:35 PM
I love how Otto will come into a thread and throw up a wall of text restating the last 20+ posts as if it's now true because he has now said it. :lol:

He was trying to be informative.  No reason to have a beef with that.

Quote from: merithyn on September 13, 2013, 11:07:35 PM
I love how Otto will come into a thread and throw up a wall of text restating the last 20+ posts as if it's now true because he has now said it. :lol:

I really just restated Church doctrine. I don't know but I think I'm one of the few actual practicing Catholics on the forums here, so wasn't really sure the rest of you lot would know about this stuff or even know how to look things up in the official Catechism or Canon Law (which I did for my post, and which you'd have no reason to be familiar with if you were a non-Catholic.)

This stuff gets fairly complicated, and I wouldn't be shocked if my parish priest could read over it and find a few nits to pick with how I explained things, but I think I did a fairly encyclopedic style conveying of information on the current position of the church.

As for "as if it's now true because he has now said it", it's only true that what I said reflects official Catholic canon law and teachings. Other questions such as, did Jesus intend for there to be male only priests because he only selected male apostles, did Jesus even intend we have a formal priesthood, did Jesus exist at all, if he existed was he the son of god, does God exist at all or is it all superstition--those are questions of faith/theology, as an atheist I'd be surprised you would even think there is a "true" or "false" answer to those questions--an atheist would reject the whole premise.

Quote from: merithyn on September 13, 2013, 11:07:35 PM
I love how Otto will come into a thread and throw up a wall of text restating the last 20+ posts as if it's now true because he has now said it. :lol:

He added a lot of new, relevant information.

Otto just trafficks in the ecclesiastical truth.
If only more of you over-educated and cynical mutts spent the time learning about Holy Mother Church instead of bullshit ZOMG TEH PEDOPRIEST JOKES, you'd be more accepting of her Grace.

x2

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 14, 2013, 08:38:03 AM
Otto just trafficks in the ecclesiastical truth.
If only more of you over-educated and cynical mutts spent the time learning about Holy Mother Church instead of bullshit ZOMG TEH PEDOPRIEST JOKES, you'd be more accepting of her Grace.

Unlikely. Seems overly complicated. But I suppose when you have essentially a "professional" class, it has to come up with esoteric rules to continue its dominance.

Quote from: garbon on September 14, 2013, 09:28:30 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 14, 2013, 08:38:03 AM
Otto just trafficks in the ecclesiastical truth.
If only more of you over-educated and cynical mutts spent the time learning about Holy Mother Church instead of bullshit ZOMG TEH PEDOPRIEST JOKES, you'd be more accepting of her Grace.

Unlikely. Seems overly complicated. But I suppose when you have essentially a "professional" class, it has to come up with esoteric rules to continue its dominance.

There are benefits to institutionalization over centuries.  Imagine how much better off we'd be if Islam had a Pope and a Reformation.

Just as a matter of personal opinion, I'd have less of a problem with female priests than I would married priests. The thing I do like about the vow of celibacy is it creates a class of priests who genuinely can be expected to put their faith, God, and their life of service first and foremost. As a husband and father myself, if I was an ordained Anglican clergyman or something I think obviously I'd put a lot into my vocation but I seriously doubt that in my heart of hearts I'd care more about that aspect of my life than I do my wife and child. So married priests with families creates a dual set of competing responsibilities, when I think rightly one must be supreme.

As a matter of theological debate, though, I do think the Church has a very strong argument as to why it won't ordain women to the priesthood. But just in my opinion, it wouldn't bother me on any sort of personal level to have a female priest, but I do think the Church doctrine is well founded on theological grounds.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 14, 2013, 09:36:48 AM

Quote from: garbon on September 14, 2013, 09:28:30 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 14, 2013, 08:38:03 AM
Otto just trafficks in the ecclesiastical truth.
If only more of you over-educated and cynical mutts spent the time learning about Holy Mother Church instead of bullshit ZOMG TEH PEDOPRIEST JOKES, you'd be more accepting of her Grace.

Unlikely. Seems overly complicated. But I suppose when you have essentially a "professional" class, it has to come up with esoteric rules to continue its dominance.

There are benefits to institutionalization over centuries.  Imagine how much better off we'd be if Islam had a Pope and a Reformation.

True, religions being weak and impotent is a positive but that's not a reason to join one.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 14, 2013, 08:38:03 AM
Otto just trafficks in the ecclesiastical truth.
If only more of you over-educated and cynical mutts spent the time learning about Holy Mother Church instead of bullshit ZOMG TEH PEDOPRIEST JOKES, you'd be more accepting of her Grace.

I spent 20 years studying The Holy Mother Church. That's why I'm no longer Catholic.

Too much kneeling for me.

MAH KNEES

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 14, 2013, 09:39:36 AM
Just as a matter of personal opinion, I'd have less of a problem with female priests than I would married priests. The thing I do like about the vow of celibacy is it creates a class of priests who genuinely can be expected to put their faith, God, and their life of service first and foremost. As a husband and father myself, if I was an ordained Anglican clergyman or something I think obviously I'd put a lot into my vocation but I seriously doubt that in my heart of hearts I'd care more about that aspect of my life than I do my wife and child. So married priests with families creates a dual set of competing responsibilities, when I think rightly one must be supreme.

Or you just get someone who struggles constantly as they are prevented from fully living the life they want to live.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 14, 2013, 09:39:36 AM
Just as a matter of personal opinion, I'd have less of a problem with female priests than I would married priests. The thing I do like about the vow of celibacy is it creates a class of priests who genuinely can be expected to put their faith, God, and their life of service first and foremost. As a husband and father myself, if I was an ordained Anglican clergyman or something I think obviously I'd put a lot into my vocation but I seriously doubt that in my heart of hearts I'd care more about that aspect of my life than I do my wife and child. So married priests with families creates a dual set of competing responsibilities, when I think rightly one must be supreme.

I agree that it's impossible to put their life of service before their family, but I think there are other benefits that may balance that. A priest without a family can be more objective, but he can also lose his perspective. It's very easy to stand outside of a situation when you're not entrenched in it, which can leave one potentially losing their empathy.

QuoteAs a matter of theological debate, though, I do think the Church has a very strong argument as to why it won't ordain women to the priesthood. But just in my opinion, it wouldn't bother me on any sort of personal level to have a female priest, but I do think the Church doctrine is well founded on theological grounds.

There is no question that according to the Catholic doctrine, there is no possible way that women can be priests. They determined 1700 years ago that the role of a priest was to be the manifestation of Christ, which means unless you truly warp what that means, there's no way a woman can stand in those shoes.

That is one of the strongest Canonical beliefs for the religion. Not to keep women out. That's a by-product, I think. No, it's the only way that transubstantiation can occur, through the hands of Christ in the guise of his priests.

My understanding is the Eastern Rite Churches that have married priests do utilize them more for counseling parishioners on marital issues and things of that nature. In general, while I'm sure some are very good at it, I would not expect much in the way of marriage counseling and advice from a parish Priest in terms of good usable every day advice or counseling. The role of the Priest in regard to marriage for example is to reinforce that your marriage is an important vow and not one you can break. I think Catholics who are having marital trouble would do better with secular marriage counseling than going to their local priest.

That's okay for me, as I don't view my relationship with my priest as one designed to help me when I've had a fight with my wife.

It's kind of a weird example, but the Priest in The Sopranos (Father Intintola (sp?)) is a good example of what I'd expect if I went to my Priest seeking marriage counseling.

Quote from: garbon on September 14, 2013, 09:41:59 AMOr you just get someone who struggles constantly as they are prevented from fully living the life they want to live.

I think there are people who are perfectly happy not having a wife or a family. One of my dad's best friends who died a few years ago in his 80s had a series of close-encounters with marriage in his 20s and 30s (was engaged four times) but the entire time I knew him he had a series of several different long term relationships none with marriage as an intended goal. He died childless and alone but seemed fairly happy up til the end, he had a robust network of friends and lots of things he enjoyed doing.

Now he obviously was not celibate, and I don't personally know anyone who has practiced life long celibacy outside of Priests. But I'm going to wager there must be people who can be perfectly happy choosing to live life a certain way that means you must be celibate. For me personally, from my teens up through my early 30s I could not imagine celibacy but honestly at my age now if my wife were to die considering how alien the dating world would be to me, my natural difficulty getting along with people, and my much reduced overriding need to rut like an animal at the sight of a woman that was typical of my youth being gone I could see myself being celibate for the rest of my life. I'm wagering there are people that even during their youth don't have a super strong sex drive, or perhaps just are more able to suppress it and go on with other things.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 14, 2013, 10:57:10 AM
I think there are people who are perfectly happy not having a wife or a family.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 14, 2013, 10:57:10 AM

Quote from: garbon on September 14, 2013, 09:41:59 AMOr you just get someone who struggles constantly as they are prevented from fully living the life they want to live.

I think there are people who are perfectly happy not having a wife or a family.

Sure but do you think that accounts for even the majority of priests?

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 14, 2013, 07:29:49 AM

Quote from: merithyn on September 13, 2013, 11:07:35 PM
I love how Otto will come into a thread and throw up a wall of text restating the last 20+ posts as if it's now true because he has now said it. :lol:

I really just restated Church doctrine. I don't know but I think I'm one of the few actual practicing Catholics on the forums here, so wasn't really sure the rest of you lot would know about this stuff or even know how to look things up in the official Catechism or Canon Law (which I did for my post, and which you'd have no reason to be familiar with if you were a non-Catholic.)

This stuff gets fairly complicated, and I wouldn't be shocked if my parish priest could read over it and find a few nits to pick with how I explained things, but I think I did a fairly encyclopedic style conveying of information on the current position of the church.

As for "as if it's now true because he has now said it", it's only true that what I said reflects official Catholic canon law and teachings. Other questions such as, did Jesus intend for there to be male only priests because he only selected male apostles, did Jesus even intend we have a formal priesthood, did Jesus exist at all, if he existed was he the son of god, does God exist at all or is it all superstition--those are questions of faith/theology, as an atheist I'd be surprised you would even think there is a "true" or "false" answer to those questions--an atheist would reject the whole premise.

I thought the religious justification for the core misogyny of your faith was rather interesting myself. I certainly was not aware of it.

Quote from: merithyn on September 14, 2013, 09:50:15 AM


That is one of the strongest Canonical beliefs for the religion. Not to keep women out. That's a by-product, I think.

I don't buy that for a second, myself.

Keeping women out was going to happen because the canons of the church were formed at a time when "keeping women out" was simply going to be the norm regardless. Sure, they will go ahead and justify it, and do so in a manner that leaves no wiggle room later, but it's not like it HAD to be that way.

Whoever wrote the gospels could have had a female apostle or two, for example. Hell, there are claims that Jesus was pretty tight with that Mary Magdalene chick.

No, it is not a fundamental precept of the Christian faith that women cannot be priests. It could, in theory, go either way. In practical terms, there was no chance of that happening because society at the time was profoundly sexist. Women had little or no rights in general until literally hundreds of years after those theological foundations were laid and set into stone.

But there is no fundamental theological basis for it, even once one does understand the theological justification for it after the fact.

Quote from: Berkut on September 14, 2013, 11:10:30 AMI thought the religious justification for the core misogyny of your faith was rather interesting myself. I certainly was not aware of it.

I assumed you had come in here to talk about dealing with long periods of celibacy, not to make errors of theology.

The argument you've laid out is basically that there is no core part of Christian belief that would preclude women Priests. That's a theological argument, as such it can't be mixed in with atheist claims like "the guy who wrote the Gospels could have just thrown in a few female apostles." A theological approach does not start from the assumption the gospels are works of fiction the authors could have modified however they wish. Nor does it make sociocultural arguments about the norms of the time and all that.

I do believe that the Catholic Church, like all institutions of power, would have barred women from holding offices or having positions of importance as a matter of course, regardless of what scripture says. But the actual scriptures themselves do make it clear that Christ selected exclusively men to be his apostles, and those apostles selected exclusively men to be their highly regarded followers. The Apostolic succession, and the concept that Priests are continuing this tradition to the present day really precludes any strong theological counterargument. Is it your assertion the Church should draw nothing from the example set by Christ, in selecting twelve male apostles? It is known Jesus had both male and female followers, yet he chose exclusively males to be his Apostles. Was that just a matter of chance?

FYI, this topic is still boring.

Quote from: Tamas on September 14, 2013, 11:33:32 AM
FYI, this topic is still boring.

You don't have to participate. So go get a life?

Quote from: garbon on September 14, 2013, 11:35:25 AM

Quote from: Tamas on September 14, 2013, 11:33:32 AM
FYI, this topic is still boring.

You don't have to participate. So go get a life?

It's still too early in the season for Tamas to farm his dirt.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 14, 2013, 11:27:39 AM

Quote from: Berkut on September 14, 2013, 11:10:30 AMI thought the religious justification for the core misogyny of your faith was rather interesting myself. I certainly was not aware of it.

