Costello Catholic References

Pretty self-explanatory
User avatar
Boy With A Problem
Posts: 2714
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2003 9:41 pm
Location: Inside the Pocket of a Clown

Postby Boy With A Problem » Tue Nov 29, 2005 6:11 pm

noiseradio also wrote -


there is no text that says "women can't vote"



My research shows that there are a couple, at least, that certainly don't encourage participation -


1 Timothy 2:11

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.


1 Corinthians 14:34

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
Everyone just needs to fuckin’ relax. Smoke more weed, the world is ending.

User avatar
noiseradio
Posts: 2295
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 12:04 pm
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:

Postby noiseradio » Tue Nov 29, 2005 6:42 pm

Boy With A Problem wrote:
Not exactly "blacks", but as I understand it, the bible very much condones slavery.



This is an area of much controversy in Christian scholarship, and I'm sure I won't settle it. But, it should be pointed out that the word translated most often as "slave" is much more accurately rendered "indentured servant." It was quite common for people to sell themselves into periodic labor in the ancient world, and this almost always had a time limit. The similarity between that and the slavery of the modern era (by which I mean the last 600-700 years) is quite different. The English word "slave" comes from "slav," and it stems from the treatment of slavic people, who were treated differently enough from traditional servitude that a new word had to be coined to describe it. In short, the ancient Greek word for slave and the modern English word for slave mean two different things.

I'm not blind to the fact that there are uncomfortable implications in the passages you quote, even in the context of indentured servitude. But please also note that an entire book of the Bible--Philemon--is devoted to pointing out why slavery should be ended. It's a letter from Paul to Philemon urging him to release Onesimus from his indentured servitude. It goes so far as to state flatly that even though Philemon has legal rights to treat Onesimus as property he should refrain from doing so and free him, treating min instead as a brother. This kind of servitude was a fact of life in the ancient world. Paul told people in servitude that they were legally obligated to obey those they had pledged servise to. But he told the "masters" (again--totally different context than the US version) that they should recognize the equality of their servants and free them. "There is neither male nor female, Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free. But all are equal in Christ Jesus."

As for the women keeping silnt thing, that's the most abused verse in the Bible in churches today, as far as I'm concerned. Both instances that you cite are written to churches in Greek cities (Corinth and Kusadasi). In these cities, regular city-wide assemblies were held which only men could attend. This wasn't church doctrine; it was local law. You have to look at those comments in the full context of the letters they're in. In a long list of things Paul is telling the Corinthian Christians they need to do, he says that women should keep silent in the assemblies. The Greek word there is NOT churches. It's assemblies. These are secular meetings of the Corinthians, at which it was illegal for women to speak. Paul is basically telling the Corinthians that they must still obey the laws of the land. This is clear when you look a few chapters back to the instructions Paul gives for what goes on in the actual meetings of the church. There, he gives instructions for women and men praying and prophesying in church. If he's telling women how to speak in that section (chapter 11 or 12, I think), then he can't very well expect silence a few paragraphs later. Those letters have to be read as a whole to be really understood. If you pick verses out of context, you can make them say whatever you want (which Christian scholars do all the time).

The letter to Timothy addresses a specific concern with a specific group of believers in Kusadasi at a specific time and place. There were women there who were teaching things that were incorrect (at least Paul thought so). His instructions to Timothy were for that moment, and should never have been understood as an edict for all time. Indeed, they are written in the present tense, and Paul makes it pretty clear in that letter that Timothy is dealing with a strange situation that will get corrected and then be over. Those instructions have a time limit on them.

Lots of nice, well-intentioned people will disagree with me on all that. And that's cool. But I think these are much misunderstood and misused verses. Certainly misunderstood.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
--William Shakespeare

verena
Posts: 373
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 7:39 pm
Location: At the other end of the story

Postby verena » Tue Nov 29, 2005 6:59 pm

Concerning women Boy With a Wife Who's Got a Problem Boy : If you're looking in that direction the Koran is somewhat better. :wink:

As far as I can remember, Jesus (reportedly) never preached anything concerning the matter of sex. About his own life nothing is known.
(Isn't John mentionned, somewhere in the New Testament, as "the disciple whom Jesus loved" ? But go figure what that meant).

User avatar
Boy With A Problem
Posts: 2714
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2003 9:41 pm
Location: Inside the Pocket of a Clown

Postby Boy With A Problem » Tue Nov 29, 2005 7:09 pm

noiseradio -

Here's the rub - arguments similar to yours can be made regarding homosexuality. check this site out -

http://www.truluck.com/html/six_bible_p ... enesis19:5

It seems to me that Christianity is like a buffet - just choose the things you like - skip the green beans and go straight for the macaroni and cheese.

