THE POPE

[Rehab]

Though I don't actually know how widely the opinion is held, I also read an article in the March 9, 2013 issue of The Economist that claimed a group calling itself the Association of Catholic Priests, which claims to represent 2 million Irish people who attend mass once a month, is "campaigning for 'inclusive ministry' (code for women priests)," so I assume it's at least something of a point of contention within the church itself, as well.

Edited March 18, 2013 by Rehab

[Narga_Rocks]

@Narga: What, so people aren't allowed to say that they'd like a form of the Catholic Church less strictly tied to the word of the Bible? Considering the fact that Christianity itself was essentially a modernizing of Judaism to appeal to Roman society, I don't see what's wrong with Christianity continuing to grow in its understanding of the mission of Christ. The story of the Church is one of reconciling the timeless moral decrees of God with the understanding of morality brought to mankind by its own historical experience. The Church has grown and changed in time. There's no reason to fear that process.

Furthermore you're willfully misinterpreting what Rehab said. At no point did he say the Church should do X, only that he would like them more if they did X. Acting like Rehab (or anyone else criticizing the Church) is demanding that the Church change is completely disingenuous, and the attacking attitude carried with it completely counterproductive. Outsider opinions ought to be welcomed; the Church's primary issue in the Western world is its rapid loss in appeal over the past few decades, and so the first step in the solution would be to listen to what those outside the Church feel about it. No one said the Church has to do what the outsiders suggest, but when your organization is by definition needing to appeal to them, it's foolish to brush them off and act like their thought processes don't make sense and aren't worth considering.

@bold: say what?

@italics: let me quote myself

if you were to be intellectually honest about it all I wouldn't mind

I was quite clear that I have no issues with people wanting the Catholic Church to be non-Christian as long as they admit this is what they are asking for

@rest: fine, he didn't say they should do X, that was bad wording on my part. You might notice that some of my post had phrases like "if only these people would reject their beliefs but still purport to believe then I'd like them more" which is basically what he is saying in different words. I realize I shouldn't have messed up in the rest of my post where I suggested he was saying they should do X rather than he would like them more if they did X.

Though I don't actually know how widely the opinion is held, I also read an article in the March 9, 2013 issue of The Economist that claimed a group calling itself the Association of Catholic Priests, which claims to represent 2 million Irish people who attend mass once a month, is "campaigning for 'inclusive ministry' (code for women priests)," so I assume it's at least something of a point of contention within the church itself, as well.

It's definitely a point of contention, but there are lots of things inside various churches that are already non-biblical, including existing orthodoxies and other things allowing women pastors. My point is merely that the further away from the Bible a church goes, the less and less right they have to call themselves Christian. They should just go and create a new word for it. And to say that you'd like them more if they do X when X is clearly non-Biblical is similar to saying you'd like them more if they were less Christian. And again, let me state this clearly one more time, I don't have a problem with that statement. If you'd like them more if they were less Christian, that's your business. I just want a little bit of recognition in you that this is what you are saying.

Edited March 18, 2013 by Narga_Rocks

[PresidentEden]

@bold: say what?

I figured that was going to be the controversial part. Roman morality and Roman society were both very different from the tribal predecessors of the ancient world. "Modernized" isn't meant to be normative, only positive -- not judging that Roman morality is better than tribal Middle Eastern morality, simply that it's different and had changed through time and experience. Christianity started out as an incredibly progressive sect of Judaism that eventually branched off into its own thing; explaining precisely how would take a dissertation, but suffice to say that Christianity reflected a new understanding of God from the relatively more tolerant Roman perspective that clearly sprinted far away from the vengeful understanding of the Old Testament. Throughout the centuries the Church has changed with the times; as societal understanding has changed, the Church has with it, and the Church's understandings, in time, augment society's. It's something to be welcomed. The position that I take (and which is reflected in responses like Rehab's) is that the Church would do well for itself and for society if it would change its understanding of specific issues, like women's ordination, contraception, gay marriage, etc. to reflect societal understandings on the issues, in light of its history as an evolving connection between society and God. It doesn't have to change its fundamental essence, and I highly doubt anyone could credibly argue that change on any of these issues would reflect such a fundamental change.

@italics: let me quote myself

if you were to be intellectually honest about it all I wouldn't mind

I was quite clear that I have no issues with people wanting the Catholic Church to be non-Christian as long as they admit this is what they are asking for

But we're not. We don't see changes on these issues to be non-Christian. The opinion of Paul, though certainly valuable within the Church, is by no means the absolute word of God on the issue. Jesus's teachings, as I understand, do not have anything decisive to say on those issues. There's no reason to interpret the contrary-to-Church position as contrary-to-Christianity.