I assumed you had come in here to talk about dealing with long periods of celibacy, not to make errors of theology.

The argument you've laid out is basically that there is no core part of Christian belief that would preclude women Priests. That's a theological argument, as such it can't be mixed in with atheist claims like "the guy who wrote the Gospels could have just thrown in a few female apostles." A theological approach does not start from the assumption the gospels are works of fiction the authors could have modified however they wish. Nor does it make sociocultural arguments about the norms of the time and all that.

I do believe that the Catholic Church, like all institutions of power, would have barred women from holding offices or having positions of importance as a matter of course, regardless of what scripture says. But the actual scriptures themselves do make it clear that Christ selected exclusively men to be his apostles, and those apostles selected exclusively men to be their highly regarded followers. The Apostolic succession, and the concept that Priests are continuing this tradition to the present day really precludes any strong theological counterargument. Is it your assertion the Church should draw nothing from the example set by Christ, in selecting twelve male apostles? It is known Jesus had both male and female followers, yet he chose exclusively males to be his Apostles. Was that just a matter of chance?

Who knows?

I am saying that if 400 years ago the Catholic Church said "Christ only chose male apostles, but that was clearly simply due to the exigencies of the time he existed in, and here are example A, B, and C where Christ made it clear that he valued women just as much as men, so it is certainly the case that women can be priests, even if Christ did not select any to be apostles" then right now you would be arguing how clearly the idea of women in the priesthood is a core tenet of the Catholic faith.

The bible is a big book with lots of stuff in it, and can and has been used to justify very different things by different groups for various reasons. And each group trots out their justification that when seen in isolation looks pretty theologically reasonable.

If this was such a fundmental Christian tenet, then why is that some Christian religions do in fact allow females in the clergy? Are they not looking to the example of Christ, do they not care what example he set? I suggest if you ask them, they would rather strongly disagree that the fact that Christ only had male apostles makes it clear that only men can be members of the priesthood.

I am not saying the Catholic theology can be changed by any means - this is a matter of Catholic core tenets at this point. I am simply saying that it did not HAVE to be that way, and in many cases in Christianity it is in fact not that way. It is the way it is because the Catholic Church made it a matter of core theology at a time when there was no way in hell it could have been any other way due to the sexist nature of society at that time.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 14, 2013, 11:27:39 AM

Quote from: Berkut on September 14, 2013, 11:10:30 AMI thought the religious justification for the core misogyny of your faith was rather interesting myself. I certainly was not aware of it.

I assumed you had come in here to talk about dealing with long periods of celibacy, not to make errors of theology.

The argument you've laid out is basically that there is no core part of Christian belief that would preclude women Priests. That's a theological argument, as such it can't be mixed in with atheist claims like "the guy who wrote the Gospels could have just thrown in a few female apostles." A theological approach does not start from the assumption the gospels are works of fiction the authors could have modified however they wish.

The people who decided what books were the bible and what were not certainly could have made different decisions. That is not an atheistic argument, that is simply a note of history.

What books were selected I have no doubt were in fact informed by the relevant cultural norms at the time the selections were made.

The argument that you (and the Church) have laid out is that there IS a core part of the Christian faith that precludes female priests. That is fine, it isn't a terrible argument, and I can certainly understand it.

However....if it were such a slam dunk argument, then how is that other Christian faiths do in fact allow for the ordination of female priests? Are they not Christians?

Of course they are. There is nothing about the core of Christian belief that makes a male only priesthood a necessary condition. It is a conclusion drawn by men interpreting some "facts" from the bible. Their conclusion is certainly supportable, but it is not the only possible one.

Hell, I can come up with rather valid counter-theological arguments off the top of my head.

Christ had 12 apostles. These were clearly unique positions, and should not be used as a template for what can and cannot be in a priesthood of tens of thousands. The apostles were special, and not intended to be any kind of model for all priests at all times. I am quite certain I could go mine some quotes from Christ that could and have been used to support the ordination of women.

QuoteNor does it make sociocultural arguments about the norms of the time and all that.

An argument that rejects the concept that the basis for a conclusion is strictly theological can certainly point out that the norms of the time make the given conclusion inevitable - ie, the claimed reason (theology) is not really the actual reason (societal norms of the time).

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 14, 2013, 11:39:35 AM

Quote from: garbon on September 14, 2013, 11:35:25 AM

Quote from: Tamas on September 14, 2013, 11:33:32 AM
FYI, this topic is still boring.

You don't have to participate. So go get a life?

It's still too early in the season for Tamas to farm his dirt.

:lol:

Quote from: Berkut on September 14, 2013, 11:17:02 AM
Whoever wrote the gospels could have had a female apostle or two, for example. Hell, there are claims that Jesus was pretty tight with that Mary Magdalene chick.

Actually its not so much a question of who wrote the books that made it into the New Testament but who selected which books would make it into the New Testament.  None of the gospels that prominently featured women made it in and Paul's writings did.  I am not saying that is the reason Paul was selected over other options.  I agree with you that the creation of the doctrine was significantly influenced by the time and place it was created.  Indeed your point is made all the stronger when one realizes that a very different narrative regarding women could have been created from the available source material when Church doctrine was being formed.

edit:  I see you made the same point when I was typing this

And to add a little more support for Berkut's position, lets not overlook the fact that the texts of the books that did make it into the New testament were manipulated and even forged to meet the doctrinal needs of those creating the text.

http://www.amazon.com/Forged-Writing-God-Why-Bibles-Authors/dp/0062012622

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 14, 2013, 10:57:10 AM
I don't personally know anyone who has practiced life long celibacy

I do. :ph34r:

I have at few female friends who are in their 30s and still virgins. Not really by choice, but more because they're so painfully shy and have zero idea how to engage a guy in anything other than a professional manner.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 14, 2013, 11:27:39 AM
I assumed you had come in here to talk about dealing with long periods of celibacy, not to make errors of theology.

The argument you've laid out is basically that there is no core part of Christian belief that would preclude women Priests. That's a theological argument, as such it can't be mixed in with atheist claims like "the guy who wrote the Gospels could have just thrown in a few female apostles." A theological approach does not start from the assumption the gospels are works of fiction the authors could have modified however they wish. Nor does it make sociocultural arguments about the norms of the time and all that.

I do believe that the Catholic Church, like all institutions of power, would have barred women from holding offices or having positions of importance as a matter of course, regardless of what scripture says. But the actual scriptures themselves do make it clear that Christ selected exclusively men to be his apostles, and those apostles selected exclusively men to be their highly regarded followers. The Apostolic succession, and the concept that Priests are continuing this tradition to the present day really precludes any strong theological counterargument. Is it your assertion the Church should draw nothing from the example set by Christ, in selecting twelve male apostles? It is known Jesus had both male and female followers, yet he chose exclusively males to be his Apostles. Was that just a matter of chance?

I'm pretty sure that there were books left out of the Bible that showed women as having a more active roll in Christ's life.

Quote from: Berkut on September 14, 2013, 11:44:27 AM
I am not saying the Catholic theology can be changed by any means - this is a matter of Catholic core tenets at this point. I am simply saying that it did not HAVE to be that way, and in many cases in Christianity it is in fact not that way. It is the way it is because the Catholic Church made it a matter of core theology at a time when there was no way in hell it could have been any other way due to the sexist nature of society at that time.

Oh, absolutely. However, now it is what it is. It's not going to change.

Quote from: Berkut on September 14, 2013, 11:44:27 AMWho knows?

No one, I'm just saying I think there is a logically consistent theological argument that supports the Church's position. I don't think it's one of the tortuous things like what you get if you go down the Calvinist path of predeterminism or etc where your entire belief system collapses under a heap of logical infinite loops.

QuoteI am saying that if 400 years ago the Catholic Church said "Christ only chose male apostles, but that was clearly simply due to the exigencies of the time he existed in, and here are example A, B, and C where Christ made it clear that he valued women just as much as men, so it is certainly the case that women can be priests, even if Christ did not select any to be apostles" then right now you would be arguing how clearly the idea of women in the priesthood is a core tenet of the Catholic faith.

Well, we should differentiate between arguing about what is a core tenet of the faith and the wider theological argument. I don't even view it as an argument that male-only ordination is a core tenet of the Catholic faith, I mean that's basically a matter of fact. It's spelled out in canon law, the catechism, and there have been at least two major (in terms of significance) writings by two separate 20th century Popes that went into detail about why there are to be no female priests. So I don't think there's much of an argument on that point.

QuoteThe bible is a big book with lots of stuff in it, and can and has been used to justify very different things by different groups for various reasons. And each group trots out their justification that when seen in isolation looks pretty theologically reasonable.

This is definitely true, but the point stands that it's very difficult to show why it shouldn't be considered significant that despite having many women associated with his ministry on Earth Christ selected only a group of men to be his apostles. It isn't as though scripture indicates Jesus had no dealings with women.

QuoteIf this was such a fundmental Christian tenet, then why is that some Christian religions do in fact allow females in the clergy? Are they not looking to the example of Christ, do they not care what example he set? I suggest if you ask them, they would rather strongly disagree that the fact that Christ only had male apostles makes it clear that only men can be members of the priesthood.

It's not the fundamental Christian belief for sure, but "why is it that some Christian religions.." doesn't truck much with me. Many sects do all kinds of crazy things, there's a whole branch of Christianity that teaches the "priesthood of the believer" which is basically saying your Church follows Christ's teachings but is no proper church at all, and not at all part of the Church Christ himself established through Paul.

QuoteI am not saying the Catholic theology can be changed by any means - this is a matter of Catholic core tenets at this point. I am simply saying that it did not HAVE to be that way, and in many cases in Christianity it is in fact not that way. It is the way it is because the Catholic Church made it a matter of core theology at a time when there was no way in hell it could have been any other way due to the sexist nature of society at that time.

I think it had to be that way unless Christ had selected 10 men and 2 women or such.

Jesus Christ's choice of men to be his Apostles is "interesting", but it does not seem a strong enough foundation to altogether banish women from the priesthood. He did not specify that being his disciple was a men-only thing and doing so would have been against his very core teachings that hierarchy and "keeping people in their place" was what he was setting out to destroy.

As for celibacy and marriage, Jesus seemed to leave it up to each individual whether they can handle it or not. Not a deal-breaker. 'For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.’ (Matthew 19)

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 14, 2013, 06:46:35 PM

Quote from: Berkut on September 14, 2013, 11:44:27 AMWho knows?

No one, I'm just saying I think there is a logically consistent theological argument that supports the Church's position. I don't think it's one of the tortuous things like what you get if you go down the Calvinist path of predeterminism or etc where your entire belief system collapses under a heap of logical infinite loops.

No argument from me, except to note that while it is A logically consistent argument, it is not the only one on the question.

Quote

QuoteI am saying that if 400 years ago the Catholic Church said "Christ only chose male apostles, but that was clearly simply due to the exigencies of the time he existed in, and here are example A, B, and C where Christ made it clear that he valued women just as much as men, so it is certainly the case that women can be priests, even if Christ did not select any to be apostles" then right now you would be arguing how clearly the idea of women in the priesthood is a core tenet of the Catholic faith.

Well, we should differentiate between arguing about what is a core tenet of the faith and the wider theological argument. I don't even view it as an argument that male-only ordination is a core tenet of the Catholic faith, I mean that's basically a matter of fact. It's spelled out in canon law, the catechism, and there have been at least two major (in terms of significance) writings by two separate 20th century Popes that went into detail about why there are to be no female priests. So I don't think there's much of an argument on that point.

I don't even think we are arguing that point.

But you rather carefully evaded my point.

Had the Catholic Church made a different argument, such that today female clergy were part of Catholic theology, you would not be here arguing that this is clearly a violation of a core principle of faith. Rather you would be calling those other Christian sects who do not allow female clergy weirdos instead.

Quote

QuoteThe bible is a big book with lots of stuff in it, and can and has been used to justify very different things by different groups for various reasons. And each group trots out their justification that when seen in isolation looks pretty theologically reasonable.

This is definitely true, but the point stands that it's very difficult to show why it shouldn't be considered significant that despite having many women associated with his ministry on Earth Christ selected only a group of men to be his apostles. It isn't as though scripture indicates Jesus had no dealings with women.

He at no point says "Like my apostles, my priests should all be men" or anything that clear. Of course, he never mentions that his church should even have priests, so that is hardly surprising.

You could as well argue that women should not be allowed to even be nuns, since none of his apostles were women.

You could as well argue that they can be priests, but cannot be bishops, because it is bishops that are truly the hierarchical equivalent to apostles. Or maybe it is only Cardinals. Or the Pope.

The Church chose a line, and that line is rather clearly mostly arbitrary, and hence mostly informed by the prevailing socail climate at the time the line was chosen.

Quote

QuoteIf this was such a fundmental Christian tenet, then why is that some Christian religions do in fact allow females in the clergy? Are they not looking to the example of Christ, do they not care what example he set? I suggest if you ask them, they would rather strongly disagree that the fact that Christ only had male apostles makes it clear that only men can be members of the priesthood.