Another on re endentured servants -

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)


Really. This is brutal fucking stuff.
Everyone just needs to fuckin’ relax. Smoke more weed, the world is ending.

User avatar
Otis Westinghouse
Posts: 8856
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 3:32 pm
Location: The theatre of dreams

Postby Otis Westinghouse » Tue Nov 29, 2005 7:47 pm

They keep dishing up confused pillocks on the Today programme who split the hairs over how the church (both C of E and Catholic) accepts homosexuals but not that they can do anything about it. Unless they're priests, in which case there's a well-established tradition of how they can put it about. And not just in Ireland or the US, as the recent revelation of Cardinal Basil Hume covering up abuse at top Catholic English school Ampleforth revealed:

http://www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/ViewArt ... ID=1258869
There's more to life than books, you know, but not much more

BlondTrophyWife
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 6:20 pm
Location: Sunny California

Postby BlondTrophyWife » Tue Nov 29, 2005 8:04 pm

I'm really tired of news reports associating the gay issue with the sexual abuse of children issue. They are not related. Men and women, homosexual or heterosexual, do not prey on children for sexual gratification unless they are pedophiles. I don't care how sexually repressed they are.

User avatar
Otis Westinghouse
Posts: 8856
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 3:32 pm
Location: The theatre of dreams

Postby Otis Westinghouse » Tue Nov 29, 2005 8:24 pm

So how come child abuse is incredibly rife among the Catholic priesthood in a way that simply doesn't happen in other religions? Of course it's tied up with enforced celibacy which is based on the notion of sex as evil and therefore directly connected with the ultimate taboo of practising it with those who are most innocent.
There's more to life than books, you know, but not much more

selfmademug

Postby selfmademug » Tue Nov 29, 2005 8:51 pm

I think you've answered your own question, Otis. And BTW the research bears you out; the priest in the article I cited above says more or less the same thing, as well. I was imprecise the way I put it earlier, but I entirely agree with you.

User avatar
noiseradio
Posts: 2295
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 12:04 pm
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:

Postby noiseradio » Tue Nov 29, 2005 10:17 pm

Boy With A Problem wrote:noiseradio -

Here's the rub - arguments similar to yours can be made regarding homosexuality. check this site out -

http://www.truluck.com/html/six_bible_p ... enesis19:5

It seems to me that Christianity is like a buffet - just choose the things you like - skip the green beans and go straight for the macaroni and cheese.

Another on re endentured servants -

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)


Really. This is brutal fucking stuff.


Obviously people can argue whatever they want. I don't generally get into theological arguments anymore. And I'm really not trying to argue or prove any particular point here. I'll only point out that you can find tons of stuff in the Old Testament that isn't Christianity. ANd that's not just hair-splitting, nor do I mean any disrespect to any Jewish members of the board. Far from it. It's just that I don't believe that the 600+ laws of the Old Testament have anything to do with me, except as information. So quoting Exodus or Leviticus one way or the other (and I know that I mentioned Leviticus earlier; I'm not trying to be a hypocrite) doesn't necessarily apply to Christianity. There are laws against eating pork for example that are specfically negated in the New Testament. I'm not really concerned with pork (I don't like it, so I don't eat it), but there's no rule that says I can't. Even on paper. In the same way, a rule governing indentured servitude in Exodus doesn't (in my opinion) hae any bearing on what the Christian position is supposed to be. The Levitical code that forbids homosexual sex shouldn't shape Christian doctrine on homosexuality either (again in my opinion). If Paul hadn't addressed the issue so directly in Romans, I wouldn't claim that Christianity had any clear teaching on the subject. And it's true that the Bible never quotes Christ on the subject (and on a lot of other subjects).

As for "the disciple Jesus loved," John refers to himself that way because Jesus entrusted the care of his mother to John after his death/resurrection/ascension.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

--William Shakespeare

User avatar
noiseradio
Posts: 2295
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 12:04 pm
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:

Postby noiseradio » Tue Nov 29, 2005 10:24 pm

P.S. The article you linked to deals with the Sodom and Gamorrah story. I don't think the Christian position on homosexuality should be based on that story either, for the same reason I mentioned above. It's not that I think God is fickle on the topic. It's that the story doesn't ever say "they were gay, so God destroyd the city." It said "they were wicked, so God destroyed thm" or words to that effect. I don't know (or care) what the wickedness was.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

--William Shakespeare

User avatar
noiseradio
Posts: 2295
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 12:04 pm
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:

Postby noiseradio » Tue Nov 29, 2005 10:26 pm

Can't seem to finish my thought...