[Rehab]

One part of me says: I confess I don't know how crucial that particular belief is to Catholicism. In fact, it got me to thinking about what makes one Christian. Is believing and following everything the relevant texts necessary to being a Christian? Does believing/following less than 100% of all the given beliefs make one less than 100% of a Christian? Is that indeed what I'm asking for?

Another, more asshole part of me says: What's the point of being Christian? Is it that only men can be ordained? If so, sure, I think it'd be neat if they were less Christian.

Honestly, I don't know either way whether (or to what degree) one's identity hinging on somebody else's words is made less like itself if one chooses to ignore some of those words, but it can really come off to me as kind of a silly argument to me if it's taken to the fullest degree possible. Like, did Christianity become less Christian when it allowed for heliocentrism, and again later for evolution? Can something written as a rule in the text contradict the message of Christianity? Does the point of being Christian depend so much on holding everything in all the texts to be law, that claiming one of the things written is contradictory to either some other specific rule or the greater point, and/or is simply outdated overall, is un-Christian?

And if I can't decide for myself the extent to which these questions are rhetorical, how is anybody else going to make sense of them? (this one's more of a thought experiment unto itself)

So as you can see, I am in way over my head here. I hope you don't take me to be speaking in bad faith, though, them's my fightin' words

Edited March 18, 2013 by Rehab

[Narga_Rocks]

But we're not. We don't see changes on these issues to be non-Christian. The opinion of Paul, though certainly valuable within the Church, is by no means the absolute word of God on the issue. Jesus's teachings, as I understand, do not have anything decisive to say on those issues. There's no reason to interpret the contrary-to-Church position as contrary-to-Christianity.

But what is Christianity? If one believes Jesus to be the Son of God, does it make sense for the Bible to yet be errant? And if the Bible is errant, then there is no "Jesus's teachings" or at least, none that we know to be his true teachings. Nightmare can correct me on this if I am wrong, but I believe the Quran has some quotes from Jesus, the Bible has some quotes, and then Josephus probably has some statements about what Jesus said, though I've never looked into his works much so maybe he just talks about Him but doesn't have any potential quotes. Either way, how do we know any of those are what he actually said? Josephus was born after Jesus dies, so he can only take the word of others on what Christ said even if he recorded anything. So basically, without these sources we know that He probably existed and died on a cross, but there is not much in the way of His teachings nor is there any power to His death.

My point being, if you discount Paul's words I don't see how you don't discount the entirety of Christ, at which point is there a reason for the Church's continued existence? Christianity is tied to every word in the Bible. I don't see how you can claim one without the other. Suggesting that the Catholic Church throws out parts of Scripture that society doesn't like without throwing out all of it doesn't make sense to me. Or let's say for the sake of argument that the Bible does accurately represent Christ's important words but the rest of Scripture does not accurately represent God's will for the world. Possibly justified by some statement like "the elders who were alive to hear Jesus' teachings would be able to veto anything written that was inaccurate, and thus Jesus' teachings are accurately represented but Paul's writings are just his opinions so nobody bothered to dispute those." So what then? Christianity is defined to be adherence to Christ's teachings and nothing else in the Bible? Then would Christianity be like half-agnostic, if that makes any sense? Basically, God didn't bother to write a book for us so we can't really know what He wants, oh but He came down and did some stuff so yay Him, but then He allowed this book to be written and accredited to Him but really only like half of it has any connection to Him anyway and it's hard to tell beyond the quotes from Christ what is Man's opinion and what parts God might actually agree with. That's not exactly the best advertisement I've ever heard.

I figured that was going to be the controversial part. Roman morality and Roman society were both very different from the tribal predecessors of the ancient world. "Modernized" isn't meant to be normative, only positive -- not judging that Roman morality is better than tribal Middle Eastern morality, simply that it's different and had changed through time and experience. Christianity started out as an incredibly progressive sect of Judaism that eventually branched off into its own thing; explaining precisely how would take a dissertation, but suffice to say that Christianity reflected a new understanding of God from the relatively more tolerant Roman perspective that clearly sprinted far away from the vengeful understanding of the Old Testament. Throughout the centuries the Church has changed with the times; as societal understanding has changed, the Church has with it, and the Church's understandings, in time, augment society's. It's something to be welcomed. The position that I take (and which is reflected in responses like Rehab's) is that the Church would do well for itself and for society if it would change its understanding of specific issues, like women's ordination, contraception, gay marriage, etc. to reflect societal understandings on the issues, in light of its history as an evolving connection between society and God. It doesn't have to change its fundamental essence, and I highly doubt anyone could credibly argue that change on any of these issues would reflect such a fundamental change.