It's not the fundamental Christian belief for sure, but "why is it that some Christian religions.." doesn't truck much with me.

It does not have to truck with you for you to be able to acknowledge that the fact that not all Christian sects agree on the point refutes the claim that this is a core tenet of the faith. Nobody claimed it was THE core tenet. My point is simply that the Churches interpretation, while consistent and theologically reasonable, is not the ONLY consistent and theologically reasonable answer to the question.

You don't have to agree with the conclusion to at least have the intellectual flexibility to see that not everyone agrees with your (and the Churches) view.

Quote
Many sects do all kinds of crazy things, there's a whole branch of Christianity that teaches the "priesthood of the believer" which is basically saying your Church follows Christ's teachings but is no proper church at all, and not at all part of the Church Christ himself established through Paul.

So?

That is not the question. And I am not talking about bizarro Christian sects, I am talking about, say, the Anglican Church.

Quote

QuoteI am not saying the Catholic theology can be changed by any means - this is a matter of Catholic core tenets at this point. I am simply saying that it did not HAVE to be that way, and in many cases in Christianity it is in fact not that way. It is the way it is because the Catholic Church made it a matter of core theology at a time when there was no way in hell it could have been any other way due to the sexist nature of society at that time.

I think it had to be that way unless Christ had selected 10 men and 2 women or such.

Except that clearly is did not "have to be that way" since many Christians reached a different conclusion, and Christ never at any point said priests have to be just like his apostles in any case.

Quote from: Phillip V on September 14, 2013, 07:32:26 PM
Jesus Christ's choice of men to be his Apostles is "interesting", but it does not seem a strong enough foundation to altogether banish women from the priesthood.

I think if you model the priesthood on the apostles, then there is a pretty compelling argument there. Of course, deciding that the priesthood should be modeled on the apostles is a choice as well. It is hardly a necessary and obvious conclusion.

Quote
He did not specify that being his disciple was a men-only thing and doing so would have been against his very core teachings that hierarchy and "keeping people in their place" was what he was setting out to destroy.

Indeed.

Who was the first to see Christ after the resurrection? Women, right?

Can that not be a "significant" point that must mean something?

Definitely.

Or definitely not. Depending on what you desire to justify.

Quote from: merithyn on September 14, 2013, 06:11:06 PM


I'm pretty sure that there were books left out of the Bible that showed women as having a more active roll in Christ's life.

Which books, left out by who, and when?

Quote from: Razgovory on September 14, 2013, 08:16:11 PM

Quote from: merithyn on September 14, 2013, 06:11:06 PM


I'm pretty sure that there were books left out of the Bible that showed women as having a more active roll in Christ's life.

Which books, left out by who, and when?

Dead Sea Scrolls, for one.

Women.  :rolleyes:

Always trying to horn in on men's affairs.

"And Ed spaketh unto her, get in thy kitchen to maketh a sammich in His glory, lest thou be smote by His back of hand; and it was done."
Ed 7:19 

Amen

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 14, 2013, 08:17:32 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on September 14, 2013, 08:16:11 PM

Quote from: merithyn on September 14, 2013, 06:11:06 PM


I'm pretty sure that there were books left out of the Bible that showed women as having a more active roll in Christ's life.

Which books, left out by who, and when?

Dead Sea Scrolls, for one.

Most of the dead sea scrolls are texts that are in the bible.  I'm not sure any of them would be considered "New Testament" works.

Quote from: Razgovory on September 14, 2013, 08:32:29 PM
Most of the dead sea scrolls are texts that are in the bible.  I'm not sure any of them would be considered "New Testament" works.

There are a variety of works within the DSS that are not in the Bible, as they were being written concurrently or prior to many of the texts.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 14, 2013, 08:37:55 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on September 14, 2013, 08:32:29 PM
Most of the dead sea scrolls are texts that are in the bible.  I'm not sure any of them would be considered "New Testament" works.

There are a variety of works within the DSS that are not in the Bible, as they were being written concurrently or prior to many of the texts.

Yeah, but these are Jewish oriented books.  Some were considered for the Western Bible like the book of Enoch (and is considered cannon in the Ethiopian church), but for the most part they weren't considered for the bible in the first place, and I don't think they have much to do with the topic at hand.  I would like to hear Meri's answer, what with her 20 years of study and all.

Stop being Razzy, lest you be smote.  In His mercy.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 14, 2013, 08:47:02 PM
Stop being Razzy, lest you be smote.  In His mercy.

He can't help it. Let him be.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 14, 2013, 08:47:02 PM
Stop being Razzy, lest you be smote.  In His mercy.

What exactly does every one mean by "Being Razzy"?

Quote from: Berkut on September 14, 2013, 08:01:35 PM
You could as well argue that women should not be allowed to even be nuns, since none of his apostles were women.

That would probably actually be more logically consistant, I think.

Quote from: Razgovory on September 14, 2013, 08:57:06 PM
What exactly does every one mean by "Being Razzy"?

In this particular case your Razzishness consists of in effect calling Meri a liar without providing any evidence to refute her claim.  If you think she's wrong, explain why you think she's wrong.  If you are just curious and would like her to give more detail, ask nicely and don't act like a rabid chihuahua.

Quote from: Razgovory on September 14, 2013, 08:16:11 PM

Quote from: merithyn on September 14, 2013, 06:11:06 PM


I'm pretty sure that there were books left out of the Bible that showed women as having a more active roll in Christ's life.

Which books, left out by who, and when?

Well, the Gospel of Mary in the Nag Hammadi shows Mary Magdalene to have been as much of an apostle as the other 12. It's a Gnostic text, though, which is why it was probably left out. There are also the Gospels of Thomas and Phillip, which seem to support this idea.

No one knows for sure who left out which books, but we do know these texts were written at roughly the same time as the other 27 books of the New Testament, and they were not included in the Bible.

Quote from: dps on September 14, 2013, 09:10:55 PM

Quote from: Berkut on September 14, 2013, 08:01:35 PM
You could as well argue that women should not be allowed to even be nuns, since none of his apostles were women.

That would probably actually be more logically consistant, I think.

That's completely disregarding the role of the priest versus the role of the nun.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 14, 2013, 10:59:40 AM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 14, 2013, 10:57:10 AM
I think there are people who are perfectly happy not having a wife or a family.

Yeah, but nobody believes you're happy. -_-

Quote from: Razgovory on September 14, 2013, 08:57:06 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 14, 2013, 08:47:02 PM
Stop being Razzy, lest you be smote.  In His mercy.

What exactly does every one mean by "Being Razzy"?

It's a less elegant form of being grumblery. :console:

Quote from: merithyn on September 14, 2013, 10:07:45 PM

Quote from: dps on September 14, 2013, 09:10:55 PM

Quote from: Berkut on September 14, 2013, 08:01:35 PM
You could as well argue that women should not be allowed to even be nuns, since none of his apostles were women.

That would probably actually be more logically consistant, I think.

That's completely disregarding the role of the priest versus the role of the nun.

But those roles are predicated in the same social environment that includes a completely sexist culture. Of course the roles are different, the role of the "nun" was made so women who cannot do anything more have SOMETHING to do.

So that is putting the cart before the horse.

I have no doubt whatsoever that if all these decisions about who can do what, and even what the fundamental "role" of a nun versus a monk versus a deacon/priest/etc..,etc. were made today, the exact same theological basis would lead to radically different conclusions.

Quote from: merithyn on September 14, 2013, 10:06:18 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on September 14, 2013, 08:16:11 PM

Quote from: merithyn on September 14, 2013, 06:11:06 PM


I'm pretty sure that there were books left out of the Bible that showed women as having a more active roll in Christ's life.

Which books, left out by who, and when?

Well, the Gospel of Mary in the Nag Hammadi shows Mary Magdalene to have been as much of an apostle as the other 12. It's a Gnostic text, though, which is why it was probably left out. There are also the Gospels of Thomas and Phillip, which seem to support this idea.

No one knows for sure who left out which books, but we do know these texts were written at roughly the same time as the other 27 books of the New Testament, and they were not included in the Bible.

You know, that the Gospel of Mary is not amongst the Nag Hammadi texts right?  The Gospel of Mary likely post dates the rest of the canonical gospels and it may not even have been a widespread text (it's written in Egyptian).  In all likelihood it was never considered.  The Gospels are of Thomas and Peter are even later (though they are found in the Nag Hammadi scrolls).

Quote from: Berkut on September 14, 2013, 08:04:38 PM

Quote from: Phillip V on September 14, 2013, 07:32:26 PM
Jesus Christ's choice of men to be his Apostles is "interesting", but it does not seem a strong enough foundation to altogether banish women from the priesthood.

I think if you model the priesthood on the apostles, then there is a pretty compelling argument there. Of course, deciding that the priesthood should be modeled on the apostles is a choice as well. It is hardly a necessary and obvious conclusion.

As soon as the thirteenth priest was ordained the "we only do what Jesus did" argument kinda goes out the window.

Quote from: Razgovory on September 14, 2013, 08:16:11 PM

Quote from: merithyn on September 14, 2013, 06:11:06 PM


I'm pretty sure that there were books left out of the Bible that showed women as having a more active roll in Christ's life.

Which books, left out by who, and when?

To answer your questions which books, there has been a great deal written on that subject.  Here is a good source that reproduces and provides some analysis of some of the books that didnt make the cut.

http://books.google.ca/books/about/Lost_Christianities.html?id=URdACxKubDIC

Your question as to who made the decisions and when is really the story of how orthodox Christianity was formed as the various sects vied for dominance to define doctrine of the Church.  A good start on that topic is Pagel's Beyond Belief.

Quote from: Razgovory on September 14, 2013, 10:53:52 PM

Quote from: merithyn on September 14, 2013, 10:06:18 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on September 14, 2013, 08:16:11 PM

Quote from: merithyn on September 14, 2013, 06:11:06 PM


I'm pretty sure that there were books left out of the Bible that showed women as having a more active roll in Christ's life.

Which books, left out by who, and when?

Well, the Gospel of Mary in the Nag Hammadi shows Mary Magdalene to have been as much of an apostle as the other 12. It's a Gnostic text, though, which is why it was probably left out. There are also the Gospels of Thomas and Phillip, which seem to support this idea.

No one knows for sure who left out which books, but we do know these texts were written at roughly the same time as the other 27 books of the New Testament, and they were not included in the Bible.

You know, that the Gospel of Mary is not amongst the Nag Hammadi texts right?  The Gospel of Mary likely post dates the rest of the canonical gospels and it may not even have been a widespread text (it's written in Egyptian).  In all likelihood it was never considered.  The Gospels are of Thomas and Peter are even later (though they are found in the Nag Hammadi scrolls).

But all you are saying is that some judgments where made as to what to include and what not to include. Jesus didnt leave an index of books to include because of course all of it was written well after the fact.  All of the books tried to put their own doctrinal spin on what the teachings of Jesus meant.  All of them are contradictory in some way - including the ones that made it into the Bible.  Even the judgment to include the Jewish texts as what we now call the Old Testament was hotly debated.  There was nothing obvious in the choices of the books that now make up the Bible at the time these doctrinal battles raged.

Quote from: Razgovory on September 14, 2013, 10:53:52 PM
The Gospel of Mary likely post dates the rest of the canonical gospels and it may not even have been a widespread text (it's written in Egyptian).  In all likelihood it was never considered.  The Gospels are of Thomas and Peter are even later (though they are found in the Nag Hammadi scrolls).

One other point Raz.  It is very difficult to know how widely other Christian writings were circulated and read.  The reason is that once the orthodox view was established the competing texts where destroyed and the followers of what became heretical beliefs were persecuted.  Keep in mind that around this time Christianity had become the religion of the state.  Until alternative texts were found through the efforts of archeology the only way bibilical scholars could get learn about the competing Christian beliefs and texts was through what the orthodox Christian writers said when refuting those other texts and beliefs.

There is a reason the Nag Hammadi scrolls were buried - to save them from the destruction from by the Church.

Quote from: Razgovory on September 14, 2013, 10:53:52 PM
You know, that the Gospel of Mary is not amongst the Nag Hammadi texts right?  The Gospel of Mary likely post dates the rest of the canonical gospels and it may not even have been a widespread text (it's written in Egyptian).  In all likelihood it was never considered.  The Gospels are of Thomas and Peter are even later (though they are found in the Nag Hammadi scrolls).

I meant that the Gospel of Mary is in the Nag Hammadi Library, not that it was one of the original Nag Hammadi codices. The first copy of the Gospel of Mary that was found was Coptic, yes, but most scholars agree that it was originally written in Greek in the early 2nd century, roughly the same time as the Gospels of Matthew & Luke.

The Gospels of Thomas and Peter (and Phillip) are believed to have been written in the late-1st to early-2nd centuries, again, the same time period that Matthew and Luke are believed to have been written. The manuscripts found in Nag Hammadi (where these gospels were first found) were 5th century, but bits and pieces of the writings have been found as far back as the late-1st century. So you're sort of right, but only in the same way that it's right to say that finding a copy of Shakespeare today means that his plays were clearly written in the 21st century.