I also want to point out that I firmly believe that homosexuality is no worse than gossip. The Bible tells me so. A far bigger deal of it is made in today's world than is necessary.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

--William Shakespeare

User avatar
Who Shot Sam?
Posts: 7097
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 5:05 pm
Location: Somewhere in the distance
Contact:

Postby Who Shot Sam? » Tue Nov 29, 2005 11:03 pm

noiseradio wrote:Can't seem to finish my thought...

I also want to point out that I firmly believe that homosexuality is no worse than gossip. The Bible tells me so. A far bigger deal of it is made in today's world than is necessary.


But that still implies that it's a minor sin or failing, doesn't it? I have a gay brother and several gay friends and to me it's just part of who they are. I don't think that they should feel even the least bit of guilt about their sexual preference, even though so many out there in society are trying to make them feel otherwise.
Mother, Moose-Hunter, Maverick

User avatar
noiseradio
Posts: 2295
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 12:04 pm
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:

Postby noiseradio » Tue Nov 29, 2005 11:16 pm

From the standpoint of Christian doctirine, yes it implies that it's a sin. Like any other. And there's a lot of them. I've even done a few. I'm not trying to say anything about your brother or your friends or mine who happen to be gay. I'm not really trying to make any pronouncements of any kind. I really just wanted to know more about the arguments for and against gay priests, and somehow I have stepped into the role of apologist Chritendom on the subject of the Church's teachings on homosexuality. Didn't intend to step into that and am stepping out. I only made my comment about gossip in order to say that I personally don't think this is an issue worth all the fuss it gets in most churches and theological debates. I certainly did not mean to sound condemning of anyone here or their relatives. Nor do I wish to continue trying to explain other people's positions as I understand them. I'll let the Catholics speak for themselves, as well as the fundamentalists and everyone else. And I'll speak for myself if I feel so inclined. Which right now I don't.

Peace.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

--William Shakespeare

User avatar
Who Shot Sam?
Posts: 7097
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 5:05 pm
Location: Somewhere in the distance
Contact:

Postby Who Shot Sam? » Tue Nov 29, 2005 11:34 pm

noiseradio wrote:I'm not trying to say anything about your brother or your friends or mine who happen to be gay.


I didn't take it that way - honest. I appreciate your thoughtfulness, intelligence and ability to argue a point without it becoming some sort of nasty flame war.

I'm a lapsed Catholic and no longer worry about which doctrine I should follow, so I'll leave that to the more devout. I try to do what's right in life according to what I've learned from parents, family, friends, teachers and any other insight I've managed to pick up along the way. Sometimes I succeed, sometimes I fail. Hopefully more of the former than the latter.
Mother, Moose-Hunter, Maverick

User avatar
noiseradio
Posts: 2295
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 12:04 pm
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:

Postby noiseradio » Wed Nov 30, 2005 12:07 am

I'm glad you understood where I was coming from. I just hate arguing about religion anymore. It makes everyone unhappy, and it makes me feel stupid. I know what works for me, and I'm quite content with the fact that I probably have a great deal of it wrong. I just want to know god as personally as possible, and I don't think everyone has to agre with me for that to happen. So why try to force my take on anyone else, you know? I wish I had figured that out in my 20s.

I'm pleased that you took my comments in the spirit in which they were intended.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

--William Shakespeare

User avatar
miss buenos aires
Posts: 2055
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 7:15 am
Location: jcnj
Contact:

Postby miss buenos aires » Wed Nov 30, 2005 5:52 am

Well, isn't premarital sex a sin? So, until gay men and lesbians can get married, any sex they have is, by definition, sinful. I see a way of getting rid of truckloads of sin in one fell swoop...

And I always thought that the original impetus for demanding celibacy was that the Church didn't want any legitimate sons who could possibly claim inheritance of anything their priestly daddies owned/"borrowed" from the Church. And, on a side note, the widespread ignoring of the celibacy rule is where the word "nepotism" comes from. The Pope's "nephews" were often given lucrative sinecures in the Church...

User avatar
noiseradio
Posts: 2295
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 12:04 pm
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:

Postby noiseradio » Wed Nov 30, 2005 8:08 am

I don't know why the celibacy rule was started. Anyone?
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

--William Shakespeare

selfmademug

Postby selfmademug » Wed Nov 30, 2005 8:10 am

miss buenos aires wrote: And, on a side note, the widespread ignoring of the celibacy rule is where the word "nepotism" comes from. The Pope's "nephews" were often given lucrative sinecures in the Church...