I'd buy this more if the New Testament wasn't written entirely by Jews. Additionally, Revelation and Jesus' teachings on Hell suggest that God is every bit as vengeful as he was in the Old Testament, He's just now willing to let things go until people die before said vengence is brought forth. Well, up until the time of Christ's return. The timing is different from things like obliterating Sodom and Gomorrah or Noah's Ark (although the Old Testament has the promise to not do that again anyway) or the many times God allowed Israel to be taken over, but He's still the same God in both Testaments. There are multiple illustrations of God's grace in the Old Testament, just as there are instances of God's wrath in the New Testament.

One part of me says: I confess I don't know how crucial that particular belief is to Catholicism. In fact, it got me to thinking about what makes one Christian. Is believing and following everything the relevant texts necessary to being a Christian? Does believing/following less than 100% of all the given beliefs make one less than 100% of a Christian? Is that indeed what I'm asking for?

It's not about any particular belief being more important than others. Most Christians that I've met consider the Bible to be 100%. Also, that's one of the things the Catholics believe, I think. In essence, you are asking the Catholics to change a fundamental principle of their religion. Not that other churches haven't done just that, imo. However, I believe most churches that have diverged from the majority (soon to be minority, at this rate) still believe to be following the Bible 100% they just interpret certain things differently. The question there is what is a reasonable interpretation and what isn't. Personally I think some interpretations are more like concessions to society rather than solid interpretations of the Word.

Another, more asshole part of me says: What's the point of being Christian? Is it that only men can be ordained? If so, sure, I think it'd be neat if they were less Christian.

It's not that this is the point, more that this is a consequence of being Christian. To be Christian is generally perceived as to follow the Bible. And part of the Bible involves the idea that women shouldn't be on the pulpit. Or at least, not when there are men in the audience. Why? Well it doesn't exactly say. It also doesn't say that women shouldn't be running certain parts of a church or that they shouldn't be teaching other women or whatever. Of course, men in power have used this part to prevent women from having any authority at all, which is not in the Bible as near as I can tell. But the main point here is the whole ordained women thing.

Honestly, I don't know either way whether (or to what degree) one's identity hinging on somebody else's words is made less like itself if one chooses to ignore some of those words, but it can really come off to me as kind of a silly argument to me if it's taken to the fullest degree possible. Like, did Christianity become less Christian when it allowed for heliocentrism,

Not in the Bible that the sun rotates around the earth.

and again later for evolution?

Lots of Churches reject evolution still.

Can something written as a rule in the text contradict the message of Christianity?

You mean the message of Christianity is X and the message of the Bible is Y and X =/= Y? I don't think the message of Christianity is anything different from the message of the Bible. Now, a lot of people would like to say that Christ's message to the world is different from what the rest of the Bible says, I suppose, but that statement doesn't make sense to me.

Does the point of being Christian depend so much on holding everything in all the texts to be law, that claiming one of the things written is contradictory to either some other specific rule or the greater point, and/or is simply outdated overall, is un-Christian?

I believe the answer you are looking for is "yes", though perhaps not all "Christians" would agree with me. There could be some out there that are happy to pick and choose from scripture and still call themselves Christian.

So as you can see, I am in way over my head here. I hope you don't take me to be speaking in bad faith, though, them's my fightin' words

You've solved the whole bad faith problem by expressing uncertainty over what you are asking of Catholics. And stating that you think it would be neat if they were less-Christian. That's actually the main thing I wanted to see, anyway.

[Liz]

on a slightly unrelated topic from the previous conversation, I have come back from Mexicanland with news on the response of the Latino media to the news of a new Latino pope.

the way they're going off about it, it's like the Argentinan pope is the best idea ever since sliced bread.

they're constantly proclaiming how Pope Francis I is the first pope ever who happens to be a Jesuit, which is apparently big big news for the poor peoples of the Catholic faith and a big shift in the Church's stance of its role in social manners. for those of you uninformed of the Jesuits, essentially, the Jesuits are an organization of priests who are attempting to shift the church's teachings into something "through eyes of the poor." they're all down for church reform. So really, they focus on Jesus's teachings when it comes to aiding the poor, fighting corruption within the church's bureaucracy and hypocrisy when it comes to certain theological issues, and a slightly more emphasized missionary focus for converting the suffering of the world.

in other words, expect less monies going into the Vatican and more going to help the needy in third world countries.

Pope Francis essentially threatened this when he chose Francis as his moniker. St Francis of Assisi was a man from back in the middle ages, who decided to give up his wealthy and luxurious life in order to preach the word of God to the poor and destitute on the streets. and that seems to be the new pope's goal for the new and reformed catholic church is to become closer to what Jesus envisioned and taught.

also, it seems that Pope Francis, for the completely fabulous name that he chose for himself, also happens to have surprisingly huge testicular fortitude. he seems to do whatever the fuck he wants, like riding the bus instead of taking the personal limousine available to him. i'm sure people already have a headache with whatever the fuck he's planning on doing next.

apparently, all of Latin America loves him already, and if the Latino-centered media outlets in the USA are any indication, he is also loved by the Catholic Latino community here in the US of A. he might just possibly replace John Paul II as the Papal darling, since Francis essentially is appealing to the poor of the world or something of the sort.

[PresidentEden]

If one believes Jesus to be the Son of God, does it make sense for the Bible to yet be errant?

Sure it does. After all, y'all believe Judaism to be incomplete -- a form of error -- and yet still believe the Jewish God to be God. There's no logic preventing the Bible from being in error that also necessarily demands that Jesus is also not God/the Son of God. I do of course grant that there is no logic that would validate such a claim either, but then there's no logic that would validate the positive claim that Jesus is the divine or even that the divine exists. Christianity expects that one take the validity of Jesus and God as divine on faith. That there are dozens of denominations with differing rules, including, for instance, rules on the ordination of women, should be evidence enough that Christianity can be interpreted differently from the Church.

My point being, if you discount Paul's words I don't see how you don't discount the entirety of Christ, at which point is there a reason for the Church's continued existence?

Sure there is! The primary purpose of any faith is to provide spiritual and philosophical guidance to men and women struggling to make sense of this senseless world. In that respect many atheists, including myself, give Jesus a lot of credit as a philosopher for his fundamental message of love for all humanity in an era of senseless murder and hatred. Even though I do not literally accept the statement that love is the divine (due to a lack of belief in the literal existence of the divine), I certainly accept the implications of the centrality of love and empathy in human interaction, and while Christianity was likely not the first source of such a central conceptualization of love for others, it was definitely my first source of it. It would be foolish to discount that. I left the faith due to positive concerns about the existence of the deities in question -- and the absolute demand by the faith of unquestioned acceptance of their existence -- not because I felt its fundamental normative prescriptions were wrong.

As for the logic behind being able to discount Paul as being flawed and not the entire concept of Christ, again, I do acknowledge that there's no independent proof of that as much. The point, though, is that one doesn't have to prove that. We know both that (a) it is logically possible for Paul to have gotten some things wrong and for Christ to have existed mostly as described in the Bible [accounting for any changes that would come from discounting parts of Paul], and (b) we are not able to prove without a shadow of a doubt any of this to be true or false. There is no more logically compelling reason based on our knowledge of the Bible to accept either hypothesis over the other.

So what then? Christianity is defined to be adherence to Christ's teachings and nothing else in the Bible?

Yes and no. The way to look at the Bible (as I see it, anyway) and Christianity is that the Bible consists of all of the positive analysis -- the facts -- of the religion while the wealth of non-Biblical influence on the faith is the normative analysis. The former is meant to be timeless; it is interpreted through the ages by successive generations, informed by their own experiences of the world, to produce the latter. If I were to try to build a coherent, informative faith that stood for something and yet allowed itself to mature and grow through time, I would strip away everything but Christ's teachings from the Bible and leave only his teachings as the sole positive fact. The rest of the New Testament would be that normative interpretation of the first century; it would certainly be valuable and worthy of being preserved for future generations, but rejection of it due to a belief that it is dated and not insightful for the modern era would not be a slight on the faith itself, simply an acknowledgment that it has successfully grown through the ages. It is a thing to be celebrated, not feared.

I'd buy this more if the New Testament wasn't written entirely by Jews.

What's not to be bought? I did say Christianity started off as a Jewish sect. It eventually became too divergent in its progressive outlook (for the time) that a formal split was necessary. Martin Luther didn't consider himself a non-Catholic when he hammered the Theses to the door, only that he was attempting to 'update' Christian understanding to match present circumstances. Likewise the Jews that eventually became the founding fathers of Christianity doubtless did not think of themselves as Christians, but as reformist Jews attempting to update Judaism for the Roman era.

and re: OT/NT God, I'd prefer not to have to go scripture-mining, but in short, the NT God would be horrified at the concept of unleashing genocide on those of a different faith, the concept of seizing women in war as wives (read: sexual slavery), and a slew of other concepts that the OT God either allowed (sex slavery) or outright commanded of his people (genocide against Canaan). The trend in the NT is undoubtedly God as Love instead of the OT's God as Wrath.