Were they ever seriously considered for the Bible? I don't know, and neither do you. No one knows for certain. It's unlikely, given that they were gnostic texts, but there's absolutely no way of knowing with any certainty.

That's not the point though, is it? The point is that there were books - written in period by people living in that area - that showed women in a far better light as they related to Jesus than, say, Paul claims. That those books were left out of the Bible has created a significant series of laws for how women have been treated for centuries.

Quote from: merithyn on September 15, 2013, 11:05:43 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on September 14, 2013, 10:53:52 PM
You know, that the Gospel of Mary is not amongst the Nag Hammadi texts right?  The Gospel of Mary likely post dates the rest of the canonical gospels and it may not even have been a widespread text (it's written in Egyptian).  In all likelihood it was never considered.  The Gospels are of Thomas and Peter are even later (though they are found in the Nag Hammadi scrolls).

I meant that the Gospel of Mary is in the Nag Hammadi Library, not that it was one of the original Nag Hammadi codices. The first copy of the Gospel of Mary that was found was Coptic, yes, but most scholars agree that it was originally written in Greek in the early 2nd century, roughly the same time as the Gospels of Matthew & Luke.

The Gospels of Thomas and Peter (and Phillip) are believed to have been written in the late-1st to early-2nd centuries, again, the same time period that Matthew and Luke are believed to have been written. The manuscripts found in Nag Hammadi (where these gospels were first found) were 5th century, but bits and pieces of the writings have been found as far back as the late-1st century. So you're sort of right, but only in the same way that it's right to say that finding a copy of Shakespeare today means that his plays were clearly written in the 21st century.

Were they ever seriously considered for the Bible? I don't know, and neither do you. No one knows for certain. It's unlikely, given that they were gnostic texts, but there's absolutely no way of knowing with any certainty.

That's not the point though, is it? The point is that there were books - written in period by people living in that area - that showed women in a far better light as they related to Jesus than, say, Paul claims. That those books were left out of the Bible has created a significant series of laws for how women have been treated for centuries.

I am unsure how the "Nag Hammadi" library differs from the codices found at the site.  Is this like the public library of the town or something?  Your dating of the Gorpels of Thomas, Peter and Philip are rather off  all of them  are dated as later except for a few neo-gnostics.  I don't know which parts of the Nag Hammadi texts were found in the late first 1st century, except for the works of Plato (which were found there).  Perhaps you can enlighten us.

We have a pretty good idea which books were considered for inclusion at various church councils.

Quote from: Razgovory on September 15, 2013, 11:44:26 AM
We have a pretty good idea which books were considered for inclusion at various church councils.

Not really.  We only know which books the various councils selected.  We know almost nothing about which books they excluded except for the books that were accepted by other councils.  The fact that different councils selected different and differing numbers of books to make up the New Testament is itself evidence of the debate that was going on as to what should be in and what should be out.  It is important again to stress that the books that all agreed should considered as heresy were destroyed and so we know very little about them.

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 15, 2013, 12:17:22 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on September 15, 2013, 11:44:26 AM
We have a pretty good idea which books were considered for inclusion at various church councils.

Not really.  We only know which books the various councils selected.  We know almost nothing about which books they excluded except for the books that were accepted by other councils.  The fact that different councils selected different and differing numbers of books to make up the New Testament is itself evidence of the debate that was going on as to what should be in and what should be out.  It is important again to stress that the books that all agreed should considered as heresy were destroyed and so we know very little about them.

Quite a few letters were written discussing the subject and many of these survive.  Besides, this aimed at the expert, who spent 20 years researching the subject.

Care to elborate on what these "quite a few letters" are?

Quote from: merithyn on September 13, 2013, 09:10:55 AM
Are any of those dogma, or simply traditions, like the celibacy thing?

It's an honest question. I don't know.

Celibacy is a discipline within the Roman Catholic Church - it's not observed in Eastern Catholic Churches and there are dispensations for Anglican converts too, especially within the Ordinariate (separate group for converted Anglicans). I think all of them allow married men to become priests, I don't think priests are allowed to marry in any of them.

The position on women priests is a doctrine - it can't be changed. It was stated quite definitively by JP. Here's Francis on women priests:
'And, with reference to the ordination of women, the Church has spoken and she said : "No." John Paul II said it, but with a definitive formulation. That is closed, that door is closed, but I'd like to say something about this. I've said it, but I repeat it. Our Lady, Mary, was more important than the Apostles, than bishops, deacons and priests. In the Church, woman is more important than bishops and priests; now, it's what we must seek to make more explicit, because theological explicitness about this is lacking.'

QuoteHowever....if it were such a slam dunk argument, then how is that other Christian faiths do in fact allow for the ordination of female priests? Are they not Christians?

Most of them aren't Churches in the Catholic view - they don't have apostolic succession which is key especially to the debate about women priests. It's been the big theological issue within the CofE too and is why, even now, they have female priests but not female bishops, though they will.

It is worth pointing out that the Church's view is that there's not enough scripture to be conclusively part of doctrine on that ground alone - so it's not considered a divinely revealed doctrine. But there's also the constant tradition of the Church which together makes it part of the teaching of the Church.

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 15, 2013, 04:49:16 PM
Care to elborate on what these "quite a few letters" are?

Letter's is perhaps a bit of an understatement.  Many of the early christians wrote about which books that were considered heretical.  Irenaeus and Tatian are prime examples of people saying what was in and out.

I see you are still Erhman partisan, despite everything.

Quote from: Razgovory on September 15, 2013, 11:44:26 AM
Your dating of the Gorpels of Thomas, Peter and Philip are rather off  all of them  are dated as later except for a few neo-gnostics.

Not true.

QuoteRichard Valantasis writes:

Assigning a date to the Gospel of Thomas is very complex because it is difficult to know precisely to what a date is being assigned. Scholars have proposed a date as early as AD 40 or as late as AD 140, depending upon whether the Gospel of Thomas is identified with the original core of sayings, or with the author's published text, or with the Greek or Coptic texts, or with parallels in other literature.
Valantasis and other scholars argue that it is difficult to date Thomas because, as a collection of logia without a narrative framework, individual sayings could have been added to it gradually over time. (However, Valantasis does date Thomas to 100–110 AD, with some of the material certainly coming from the first stratum which is dated to 30–60 AD.)

Robert E. Van Voorst states:

Most interpreters place its writing in the second century, understanding that many of its oral traditions are much older.

Scholars generally fall into one of two main camps: an "early camp" favoring a date for the "core" of between the years 50 and 100, before or approximately contemporary with the composition of the canonical gospels and a "late camp" favoring a date in the 2nd century, after composition of the canonical gospels.

Most scholars agree that the Gospels of Phillip and Peter were in the same time frame, which is to say that they were written around the same time as the canonical gospels.

Quote
We have a pretty good idea which books were considered for inclusion at various church councils.

You do? That's awesome! Care to share, because I've never been able to find a good, comprehensive list. If you've got one, I'd love to see it.

Quote from: Razgovory on September 15, 2013, 01:27:36 PM
Quite a few letters were written discussing the subject and many of these survive.  Besides, this aimed at the expert, who spent 20 years researching the subject.

I'm sorry. You must have misunderstood. I said that I had studied Catholicism for 20 years before I decided that I could no longer participate in that religion.

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 15, 2013, 05:30:07 PMCelibacy is a discipline within the Roman Catholic Church - it's not observed in Eastern Catholic Churches and there are dispensations for Anglican converts too, especially within the Ordinariate (separate group for converted Anglicans).

Incorrect, there are some twenty odd Eastern Catholic Churches (Church in the broad sense, many of them are international in scope) and some of them have complete Priest celibacy. All of them distinguish between monastic and non-monastic Priests. Monastic Priests in Eastern Catholicism all practice celibacy, further, the vast majority of non-mastic Eastern Catholic Priests also practice celibacy--but some that were married prior to being ordained as deacons do exist. No Eastern Catholic Bishops are non-celibate, as the Eastern Catholics almost exclusively choose Bishops from the monastic ranks, and in the very rare cases where they have not, it has always been celibate non-monastic Priests. I don't want to speak out of school, but I believe it is a doctrine of theirs that no one can be ordained to the episcopate rank who doesn't practice celibacy.

There are dispensations for Anglican converts, but it is not automatic. If someone wants to be a Catholic Priest and they were previously ordained in the Church of England and are married, they have to apply for dispensation to the Pope. It is not an automatic process, I do not know the numbers on how many have been granted dispensations (maybe it's all of them), but they have to go through a bit of procedure to get in as members of the priesthood, and they have to be ordained again as the church does not at all recognize Anglican ordination.

Quote from: merithyn on September 15, 2013, 05:57:23 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on September 15, 2013, 11:44:26 AM
Your dating of the Gorpels of Thomas, Peter and Philip are rather off  all of them  are dated as later except for a few neo-gnostics.

Not true.

QuoteRichard Valantasis writes:

Assigning a date to the Gospel of Thomas is very complex because it is difficult to know precisely to what a date is being assigned. Scholars have proposed a date as early as AD 40 or as late as AD 140, depending upon whether the Gospel of Thomas is identified with the original core of sayings, or with the author's published text, or with the Greek or Coptic texts, or with parallels in other literature.
Valantasis and other scholars argue that it is difficult to date Thomas because, as a collection of logia without a narrative framework, individual sayings could have been added to it gradually over time. (However, Valantasis does date Thomas to 100–110 AD, with some of the material certainly coming from the first stratum which is dated to 30–60 AD.)

Robert E. Van Voorst states:

Most interpreters place its writing in the second century, understanding that many of its oral traditions are much older.

Scholars generally fall into one of two main camps: an "early camp" favoring a date for the "core" of between the years 50 and 100, before or approximately contemporary with the composition of the canonical gospels and a "late camp" favoring a date in the 2nd century, after composition of the canonical gospels.

Most scholars agree that the Gospels of Phillip and Peter were in the same time frame, which is to say that they were written around the same time as the canonical gospels.

Quote
We have a pretty good idea which books were considered for inclusion at various church councils.

You do? That's awesome! Care to share, because I've never been able to find a good, comprehensive list. If you've got one, I'd love to see it.

Not so fast you are taking extreme views of date here.  Gospel of Thomas is a 2nd century, Gospel of Philip third century, (possibly fourth!), and the Gospel of Peter in the late 2nd century.

Quote from: merithyn on September 15, 2013, 06:00:08 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on September 15, 2013, 01:27:36 PM
Quite a few letters were written discussing the subject and many of these survive.  Besides, this aimed at the expert, who spent 20 years researching the subject.

I'm sorry. You must have misunderstood. I said that I had studied Catholicism for 20 years before I decided that I could no longer participate in that religion.

Exactly what is the difference here?

Quote from: Razgovory on September 15, 2013, 11:52:02 PM
Exactly what is the difference here?

Difference between going to church every week and being a bible scholar.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 15, 2013, 11:57:30 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on September 15, 2013, 11:52:02 PM
Exactly what is the difference here?

Difference between going to church every week and being a bible scholar.

I'm unclear how going to church every week would qualify you as "studying" a subject.  I have lived in a Capitalist country all my life, however I wouldn't say I have "studied" capitalism for 20 years.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 14, 2013, 10:02:13 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on September 14, 2013, 08:57:06 PM
What exactly does every one mean by "Being Razzy"?

In this particular case your Razzishness consists of in effect calling Meri a liar without providing any evidence to refute her claim.  If you think she's wrong, explain why you think she's wrong.  If you are just curious and would like her to give more detail, ask nicely and don't act like a rabid chihuahua.

I took issue her with giving the impression of expertise, but you are probably right.  I'll leave her alone.  She can claim whatever the hell she wants.

Quote from: Razgovory on September 15, 2013, 11:59:22 PM
I'm unclear how going to church every week would qualify you as "studying" a subject.  I have lived in a Capitalist country all my life, however I wouldn't say I have "studied" capitalism for 20 years.

You don't get lectured on supply chains and dividends when buying groceries.

Quote from: Razgovory on September 15, 2013, 11:50:54 PM

Quote from: merithyn on September 15, 2013, 05:57:23 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on September 15, 2013, 11:44:26 AM
Your dating of the Gorpels of Thomas, Peter and Philip are rather off  all of them  are dated as later except for a few neo-gnostics.

Not true.

QuoteRichard Valantasis writes:

Assigning a date to the Gospel of Thomas is very complex because it is difficult to know precisely to what a date is being assigned. Scholars have proposed a date as early as AD 40 or as late as AD 140, depending upon whether the Gospel of Thomas is identified with the original core of sayings, or with the author's published text, or with the Greek or Coptic texts, or with parallels in other literature.
Valantasis and other scholars argue that it is difficult to date Thomas because, as a collection of logia without a narrative framework, individual sayings could have been added to it gradually over time. (However, Valantasis does date Thomas to 100–110 AD, with some of the material certainly coming from the first stratum which is dated to 30–60 AD.)

Robert E. Van Voorst states:

Most interpreters place its writing in the second century, understanding that many of its oral traditions are much older.

Scholars generally fall into one of two main camps: an "early camp" favoring a date for the "core" of between the years 50 and 100, before or approximately contemporary with the composition of the canonical gospels and a "late camp" favoring a date in the 2nd century, after composition of the canonical gospels.

Most scholars agree that the Gospels of Phillip and Peter were in the same time frame, which is to say that they were written around the same time as the canonical gospels.

Quote
We have a pretty good idea which books were considered for inclusion at various church councils.

You do? That's awesome! Care to share, because I've never been able to find a good, comprehensive list. If you've got one, I'd love to see it.

Not so fast you are taking extreme views of date here.  Gospel of Thomas is a 2nd century, Gospel of Philip third century, (possibly fourth!), and the Gospel of Peter in the late 2nd century.

I've read in a variety of sources (some sympathetic and some not)that the canonical texts were chosen on the basis of their being the first ones. Even the order of the gospels supports that view(with the possible exception of Matthew and Mark). It further seems unlikely the gnostic gospels were contemporary with the canonical ones.

Quote from: Razgovory on September 15, 2013, 11:59:22 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 15, 2013, 11:57:30 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on September 15, 2013, 11:52:02 PM
Exactly what is the difference here?

Difference between going to church every week and being a bible scholar.

I'm unclear how going to church every week would qualify you as "studying" a subject.  I have lived in a Capitalist country all my life, however I wouldn't say I have "studied" capitalism for 20 years.

And I'd guess that you know more about capitalism than more Chinese Nationals, too, whether you took it as a formal line of study or not.

Quote from: Razgovory on September 15, 2013, 11:50:54 PM
Not so fast you are taking extreme views of date here.  Gospel of Thomas is a 2nd century, Gospel of Philip third century, (possibly fourth!), and the Gospel of Peter in the late 2nd century.

I'm confused again. What part are you trying to play "gotcha'" on? Because I've explained what I meant several times now.

I said that I was pretty sure that there were books that were rejected from the Bible that showed women in a better light and with a more active role in early Christian churches. (Note: "pretty sure" != "I know for a fact") I've quoted noted historians who've said the same. I've asked you to show me these lists of books that that were rejected that you claim to know about that somehow disprove these historians.

At this point, I'm going to call this discussion a wash. I tried to treat your attempt at discussion as legitimate, but I see that my earlier rule of "don't respond to Raz" had purpose.

Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on September 16, 2013, 04:33:35 AM

I've read in a variety of sources (some sympathetic and some not)that the canonical texts were chosen on the basis of their being the first ones. Even the order of the gospels supports that view(with the possible exception of Matthew and Mark). It further seems unlikely the gnostic gospels were contemporary with the canonical ones.

Site me on that one, will you? Because my research indicates otherwise. Especially since Matthew & Luke ( I think you mean Luke, not Mark) are believed to be written roughly the same time period as Mary & Peter.

I have a suspicion that all religious texts are chosen based on how much useful contemporary relevance they have based on the clergy`s intentions on social stability and power plays.
Like, how Mohammed had all those hajids or whatevers detailing the finer points of the Egyptian society existing two hundred years after his death.  :rolleyes:

Correctly dating ANY of the gospels - canonical or not - is far from a secure science.  Even more dubious is drawing any kind of firm conclusion about what predecessor texts or oral traditions might have existed prior to the canonical gospels reaching something close to their present day form. A claim as to the primacy of the canonical gospels as a carrier of some kind of uniquely  authentic tradition is theological, not historical.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 16, 2013, 10:16:43 AM
Correctly dating ANY of the gospels - canonical or not - is far from a secure science.  Even more dubious is drawing any kind of firm conclusion about what predecessor texts or oral traditions might have existed prior to the canonical gospels reaching something close to their present day form. A claim as to the primacy of the canonical gospels as a carrier of some kind of uniquely  authentic tradition is theological, not historical.

Nonsense. There were real pharaos. Your argument: defeated!!!!

Quote from: Tamas on September 16, 2013, 08:56:52 AM
I have a suspicion that all religious texts are chosen based on how much useful contemporary relevance they have based on the clergy`s intentions on social stability and power plays.
Like, how Mohammed had all those hajids or whatevers detailing the finer points of the Egyptian society existing two hundred years after his death.  :rolleyes:

It's more complex than that. There is no doubt that the powers that be (or at least, the priestly class thereof) try to get stuff useful to themselves included; however, they also have to please existing audiences, who would be pissed off if stuff they know and love from tradition doesn't get included. You can see this tension at work in the OT, which contains what appear to be survivals from ancient traditions which are of no obvious use to anyone, but which appear to have been inserted simply because they were traditional (for example, the "nephalim" or demi-gods which are mentioned exactly once; and the inclusion of two different, and somewhat contradictory, creation myths)

Quote from: merithyn on September 16, 2013, 08:13:29 AM
I said that I was pretty sure that there were books that were rejected from the Bible that showed women in a better light and with a more active role in early Christian churches. (Note: "pretty sure" != "I know for a fact") I've quoted noted historians who've said the same. I've asked you to show me these lists of books that that were rejected that you claim to know about that somehow disprove these historians.

It's more than that.
There were competing versions of Christianity that had female prophets and even ordained priests.  We know about them primarily through their enemies who sought to suppress them.  Indeed the Nag Hammadi texts exist only because of the pains taken to conceal them.

Quote from: Tamas on September 16, 2013, 10:18:24 AM
Nonsense. There were real pharaos. Your argument: defeated!!!!

Dude my two year old is faster on the uptake than you.  Are you really this hilariously clueless as to what my point was in saying that?

Further I am not even participating in this gospel dating discussion, which makes your idiocy even more bizarre.

Quote from: Valmy on September 16, 2013, 10:39:27 AM

Quote from: Tamas on September 16, 2013, 10:18:24 AM
Nonsense. There were real pharaos. Your argument: defeated!!!!

Dude my two year old is faster on the uptake than you.  Are you really this hilariously clueless as to what my point was in saying that?

Further I am not even participating in this gospel dating discussion, which makes your idiocy even more bizarre.

I am sorry man, I just found it hilarious that when I declared the Bible`s general content as unproven, you tried to argue that by pointing out that it contains some proper historical stuff.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 16, 2013, 10:27:42 AM

Quote from: merithyn on September 16, 2013, 08:13:29 AM
I said that I was pretty sure that there were books that were rejected from the Bible that showed women in a better light and with a more active role in early Christian churches. (Note: "pretty sure" != "I know for a fact") I've quoted noted historians who've said the same. I've asked you to show me these lists of books that that were rejected that you claim to know about that somehow disprove these historians.

It's more than that.
There were competing versions of Christianity that had female prophets and even ordained priests.  We know about them primarily through their enemies who sought to suppress them.  Indeed the Nag Hammadi texts exist only because of the pains taken to conceal them.

I was trying to keep it simple for Raz. It didn't help, though. :(

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 16, 2013, 10:16:43 AM
Correctly dating ANY of the gospels - canonical or not - is far from a secure science.  Even more dubious is drawing any kind of firm conclusion about what predecessor texts or oral traditions might have existed prior to the canonical gospels reaching something close to their present day form. A claim as to the primacy of the canonical gospels as a carrier of some kind of uniquely  authentic tradition is theological, not historical.

Of course. I tried to explain that, but it somehow got lost in the "prove your knowledge" gotcha' game.

It's impossible to know what came when. At best, we have really good guesses. The process wasn't well documented, nor were most of the books presented as potentially going into the Bible documented somewhere. We know they exist because parts (and sometimes whole) bits of them are found hidden away somewhere. From those, we can make educated guesses based on context, paper-type, placement, and language of the texts, but we're never going to know anything definitively. It's just not possible.

Quote from: Razgovory on September 15, 2013, 05:39:32 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 15, 2013, 04:49:16 PM
Care to elborate on what these "quite a few letters" are?

Letter's is perhaps a bit of an understatement.  Many of the early christians wrote about which books that were considered heretical.  Irenaeus and Tatian are prime examples of people saying what was in and out.

I see you are still Erhman partisan, despite everything.

I think you have just made my point that the only way scholars knew about the "heretic" works was through the refutations written by Orthodox Churchmen.  Irenaeus is our main source for this.  If "many" other orthodox christians also wrote refutations then they have not survived. 

And as for Erhman, yeah, I prefer to side with the leading academic in this area.

Quote from: Tamas on September 16, 2013, 08:56:52 AM
I have a suspicion that all religious texts are chosen based on how much useful contemporary relevance they have based on the clergy`s intentions on social stability and power plays.
Like, how Mohammed had all those hajids or whatevers detailing the finer points of the Egyptian society existing two hundred years after his death.  :rolleyes:

Hadith

Quote from: Jacob on September 16, 2013, 11:21:47 AM

Quote from: Tamas on September 16, 2013, 08:56:52 AM
I have a suspicion that all religious texts are chosen based on how much useful contemporary relevance they have based on the clergy`s intentions on social stability and power plays.
Like, how Mohammed had all those hajids or whatevers detailing the finer points of the Egyptian society existing two hundred years after his death.  :rolleyes:

Hadith

Right that's the one. Those are hilarious. There was like thousands of them by the 1300s or something, and a lot of them directly contradicted each other.  :lol:

Quote from: Tamas on September 16, 2013, 11:23:49 AM

Quote from: Jacob on September 16, 2013, 11:21:47 AM

Quote from: Tamas on September 16, 2013, 08:56:52 AM
I have a suspicion that all religious texts are chosen based on how much useful contemporary relevance they have based on the clergy`s intentions on social stability and power plays.
Like, how Mohammed had all those hajids or whatevers detailing the finer points of the Egyptian society existing two hundred years after his death.  :rolleyes:

Hadith

Right that's the one. Those are hilarious. There was like thousands of them by the 1300s or something, and a lot of them directly contradicted each other.  :lol:

:hmm:

I think most of them were written in the 8th and 9th centuries, so that's about comparable to the gospel suggested dating. Also, I think Islam recognizes that it is difficult to tell which are genuine.

Actually wiki notes that as a whole field of study: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_hadith

Not sure why funny, makes sense that such would happen. Sort of like various traditions that have built up overtime in Christianity.

Quote from: garbon on September 16, 2013, 11:30:27 AM

Quote from: Tamas on September 16, 2013, 11:23:49 AM

Quote from: Jacob on September 16, 2013, 11:21:47 AM

Quote from: Tamas on September 16, 2013, 08:56:52 AM
I have a suspicion that all religious texts are chosen based on how much useful contemporary relevance they have based on the clergy`s intentions on social stability and power plays.
Like, how Mohammed had all those hajids or whatevers detailing the finer points of the Egyptian society existing two hundred years after his death.  :rolleyes:

Hadith

Right that's the one. Those are hilarious. There was like thousands of them by the 1300s or something, and a lot of them directly contradicted each other.  :lol:

:hmm:

I think most of them were written in the 8th and 9th centuries, so that's about comparable to the gospel suggested dating. Also, I think Islam recognizes that it is difficult to tell which are genuine.

Actually wiki notes that as a whole field of study: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_hadith

Not sure why funny, makes sense that such would happen. Sort of like various traditions that have built up overtime in Christianity.

Funny in the way that while they don`t have the faintest idea about which one of those is made up BS (probably nearly all of them, considering their dates of origin), they have played a key role in the religion.

Quote from: Tamas on September 16, 2013, 11:49:03 AM

Quote from: garbon on September 16, 2013, 11:30:27 AM

Quote from: Tamas on September 16, 2013, 11:23:49 AM

Quote from: Jacob on September 16, 2013, 11:21:47 AM

Quote from: Tamas on September 16, 2013, 08:56:52 AM
I have a suspicion that all religious texts are chosen based on how much useful contemporary relevance they have based on the clergy`s intentions on social stability and power plays.
Like, how Mohammed had all those hajids or whatevers detailing the finer points of the Egyptian society existing two hundred years after his death.  :rolleyes:

Hadith

Right that's the one. Those are hilarious. There was like thousands of them by the 1300s or something, and a lot of them directly contradicted each other.  :lol:

:hmm:

I think most of them were written in the 8th and 9th centuries, so that's about comparable to the gospel suggested dating. Also, I think Islam recognizes that it is difficult to tell which are genuine.

Actually wiki notes that as a whole field of study: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_hadith

Not sure why funny, makes sense that such would happen. Sort of like various traditions that have built up overtime in Christianity.

Funny in the way that while they don`t have the faintest idea about which one of those is made up BS (probably nearly all of them, considering their dates of origin), they have played a key role in the religion.

Does it really matter if they are made up if people choose to follow them? After 1200 years, it seems like what was originally said/intended should be of less value outside of historiography.

Also, it isn't as though Christianity does better in that regard.

It does matter, and yes Christianity is only marginally better.

That`s a common argument from the more "enlightened" religious folks: "what matters is the message!" that is wrong on several levels.
Most notably on the level that generally speaking, retreat from the "it is literal, yield or die!" stance to "well it is metaphoric and should be looked at for the message inside" stance happens under extreme pressure of circumstances. Like Christians on stuff like the Earth going around the Sun and stuff.

Also, the "take it literally" and "go for the message" stances are freely switched around depending on the individual and the agenda. I mean, I should take XY from the Bible as metaphoric, but I should take for granted that Jesus lived, died for our sins, than resurrected? That`s quite a power in some humans hand to tell me which part is literally true, which is there for the general feelgood message.

This applies a thousand times more for Islam where the Quran is told to be basically told-to-pen by God to Muhammad, and the Hadiths told to be direct quotes from the Prophet. (my favourite ones are the ones which contradict the Quran itself)
It is ridiculously irrational to be good with told all that, and then be ok with an insane number of hadiths being knowingly fake.

And correct me if I am wrong but there are still laws and judgements handed out based on hadiths.

Quote from: Tamas on September 16, 2013, 12:09:24 PM
Most notably on the level that generally speaking, retreat from the "it is literal, yield or die!" stance to "well it is metaphoric and should be looked at for the message inside" stance happens under extreme pressure of circumstances.

No, metaphorical analysis of Biblical text has always been a strong tradition within all three religions of the book.  It also has strong traditions within other religions as well but you are focusing on these.

Quote from: Tamas on September 16, 2013, 12:09:24 PM
It does matter, and yes Christianity is only marginally better.

That`s a common argument from the more "enlightened" religious folks: "what matters is the message!" that is wrong on several levels.
Most notably on the level that generally speaking, retreat from the "it is literal, yield or die!" stance to "well it is metaphoric and should be looked at for the message inside" stance happens under extreme pressure of circumstances. Like Christians on stuff like the Earth going around the Sun and stuff.

Also, the "take it literally" and "go for the message" stances are freely switched around depending on the individual and the agenda. I mean, I should take XY from the Bible as metaphoric, but I should take for granted that Jesus lived, died for our sins, than resurrected? That`s quite a power in some humans hand to tell me which part is literally true, which is there for the general feelgood message.

This applies a thousand times more for Islam where the Quran is told to be basically told-to-pen by God to Muhammad, and the Hadiths told to be direct quotes from the Prophet. (my favourite ones are the ones which contradict the Quran itself)
It is ridiculously irrational to be good with told all that, and then be ok with an insane number of hadiths being knowingly fake.

And correct me if I am wrong but there are still laws and judgements handed out based on hadiths.

I'm trying to understand why religion seems to insult so many people. Religion isn't the problem. The application of religion in a way that harms others is.

Tamas will be smote by the Holy Beet of Antioch.

Quote from: Tamas on September 16, 2013, 10:49:37 AM
I am sorry man, I just found it hilarious that when I declared the Bible`s general content as unproven, you tried to argue that by pointing out that it contains some proper historical stuff.

You really are thick, aren't you?  :lol:  You equated the historical evidence for The Bible with that of The Hobbit, and then conceded that many things in the Bible truly existed, which means that many things in the Hobbit must have, as well.  A blunder of Martiesque proportions.  And you can't even see how stupid you sound.

I hope you keep it up.  It is hilarious.

Quote from: merithyn on September 16, 2013, 12:15:25 PM
Religion isn't the problem. The application of religion in a way that harms others is.

I agree with you on that, but the boundary is blurry at best.
Sad truth is, if somebody is harming somebody else out of religious beliefs, he is no less religious than you who would never think to do such a thing. Why? Because he is reading/being told the same "oh lets not take it literally" texts, either taking them literally or not (doesn`t matter) and reaching conclusions that what he/she is doing is A OK.

Quote from: Tamas on September 16, 2013, 12:19:40 PM

I agree with you on that, but the boundary is blurry at best.
Sad truth is, if somebody is harming somebody else out of religious beliefs, he is no less religious than you who would never think to do such a thing. Why? Because he is reading/being told the same "oh lets not take it literally" texts, either taking them literally or not (doesn`t matter) and reaching conclusions that what he/she is doing is A OK.

:mellow:

John Hinkley Jr thought that what he was doing was A-OK because he was sure that Jodie Foster would approve of it.

That's why you need organised religion and a Church ;)

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 16, 2013, 12:14:58 PM

Quote from: Tamas on September 16, 2013, 12:09:24 PM
Most notably on the level that generally speaking, retreat from the "it is literal, yield or die!" stance to "well it is metaphoric and should be looked at for the message inside" stance happens under extreme pressure of circumstances.

No, metaphorical analysis of Biblical text has always been a strong tradition within all three religions of the book.  It also has strong traditions within other religions as well but you are focusing on these.

As I understand it, the "we must accept the Bible as 100% literal truth" point of view really only started in the 19th century or so.

Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2013, 12:26:20 PM

As I understand it, the "we must accept the Bible as 100% literal truth" point of view really only started in the 19th century or so.

Yeah. I think in Christianity and Islam literalism's a very modern heresy.

Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2013, 12:26:20 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 16, 2013, 12:14:58 PM

Quote from: Tamas on September 16, 2013, 12:09:24 PM
Most notably on the level that generally speaking, retreat from the "it is literal, yield or die!" stance to "well it is metaphoric and should be looked at for the message inside" stance happens under extreme pressure of circumstances.

No, metaphorical analysis of Biblical text has always been a strong tradition within all three religions of the book.  It also has strong traditions within other religions as well but you are focusing on these.

As I understand it, the "we must accept the Bible as 100% literal truth" point of view really only started in the 19th century or so.

Yeah, I'm not sure when it started.  I agree it is a relatively recent phenomenon.  Whenever it started, it has created a strawman for Tamas to attack.

Quote from: Tamas on September 16, 2013, 10:49:37 AM
I am sorry man, I just found it hilarious that when I declared the Bible`s general content as unproven, you tried to argue that by pointing out that it contains some proper historical stuff.

What do you mean by "general content"?
A significant portion of the content consists of poems, songs, sayings, proverbs, and so forth.  It's not the sort of thing that can be proven or unproven.
As for the historical narratives contained in Kings and Chronicles, the situation stands almost opposite to your proposition.  The specific content in these chapters - what individual monarchs and prophets supposedly did - is by and large unproven or even just wrong, but much of the key general content - the Assyrian conquest and the Babylonian siege, is accurate enough.

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 16, 2013, 12:29:22 PM

Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2013, 12:26:20 PM

As I understand it, the "we must accept the Bible as 100% literal truth" point of view really only started in the 19th century or so.

Yeah. I think in Christianity and Islam literalism's a very modern heresy.

:yeahright: I mean, it's not like people got killed for having different interpretation of the same text than the Church, or for having scientific breakthroughs. That's TOTALLY a 19th century thing.

Quote from: Tamas on September 16, 2013, 02:47:39 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 16, 2013, 12:29:22 PM

Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2013, 12:26:20 PM

As I understand it, the "we must accept the Bible as 100% literal truth" point of view really only started in the 19th century or so.

Yeah. I think in Christianity and Islam literalism's a very modern heresy.

:yeahright: I mean, it's not like people got killed for having different interpretation of the same text than the Church, or for having scientific breakthroughs. That's TOTALLY a 19th century thing.

You deserve the full on Grumbler treatment.

Quote from: Tamas on September 16, 2013, 02:47:39 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 16, 2013, 12:29:22 PM

Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2013, 12:26:20 PM

As I understand it, the "we must accept the Bible as 100% literal truth" point of view really only started in the 19th century or so.

Yeah. I think in Christianity and Islam literalism's a very modern heresy.

:yeahright: I mean, it's not like people got killed for having different interpretation of the same text than the Church, or for having scientific breakthroughs. That's TOTALLY a 19th century thing.

Can you, in perhaps one post, state clearly what you are arguing? You seem to keep flitting about towards different points with the only theme being contempt for religion.

Quote from: Tamas on September 16, 2013, 02:47:39 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 16, 2013, 12:29:22 PM

Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2013, 12:26:20 PM

As I understand it, the "we must accept the Bible as 100% literal truth" point of view really only started in the 19th century or so.

Yeah. I think in Christianity and Islam literalism's a very modern heresy.

:yeahright: I mean, it's not like people got killed for having different interpretation of the same text than the Church, or for having scientific breakthroughs. That's TOTALLY a 19th century thing.

And what's your point?

At the time of the, say, Spanish Inquisition, the Catholic Church then, and continues to this day, to hold to a more allegorical understanding of the Bible.

Quote from: garbon on September 16, 2013, 02:53:35 PM

Quote from: Tamas on September 16, 2013, 02:47:39 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 16, 2013, 12:29:22 PM

Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2013, 12:26:20 PM

As I understand it, the "we must accept the Bible as 100% literal truth" point of view really only started in the 19th century or so.

Yeah. I think in Christianity and Islam literalism's a very modern heresy.

:yeahright: I mean, it's not like people got killed for having different interpretation of the same text than the Church, or for having scientific breakthroughs. That's TOTALLY a 19th century thing.

Can you, in perhaps one post, state clearly what you are arguing? You seem to keep flitting about towards different points with the only theme being contempt for religion.

Well, yeah, that's my theme. :P

Someone has an allegorical understanding of the Bible: A-OK! :thumbsup:

Someone has an allegorical understanding of the Law: To gaol with you! :mad:

Quote from: Tamas on September 16, 2013, 03:03:03 PM

Quote from: garbon on September 16, 2013, 02:53:35 PM

Quote from: Tamas on September 16, 2013, 02:47:39 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 16, 2013, 12:29:22 PM

Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2013, 12:26:20 PM

As I understand it, the "we must accept the Bible as 100% literal truth" point of view really only started in the 19th century or so.

Yeah. I think in Christianity and Islam literalism's a very modern heresy.

:yeahright: I mean, it's not like people got killed for having different interpretation of the same text than the Church, or for having scientific breakthroughs. That's TOTALLY a 19th century thing.

Can you, in perhaps one post, state clearly what you are arguing? You seem to keep flitting about towards different points with the only theme being contempt for religion.

Well, yeah, that's my theme. :P

Could you try to be a little more original then? :yawn:

Viking does it much better anyway.

Quote from: The Brain on September 16, 2013, 03:07:03 PM
Someone has an allegorical understanding of the Bible: A-OK! :thumbsup:

Someone has an allegorical understanding of the Law: To gaol with you! :mad:

:lol:

Quote from: The Brain on September 16, 2013, 03:07:03 PM
Someone has an allegorical understanding of the Bible: A-OK! :thumbsup:

Someone has an allegorical understanding of the Law: To gaol with you! :mad:

Au contraire my animal-loving friend.  Some of the most creative legal thinkers wind up on the bench!

Quote from: Tamas on September 16, 2013, 03:03:03 PM

Quote from: garbon on September 16, 2013, 02:53:35 PM

Quote from: Tamas on September 16, 2013, 02:47:39 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 16, 2013, 12:29:22 PM

Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2013, 12:26:20 PM

As I understand it, the "we must accept the Bible as 100% literal truth" point of view really only started in the 19th century or so.

Yeah. I think in Christianity and Islam literalism's a very modern heresy.

:yeahright: I mean, it's not like people got killed for having different interpretation of the same text than the Church, or for having scientific breakthroughs. That's TOTALLY a 19th century thing.

Can you, in perhaps one post, state clearly what you are arguing? You seem to keep flitting about towards different points with the only theme being contempt for religion.

Well, yeah, that's my theme. :P

Bigotry and hatred of others is sort theme for the whole of Eastern Europe.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 16, 2013, 03:12:12 PM
Viking does it much better anyway.

Viking comes from a different direction then Tamas.  Tamas is an atheist for the same reason Marty was an Atheist.  It helps him feel smart.  There is a idea that smart people are atheists, and since Tamas wants to be smart he decides to gravitate toward atheism. 

Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2013, 04:30:48 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 16, 2013, 03:12:12 PM
Viking does it much better anyway.

Viking comes from a different direction then Tamas.  Tamas is an atheist for the same reason Marty was an Atheist.  It helps him feel smart.  There is a idea that smart people are atheists, and since Tamas wants to be smart he decides to gravitate toward atheism.

That is the main problem with Dawkins.  He starts from the premise that all religious people are idiots because the world is older than 6000 years.  While he would have a good argument that all literalists who believe the world is 6000 years old are idiots he ends up looking silly by assuming that all religious people have the same belief.   Tamas has essentially fallen into the same trap.

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 16, 2013, 04:38:52 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2013, 04:30:48 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 16, 2013, 03:12:12 PM
Viking does it much better anyway.

Viking comes from a different direction then Tamas.  Tamas is an atheist for the same reason Marty was an Atheist.  It helps him feel smart.  There is a idea that smart people are atheists, and since Tamas wants to be smart he decides to gravitate toward atheism.

That is the main problem with Dawkins.  He starts from the premise that all religious people are idiots because the world is older than 6000 years. 

He does?

I assume that he states this somewhere, right, since you are stating definitively what he believes?

I don't believe in Richard Dawkins

Quote from: Berkut on September 16, 2013, 05:01:10 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 16, 2013, 04:38:52 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2013, 04:30:48 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 16, 2013, 03:12:12 PM
Viking does it much better anyway.

Viking comes from a different direction then Tamas.  Tamas is an atheist for the same reason Marty was an Atheist.  It helps him feel smart.  There is a idea that smart people are atheists, and since Tamas wants to be smart he decides to gravitate toward atheism.

That is the main problem with Dawkins.  He starts from the premise that all religious people are idiots because the world is older than 6000 years. 

He does?

I assume that he states this somewhere, right, since you are stating definitively what he believes?

I have not stated what he believes.  But he does state in his books that Christians are idiots for believing that the world was created as described in the Bible without making a distinction between literalists and those who are not quite so daft.

If you want to know what he definitely believes you will have to look elsewhere

Quote from: Berkut on September 16, 2013, 05:01:10 PMHe does?

I assume that he states this somewhere, right, since you are stating definitively what he believes?

I remember his TV show when he was interviewing the Bishop of Oxford about creation. The Bishop of Oxford is an extremely liberal Anglican so in no way literalist.

Dawkins point seems to be Viking's. The holy book gives a story of creation (or two, or three for that matter). If you deviate from that you're deviating from what is true Christianity. Aren't the fundamentalists better Christians?

It's an argument I hugely disagree with about Christianity and Islam. Because in my view you're ceding the argument to the extremists that they represent the authentic version of their faith, when my view is that we have centuries of lived belief that was nothing like that.

 :lol: I am an Atheist because I think religion just smells of human needs and weaknesses way too obviously to be real.

You're atheist because you think religion responds to human needs?
Not the best reason . . .

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 16, 2013, 04:38:52 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2013, 04:30:48 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 16, 2013, 03:12:12 PM
Viking does it much better anyway.

Viking comes from a different direction then Tamas.  Tamas is an atheist for the same reason Marty was an Atheist.  It helps him feel smart.  There is a idea that smart people are atheists, and since Tamas wants to be smart he decides to gravitate toward atheism.

That is the main problem with Dawkins.  He starts from the premise that all religious people are idiots because the world is older than 6000 years.  While he would have a good argument that all literalists who believe the world is 6000 years old are idiots he ends up looking silly by assuming that all religious people have the same belief.   Tamas has essentially fallen into the same trap.

I think Dawkins goes one stop further.  While someone like Marty or Tamas takes such a position so he can elevate himself above those stoopid people who believe in sky fairies and bronze age books, Dawkins wants to destroy religion entirely.  He is an adherent of the conflict thesis, science and religion are totally at odds and one must die so the other may live.

Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2013, 06:15:51 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 16, 2013, 04:38:52 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2013, 04:30:48 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 16, 2013, 03:12:12 PM
Viking does it much better anyway.

Viking comes from a different direction then Tamas.  Tamas is an atheist for the same reason Marty was an Atheist.  It helps him feel smart.  There is a idea that smart people are atheists, and since Tamas wants to be smart he decides to gravitate toward atheism.

That is the main problem with Dawkins.  He starts from the premise that all religious people are idiots because the world is older than 6000 years.  While he would have a good argument that all literalists who believe the world is 6000 years old are idiots he ends up looking silly by assuming that all religious people have the same belief.   Tamas has essentially fallen into the same trap.

I think Dawkins goes one stop further.  While someone like Marty or Tamas takes such a position so he can elevate himself above those stoopid people who believe in sky fairies and bronze age books, Dawkins wants to destroy religion entirely.  He is an adherent of the conflict thesis, science and religion are totally at odds and one must die so the other may live.

Raz how about you stop pretending like you know the faintest thing about me, alright.

Sorry Tamas, you aren't unique. :console:

Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2013, 06:29:23 PM
Sorry Tamas, you aren't unique. :console:

Not only that, but I won't even get to any kind of heaven, since I deny every religion which ever existed. Talk about zeroing my odds!

Bummer.

I'll pray for you Tamas.  :)

Quote from: Tamas on September 16, 2013, 06:37:24 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2013, 06:29:23 PM
Sorry Tamas, you aren't unique. :console:

Not only that, but I won't even get to any kind of heaven, since I deny every religion which ever existed. Talk about zeroing my odds!

Bummer.

Nonsense.  You have a religion, it just has no afterlife.  You worship the god Market and have faith in his invisible hand.

Quote from: Tamas on September 16, 2013, 06:11:44 PM
:lol: I am an Atheist because I think religion just smells of human needs and weaknesses way too obviously to be real.

A toilet smells of human needs and weaknesses, too, and I yet I still believe in toilets.  Though I suppose, what with you being from Eastern Europe, you might not believe in them, at least the indoor variety.

Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2013, 06:41:16 PM
Nonsense.  You have a religion, it just has no afterlife.  You worship the god Market and have faith in his invisible hand.

:lol:

I always thought the reasons atheists thought followers of Abrahamic religions were (at best) misguided/unthoughtful was because no one has ever generated 1)adequate proof of God's existence and 2)an adequate theodicy to explain God, even if you assume I Am's existence in the first place.  Since belief without proof and belief in the face of disproof is not rational, atheists rightly ascribe irrationality to religiosity.  I guess they tend to overlook that rationality is not what churches, mosques, synagogues, etc., are selling (and it may be equally irrational to believe that humans are built for individual rationality).

I've always thought science does provide something close to answering the latter.  Specifically, I'm amazed no liberal person of the book has ever jumped on the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.  If quantum mechanics is assumed to be a necessary feature of any physical world capable of generating intelligent life, and if MWI is assumed to be true, it would explain a great deal about evil, pain, etc, especially if I Am values existence over utility, or if utility over the lifetime of the universe turns out to be positive (we'll see, or actually we won't, because we'll be dead).

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 16, 2013, 12:29:22 PM

Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2013, 12:26:20 PM

As I understand it, the "we must accept the Bible as 100% literal truth" point of view really only started in the 19th century or so.

Yeah. I think in Christianity and Islam literalism's a very modern heresy.

Interesting take on the political history of biblical literalism in an American context: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2013/09/16/three-strikes-against-white-evangelical-theology/

I wouldn't be surprised if similar political narratives could apply to Islamic literalism as well.

Fred Clark's way cool.  His only fault is his pacifist fahdizism, which militates against not just air war, but all sorts of wars!  It's ridiculous.

Quote from: dps on September 16, 2013, 06:47:03 PM

Quote from: Tamas on September 16, 2013, 06:11:44 PM
:lol: I am an Atheist because I think religion just smells of human needs and weaknesses way too obviously to be real.

A toilet smells of human needs and weaknesses, too, and I yet I still believe in toilets.  Though I suppose, what with you being from Eastern Europe, you might not believe in them, at least the indoor variety.

really, that low, man?

I must admit I regret participating in this thread. Just started as trolling, but looks like a lot of you are much more into the whole religion thing / too insecure in beliefs and drew offense over it. I am sorry.

Stop apologizing.  :mad:

Quote from: dps on September 16, 2013, 06:47:03 PM

Quote from: Tamas on September 16, 2013, 06:11:44 PM
:lol: I am an Atheist because I think religion just smells of human needs and weaknesses way too obviously to be real.

A toilet smells of human needs and weaknesses, too, and I yet I still believe in toilets.  Though I suppose, what with you being from Eastern Europe, you might not believe in them, at least the indoor variety.

The fact that Athiesm feeds Tamas need to feel superior to be others must be lost on him.

Quote from: Tamas on September 16, 2013, 07:03:10 PM
I must admit I regret participating in this thread. Just started as trolling, but looks like a lot of you are much more into the whole religion thing / too insecure in beliefs and drew offense over it. I am sorry.

Tamas has been beeten from the thread.

Quote from: Tamas on September 16, 2013, 06:11:44 PM
:lol: I am an Atheist because I think religion just smells of human needs and weaknesses way too obviously to be real.

It is not real (I mean not in the way rocks are real anyway).  I am not questioning why you are an Atheist, I am questioning why you are acting like an idiot when we all know you are not.

Quote from: Tamas on September 16, 2013, 07:03:10 PM
I must admit I regret participating in this thread. Just started as trolling, but looks like a lot of you are much more into the whole religion thing / too insecure in beliefs and drew offense over it. I am sorry.

Yeah... sounds it. :P

I'm pretty secure in my beliefs, but that doesn't mean that I won't be offended by having someone call me ignorant for having any beliefs outside of science.

Quote from: Valmy on September 16, 2013, 10:17:15 PM

Quote from: Tamas on September 16, 2013, 06:11:44 PM
:lol: I am an Atheist because I think religion just smells of human needs and weaknesses way too obviously to be real.

It is not real (I mean not in the way rocks are real anyway).  I am not questioning why you are an Atheist, I am questioning why you are acting like an idiot when we all know you are not.

Are we sure? :huh:

Quote from: Tamas on September 16, 2013, 07:03:10 PM
I must admit I regret participating in this thread. Just started as trolling, but looks like a lot of you are much more into the whole religion thing / too insecure in beliefs and drew offense over it. I am sorry.

Your whole approach to this is wrong.  I don't have religious beliefs because I don't believe in magic of any kind.    However, I don't feel any need to bash those who do believe in magic, of any stripe, and I acknowledge that I have met many believers who are sincere and do a great deal of what I consider "objective good" (including doing favors for my ailing, magic-believing parents).

If you want to make an effective argument against a believer, use what I call the Berkut Argument (because he expressed it most clearly here): point out that their beliefs are actually 99.99+% identical to yours - they are disbelievers in millions of gods/magical beings and all the associated stories; the only (and trivial) difference is that they make exceptions to their general disbelief in magic, and you do not.

This will highlight the similarities between beliefs and mitigate the effects of the differences.  Since they are so much like you, you need no longer feel contempt for believers.

Quote from: merithyn on September 16, 2013, 08:17:23 AM

Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on September 16, 2013, 04:33:35 AM

I've read in a variety of sources (some sympathetic and some not)that the canonical texts were chosen on the basis of their being the first ones. Even the order of the gospels supports that view(with the possible exception of Matthew and Mark). It further seems unlikely the gnostic gospels were contemporary with the canonical ones.

Site me on that one, will you? Because my research indicates otherwise. Especially since Matthew & Luke ( I think you mean Luke, not Mark) are believed to be written roughly the same time period as Mary & Peter.

No, I mean exactly what I said I did:  Matthew and Mark.  The order of the canonical gospels corresponds to the chronological order in which they were written (in the eyes of most scholars), with the exception of Matthew and Mark, with most scholars believing that Mark was actually written before Matthew (with a small minority believing otherwise). 

If you want me to "site" you on that one, just check out Wikipedia to know your beliefs are held by a very small minority of scholars:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel

Just some points from there:

Quote
    Mark: c. 68–73,[35] c. 65–70.[36]

    Matthew: c. 70–100,[35] c. 80–85.[36]

    Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[35] c. 80–85.[36]

    John: c. 90–100,[36] c. 90–110,[37] The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.

QuoteThe gospel of Peter was likely written in the first half of the 2nd century.[

Quote[for Thomas] a few scholars argue that its first edition was written c. 50–60, but that the surviving edition was written in the first half of the 2nd century.[81] This would mean that its first edition was contemporary with the earliest letters of Paul the Apostle. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church says that the original may date from c. 150.[82] It may represent a tradition independent from the canonical gospels, but that developed over a long time and was influenced by Matthew and Luke.[82]

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 16, 2013, 10:16:43 AM
Correctly dating ANY of the gospels - canonical or not - is far from a secure science.  Even more dubious is drawing any kind of firm conclusion about what predecessor texts or oral traditions might have existed prior to the canonical gospels reaching something close to their present day form. A claim as to the primacy of the canonical gospels as a carrier of some kind of uniquely  authentic tradition is theological, not historical.

While coming up with a very specific date is likely impossible, approximate dating is not as difficult as you may be claiming.  There are a number of tools in the scholars' arsenal, including theological maturity of the text, influences from other sources and so on, that can be used in the process. That is why the canonical gospels are generally agreed to have been written before the gnostic ones.  The sole exception to this that most scholars agree upon is the existence of the so-called Q (German for "Quelle") which contained some sayings of Jesus that may have informed the writing of the synoptic gospels.

There can be no doubt that each of the canonical gospels was influenced to some degree by oral tradition, since even the earliest was written several decades after the death of Christ.  Nevertheless, at least as the synoptic gospels are concerned, they seem to bare enough core similarities and have been written earlier to have a greater claim toward being authentic than later texts influenced by other traditions.

Quote from: grumbler on September 17, 2013, 06:19:55 AM

Quote from: Tamas on September 16, 2013, 07:03:10 PM
I must admit I regret participating in this thread. Just started as trolling, but looks like a lot of you are much more into the whole religion thing / too insecure in beliefs and drew offense over it. I am sorry.

Your whole approach to this is wrong.  I don't have religious beliefs because I don't believe in magic of any kind.    However, I don't feel any need to bash those who do believe in magic, of any stripe, and I acknowledge that I have met many believers who are sincere and do a great deal of what I consider "objective good" (including doing favors for my ailing, magic-believing parents).

If you want to make an effective argument against a believer, use what I call the Berkut Argument (because he expressed it most clearly here): point out that their beliefs are actually 99.99+% identical to yours - they are disbelievers in millions of gods/magical beings and all the associated stories; the only (and trivial) difference is that they make exceptions to their general disbelief in magic, and you do not.

This will highlight the similarities between beliefs and mitigate the effects of the differences.  Since they are so much like you, you need no longer feel contempt for believers.

Well the contempt thing was in Raz`s head. And I judged that argument as often used and thus well known.  :sleep:

Tamas, it's obvious that you've got substantial issues regarding the topic of religion.  Your young heart is full of hate and cynicism, lost in the wilderness. 
I want you to know: we're all here for you.

Quote from: Tamas on September 17, 2013, 06:33:36 AM
And I judged that argument as often used and thus well known.  :sleep: 

And I judged that there was a very good reason only a Marti would use the "The Hobbit is as historically accurate as The Bible" argument.  :P

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2013, 06:36:32 AM
Tamas, it's obvious that you've got substantial issues regarding the topic of religion.  Your young heart is full of hate and cynicism, lost in the wilderness. 
I want you to know: we're all here for you.

I am NOT going into the confession booth with you, old man.

Quote from: Tamas on September 17, 2013, 06:38:16 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2013, 06:36:32 AM
Tamas, it's obvious that you've got substantial issues regarding the topic of religion.  Your young heart is full of hate and cynicism, lost in the wilderness. 
I want you to know: we're all here for you.

I am NOT going into the confession booth with you, old man.

But I'm playing Enigma in the background.

Everyone in this thread should stop arguing and go play this game, because it is fucking cool as shit:

http://www.cardhunter.com/

Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on September 17, 2013, 06:27:56 AM
There can be no doubt that each of the canonical gospels was influenced to some degree by oral tradition, since even the earliest was written several decades after the death of Christ.  Nevertheless, at least as the synoptic gospels are concerned, they seem to bare enough core similarities and have been written earlier to have a greater claim toward being authentic than later texts influenced by other traditions.

All the texts are authentic - IIRC no one claims the Nag Hammadi texts are forgeries.
The similarities between the synoptics do suggest they came out of a similar textual tradition.  That doesn't give them a higher claim to authenticity or priority. 

Quote from: Tamas on September 17, 2013, 06:33:36 AM

Quote from: grumbler on September 17, 2013, 06:19:55 AM

Quote from: Tamas on September 16, 2013, 07:03:10 PM
I must admit I regret participating in this thread. Just started as trolling, but looks like a lot of you are much more into the whole religion thing / too insecure in beliefs and drew offense over it. I am sorry.

Your whole approach to this is wrong.  I don't have religious beliefs because I don't believe in magic of any kind.    However, I don't feel any need to bash those who do believe in magic, of any stripe, and I acknowledge that I have met many believers who are sincere and do a great deal of what I consider "objective good" (including doing favors for my ailing, magic-believing parents).

If you want to make an effective argument against a believer, use what I call the Berkut Argument (because he expressed it most clearly here): point out that their beliefs are actually 99.99+% identical to yours - they are disbelievers in millions of gods/magical beings and all the associated stories; the only (and trivial) difference is that they make exceptions to their general disbelief in magic, and you do not.

This will highlight the similarities between beliefs and mitigate the effects of the differences.  Since they are so much like you, you need no longer feel contempt for believers.

Well the contempt thing was in Raz`s head. And I judged that argument as often used and thus well known.  :sleep:

Contempt was Garbon's word.  You simply said that it was your theme.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2013, 06:36:32 AM
Tamas, it's obvious that you've got substantial issues regarding the topic of religion.  Your young heart is full of hate and cynicism, lost in the wilderness. 
I want you to know: we're all here for you.

:w00t:  Prayer Circle!!!

Quote from: derspiess on September 17, 2013, 03:19:02 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2013, 06:36:32 AM
Tamas, it's obvious that you've got substantial issues regarding the topic of religion.  Your young heart is full of hate and cynicism, lost in the wilderness. 
I want you to know: we're all here for you.

:w00t:  Prayer Circle!!!

I'll send him a Robert Tilton prayer cloth.

Quote from: grumbler on September 17, 2013, 06:19:55 AM

Quote from: Tamas on September 16, 2013, 07:03:10 PM
I must admit I regret participating in this thread. Just started as trolling, but looks like a lot of you are much more into the whole religion thing / too insecure in beliefs and drew offense over it. I am sorry.

Your whole approach to this is wrong.  I don't have religious beliefs because I don't believe in magic of any kind.    However, I don't feel any need to bash those who do believe in magic, of any stripe, and I acknowledge that I have met many believers who are sincere and do a great deal of what I consider "objective good" (including doing favors for my ailing, magic-believing parents).

If you want to make an effective argument against a believer, use what I call the Berkut Argument (because he expressed it most clearly here): point out that their beliefs are actually 99.99+% identical to yours - they are disbelievers in millions of gods/magical beings and all the associated stories; the only (and trivial) difference is that they make exceptions to their general disbelief in magic, and you do not.

This will highlight the similarities between beliefs and mitigate the effects of the differences.  Since they are so much like you, you need no longer feel contempt for believers.

This is untrue, you do believe in magic.  When I first started showing signs of sciatica, you were among the people suggesting seeing a chiropractor, claiming that it worked for you (this was shortly before you decided you so much better then me, you didn't need to talk to me).  The thing is, chiropractic medicine is based on the ideas of life forces and universal and innate intelligences that reflect 19th century spiritualism.  It is a then, a magical discipline.

Quote from: Razgovory on September 19, 2013, 11:20:05 PM

Quote from: grumbler on September 17, 2013, 06:19:55 AM

Quote from: Tamas on September 16, 2013, 07:03:10 PM
I must admit I regret participating in this thread. Just started as trolling, but looks like a lot of you are much more into the whole religion thing / too insecure in beliefs and drew offense over it. I am sorry.

Your whole approach to this is wrong.  I don't have religious beliefs because I don't believe in magic of any kind.    However, I don't feel any need to bash those who do believe in magic, of any stripe, and I acknowledge that I have met many believers who are sincere and do a great deal of what I consider "objective good" (including doing favors for my ailing, magic-believing parents).

If you want to make an effective argument against a believer, use what I call the Berkut Argument (because he expressed it most clearly here): point out that their beliefs are actually 99.99+% identical to yours - they are disbelievers in millions of gods/magical beings and all the associated stories; the only (and trivial) difference is that they make exceptions to their general disbelief in magic, and you do not.

This will highlight the similarities between beliefs and mitigate the effects of the differences.  Since they are so much like you, you need no longer feel contempt for believers.

This is untrue, you do believe in magic.  When I first started showing signs of sciatica, you were among the people suggesting seeing a chiropractor, claiming that it worked for you (this was shortly before you decided you so much better then me, you didn't need to talk to me).  The thing is, chiropractic medicine is based on the ideas of life forces and universal and innate intelligences that reflect 19th century spiritualism.  It is a then, a magical discipline.

[God, please forgive me for defending both chiropractic medicine and grumbler (who I like, but find his argumentative style annoying)]

Reporting that something works is different from reporting that something's claims are valid.  I know a few people who claim that chiros have helped them.  Maybe it's just the placebo effect.  Maybe there's some therapeutic value in massage/manipulation that is less that whats chiros claim, but still exists.

Grumbler saying "Hey, a chiro really helped me" doesn't mean he accepts as gospel everything they claim.  In fact when I linked an anti-chiro article to him all he said was "boy am I glad I got better before I read your article".

Quote from: Barrister on September 20, 2013, 12:18:47 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on September 19, 2013, 11:20:05 PM

Quote from: grumbler on September 17, 2013, 06:19:55 AM

Quote from: Tamas on September 16, 2013, 07:03:10 PM
I must admit I regret participating in this thread. Just started as trolling, but looks like a lot of you are much more into the whole religion thing / too insecure in beliefs and drew offense over it. I am sorry.

Your whole approach to this is wrong.  I don't have religious beliefs because I don't believe in magic of any kind.    However, I don't feel any need to bash those who do believe in magic, of any stripe, and I acknowledge that I have met many believers who are sincere and do a great deal of what I consider "objective good" (including doing favors for my ailing, magic-believing parents).

If you want to make an effective argument against a believer, use what I call the Berkut Argument (because he expressed it most clearly here): point out that their beliefs are actually 99.99+% identical to yours - they are disbelievers in millions of gods/magical beings and all the associated stories; the only (and trivial) difference is that they make exceptions to their general disbelief in magic, and you do not.

This will highlight the similarities between beliefs and mitigate the effects of the differences.  Since they are so much like you, you need no longer feel contempt for believers.

This is untrue, you do believe in magic.  When I first started showing signs of sciatica, you were among the people suggesting seeing a chiropractor, claiming that it worked for you (this was shortly before you decided you so much better then me, you didn't need to talk to me).  The thing is, chiropractic medicine is based on the ideas of life forces and universal and innate intelligences that reflect 19th century spiritualism.  It is a then, a magical discipline.

[God, please forgive me for defending both chiropractic medicine and grumbler (who I like, but find his argumentative style annoying)]

Reporting that something works is different from reporting that something's claims are valid.  I know a few people who claim that chiros have helped them.  Maybe it's just the placebo effect.  Maybe there's some therapeutic value in massage/manipulation that is less that whats chiros claim, but still exists.

Grumbler saying "Hey, a chiro really helped me" doesn't mean he accepts as gospel everything they claim.  In fact when I linked an anti-chiro article to him all he said was "boy am I glad I got better before I read your article".

So you are saying Grumblers' endorsement of magic does not stem from belief from magic per se, but just his inability to tell the difference between magic and reality?

Quote from: Razgovory on September 20, 2013, 12:44:02 AM
So you are saying Grumblers' endorsement of magic does not stem from belief from magic per se, but just his inability to tell the difference between magic and reality?

No he is saying that something can work for reasons different from those proposed by its theoreticians.
For example, the theory behind supply side economics is mostly bunk; nonetheless tax cuts can still benefit a depressed economy.

Quote from: Razgovory on September 20, 2013, 12:44:02 AM
So you are saying Grumblers' endorsement of magic does not stem from belief from magic per se, but just his inability to tell the difference between magic and reality?

No that is not what I am saying.

Grumbler once saved himself from a tyrannosaur with a timely fireball spell.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 20, 2013, 09:23:34 AM
Grumbler once saved himself from a tyrannosaur with a timely fireball spell.

But only because his back was sufficiently aligned to allow the essence to flow through him with enough force to generate the spell.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 20, 2013, 09:01:08 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on September 20, 2013, 12:44:02 AM
So you are saying Grumblers' endorsement of magic does not stem from belief from magic per se, but just his inability to tell the difference between magic and reality?

No he is saying that something can work for reasons different from those proposed by its theoreticians.
For example, the theory behind supply side economics is mostly bunk; nonetheless tax cuts can still benefit a depressed economy.

I think Grumbler can defend himself. :sleep:

Quote from: Razgovory on September 20, 2013, 02:53:06 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 20, 2013, 09:01:08 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on September 20, 2013, 12:44:02 AM
So you are saying Grumblers' endorsement of magic does not stem from belief from magic per se, but just his inability to tell the difference between magic and reality?

No he is saying that something can work for reasons different from those proposed by its theoreticians.
For example, the theory behind supply side economics is mostly bunk; nonetheless tax cuts can still benefit a depressed economy.

I think Grumbler can defend himself. :sleep:

His reader is defective so no, I dont think he can.

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 20, 2013, 02:54:58 PM
His reader is defective He is smart so no, I dont think he can needs to.

FYP. I follow napoleon's precept, and never interrupt an enemy while he is making a mistake.

Quote from: grumbler on September 20, 2013, 06:37:54 PM
FYP. I follow napoleon's precept, and never interrupt an enemy while he is making a mistake.

Did you happen to meet the fellow?

I guess that explains why Grumbler was marooned on that island for all those years when in the Navy.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 20, 2013, 06:40:19 PM

Quote from: grumbler on September 20, 2013, 06:37:54 PM
FYP. I follow napoleon's precept, and never interrupt an enemy while he is making a mistake.

Did you happen to meet the fellow?

Meet him?  Who do you think taught that saying to him?

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 20, 2013, 06:40:19 PM
Did you happen to meet the fellow?

No, but I reviewed his book.  :bowler:

Quote from: grumbler on September 20, 2013, 07:05:45 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 20, 2013, 06:40:19 PM
Did you happen to meet the fellow?

No, but I reviewed his book.  :bowler:

That magnificent bastard!