Now that's interesting!

User avatar
Otis Westinghouse
Posts: 8856
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 3:32 pm
Location: The theatre of dreams

Postby Otis Westinghouse » Wed Nov 30, 2005 7:43 pm

Nice one! 'Nipote' in Italian means both grandson and nephew, so plenty of scope there.
There's more to life than books, you know, but not much more

User avatar
bambooneedle
Posts: 4533
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 4:02 pm
Location: a few thousand miles south east of Zanzibar

Postby bambooneedle » Thu Dec 01, 2005 9:31 am

I reckon I could become a priest if I wanted to. I could learn all I needed to know to pass the test. It surely couldn't be that hard. Point being, that, just about anyone with the intellectual capacity to do it who was a male, could do it. How could anyone really tell how developed morally I was... because I had good references? How long before i could get on the other side of a confessional and be privy to young teenagers' innermost thoughts about their "sins"? Three, four years? The semblance of respectability, the endless moral loopholes, potential degrees of hypocrisy unavailable elsewhere... no wonder perverts are attracted to organized religion. I'm glad I instinctively never trusted the priests I confessed to, I only told them I was mean to my sister and stuff.

User avatar
noiseradio
Posts: 2295
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 12:04 pm
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:

Postby noiseradio » Thu Dec 01, 2005 12:03 pm

That's a very good point, bambooneedle. I have an aversion to clergy in general. Call it an allergic reation. I don't mean that there aren't tons of wonderful people serving in the many types of churches around the world, because there definitely are. But I've had close experience with several who were only in it for the power, prestige, and in some cases the money. And I have developed an innate distrust of people who seek to put themselves in a position of religious prominence over other people who practice the same faith. I'm all in favor of like-minded believers (in whatever faith) coming together to help each other along towards a greater understanding of god the universe and everything. But I am terribly resistant to having people lord their religious authority over me and anyone else. For many of the reasons you pointed out.

But that's just me.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

--William Shakespeare

laughingcrow
Posts: 2476
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 8:35 am

Postby laughingcrow » Fri Dec 02, 2005 3:53 pm

noiseradio wrote:I don't know why the celibacy rule was started. Anyone?


In Luke and Matthew, Jesus mentions people sacrificing sons and wives to follow him...and a kind of a 'blessed are the eunuchs' thing....but priests didn't have to be celibate, they just couldn't do priestly activities for 24 hours after sex - so sometimes, when they had a lot to do, their sex life took a backseat. I think the Catholic church made celibacy mandatory about the 12th century, something about people not wanting to be preached at by priests with loads of mistresses...fair enough.
It was pretty important in the protestant reformation, because priests were big players in local politics, and the church didn't want to lose land and property to angry kings when the priest died.

User avatar
bambooneedle
Posts: 4533
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 4:02 pm
Location: a few thousand miles south east of Zanzibar

Postby bambooneedle » Sat Dec 03, 2005 11:29 am

laughingcrow wrote:so sometimes, when they had a lot to do, their sex life took a backseat. I think the Catholic church made celibacy mandatory about the 12th century, something about people not wanting to be preached at by priests with loads of mistresses...fair enough.

Wasn't it because "fornicating" was/is considered "a mortal sin" (ie. you end up going to hell) and so was/is sex if not for procreation?


Becoming an official representative of any organized religion is something I would consider a highly questionable act in all cases.

User avatar
anjabro
Posts: 121
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 1:14 am
Contact:

Postby anjabro » Thu Dec 08, 2005 6:22 am

Speaking of mortal sins, I read in a book the other day that the only method of suicide not considered a mortal sin by the Catholic church is fasting, because it's seen as a way of purifying the body/soul, and becoming closer to God....(It was a work of fiction so I don't know if it's true or not...)

Anyway, I thought I'd share this interesting fact with my wife, so I asked her what method of suicide she thought might be the only one 'approved ' by the Catholic Church.....She pondered for a moment, then a look of triumph lit her face....

"Crucifixion..?"



(The last nail is always the tricky one...)

laughingcrow
Posts: 2476
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 8:35 am

Postby laughingcrow » Thu Dec 08, 2005 8:19 pm

bambooneedle wrote: Becoming an official representative of any organized religion is something I would consider a highly questionable act in all cases.


Free wine, adoring public, nice threads, free house, all the nuns you can eat - sounds like a good laugh...especially if you get put in the exorcism squad as well!


Return to “Elvis Costello General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests