OK, this is a little rude, a bit funny, and a lot sacrilegious. I'm all for sacrilege, though, so I can't condemn it too much.
Authorities were alerted after a parishoner heard "rustling and groaning" coming from inside the confession box and pulled back the curtains to reveal a goth-rock couple engaged in oral sex, ANSA said.
The agency said the pair -- a 31-year-old laborer and a 32-year-old teacher -- defended their conduct saying: "We are atheists and for us, having sex in church is like doing it any other place."
Well, yes, but they are also human beings who live within a society which imposes some restrictions on your behavior — they shouldn't be having sex in a time and place where the activities of others will be disturbed. You shouldn't have sex in a confessional unless you can arrange it for a time when others will not be trying to use it, or when others will not be distracted by the growls and screams. And please, be courteous and clean up thoroughly after yourself. Leave the confessional as clean as you found it.
And look, if you aren't discreet you'll discombobulate some old celibate prude, and that's not nice.
However, Bishop Antonio Lanfranchi of Cesena-Sarsina took said the couple's behavior was "an outrage of notable proportions which bespeaks unutterable squalor."
He added that a special ceremony would be held to purify the confession box.
What, bleach? You don't need a useless ceremony, just a competent custodian.
It's all rather futile. I suspect many confessionals have been used in such a profane and earthy manner, along with church balconies, graveyards, pulpits, pews, and let's not even speculate about the possibilities with rosary beads.
- Log in to post comments
I suspect many confessionals have been used in such a profane and earthy manner, along with church balconies, graveyards, pulpits, pews, and let's not even speculate about the possibilities with rosary beads
and by more than a few priests.
I mean, c'mon. It's not quite as rude as, say, knocking over gravestones or spraying graffiti on the walls, but there's no point in being gratuitiously offensive about it. At the very least they could have been quieter so no one else had to share in the fun.
I just hope the special ceremony doesn't involve a priest and an altar boy....
I see what yer sayin' PZ, but I hope any charges against this couple get dropped.
And..*snort* it is funny. =)
Why doesn't it surprise me that these things easily come to your mind?
Oop! I said "come!" No doubt some other perverse sex act just popped into your head.
No, you shouldn't have sex in the confessional at all. It's not your property, and you do not have permission to use the property in that way.
It's not an outrage of notable proportions, however. We know, because religion has been behind many outrages of notable proportion.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
This atheist says--get a room! It's a funny story but we have laws about where it's okay to engage in such behavior... the church confessional isn't one of them.
PZ, I'm disappointed in you. Your demands for evidence are well known, and I applaud you for that.
So, what evidence do you have to support your assertion that the bishop is celibate? :)
If they'd been in the missionary position, would that have been OK?
"We are atheists and for us, having sex in church is like doing it any other place."
I'll bet this will be used to no end as a general example of how evil atheists are. Let the christian persecutions of non-believers begin............
Ok, is this going to be like the 'hell wants you' thread where we all get to confess whare all we have got our hump on in or near churches?
Yes?
Oop! I said "come!" No doubt some other perverse sex act just popped into your head.
Calling Dr. Freud.
fff...
...fff...
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! XD Well come on, how many priests had it in there? :P I don't think it's a matter of atheism there. Lots of folks did it around here, it's pretty common knowledge.
of course since these two were caught they will have to purify, but what if they were NOT caught? Then they would unknowingly keep using an impure closet--er... CONFESSION BOX! Wouldn't that still make God pissed off? He's not quite the most understanding fellow. They can't afford that! So I think that from now on every priest should purify their confession closets every time they leave it out of their eyesight. Wait, to heck with the box! Purify the whole church hourly! Cuz you never know what's going on in the corners of the place! Maybe there was a handjob happening during sunday's last sermon? Lots of people are way more discreet than these two weirdos.
Or...is this impurity matter working like that trees and sounds in the forest thingie that zen folks talk about?
Really, this is a pretty vile story; nobody should feel that it is right and proper to inflict their sexual activities on anybody else.
I can see no reason to have oral sex in a confessional other than for a pretty cheap thrill, which is no good reason. It is just tacky, nasty, and inconsiderate behaviour. Being an atheist isn't an excuse for being kinky in someone else's playground just because the other party is religious. That is just poor reasoning; those people are selfish idiots.
If this pair were caught having sex under the table in a vegan restaurant, would they try to excuse it on the grounds that they were meat-eaters? I think not.
PZ Myers said,
That sound you hear is me biting my tongue to prevent myself from speaking the obvious. . . .
Paging Dr Freud, MAJeff...
It is one of my fondest ambitions to get my freak on in a cathedral, but I like my privacy, so maybe in the middle of the week or something.
I heard the man involved tried to escape but they were able to catch him by the organ.........
Or save time and swallow it all.
Re: Elijay #10
Never in a church. Closest to a public place for me is in and around my college theatre facility.
@#13: Being an atheist isn't an excuse indeed, but it's one hell of a phantasm. I mean, lots of folks also dream about doing it with a nun.
The "sacrilege" part is kinky.
What, bleach?
Not just regular bleach. Holy Bleach.
Aw, c'mon, they were just trying to re-enact Bernini's Ecstasy of St. Theresa.
Exactly. Sex should only be had in deep underground bunkers far from any human observers, including those engaged in the disgusting act themselves, who should be wearing eye and ear coverings and have lain in bathtubs full of ice water previously so as to be physically numb as well.
Oh dear. I said the word 'sex'. Well, there's only one punishment for that: I must be tied down on a bed and spanked. I must be spanked well, and after I've been spanked, I may be dealt with as you like, and then, spank anyone who's read this comment. Yes, you must give us all a good spanking.
And after the spanking, the oral sex....
Brings to mind one fine evening as an undergrad in the -insert southern university- Chapel crypt...
"We are atheists and for us, having sex in church is like doing it any other place."
That is just a tad bit disingenuous. We all know full well that fucking in a confessional is a transgressive act. They were getting off on breaking some people's taboos.
The act could not have been comfortable. I guess I am all for comfort.
The act could not have been comfortable. I guess I am all for comfort.
Exactly. After a few sprained muscles, you sort of want to relax from time to time.
I think if this was a site based and commented upon in say the UK or Italy like where this happened, many folks would have admitted to talking advantage of a church for a bit of nookie. Sex outside an hotel or your home is not as frowned upon on the rest of the planet as it is here.
Am I the only person young enough to have seen Detroit Rock City?
This is actually fantastic. I'm going to start using fallacio as a form of social protest.
To city hall!
I've got to think that there's a money-making opportunity here for somebody who's willing to build a church, set it up with all of the appropriate trimmings, and rent it out.
@#19: Everybody likes a bit of kinky somehow, somewhere, but nobody should become an unwitting party to somebody else's sexual fantasy. It is only good whilst its consensual - once you take away somebody else's ability to choose whether or not they're a part of it, then it becomes nasty and wrong.
This isn't really any better than doing it in a photo booth in a shopping mall, or somebody else's kitchen.
That they even tried to justify it via their atheism just shows that their choice of venue was likely to have as much to do with spite, as with simple horniness on their part. I'm willing to suggest that they were trying to be childishly provocative. (As much as you can be childish whilst mouthing someone else's genitals, I mean...)
IIRC, after a repeat was no longer possible, Peter Abelard admitted he'd had it off with Héloise in church, although I'm not sure a confession box was involved. That would be a precedent 900 yrs. ago. Can't check my sources right now.
Peter
Frankly I think they shouldn't have said "like doing it any other place". I mean, they should've said "Like doing it in a public restroom."
...It's just about as cramped. Aaah, remember the good ol' highschool days?
Brownian - Thats naughty. You're going to offend Brenda. ;)
JStein, your plan is fallacious...
@Bernard: ...yea, nasty and wrong alright. :P Photobooth? I bet lots of folks did it there too! Aaah, if these booths had a photo log, we'd find weird surprises there.
You shouldn't have sex in a confessional
...unless a priest is present.
It's quite rude and thus unacceptable in our society. I don't condone their actions, and see nothing wrong with them getting charged with something.
But I confess I still find it funny. Especially since I don't see atheists getting kinkier than the religious very often.
Insert your priest-and-alter-boy-in-confessional joke underneath this line:
____________________________________________________________________________
I doubt these two are really atheists, they just didn't have enough room in the Fiat for a really good tumble.
We are atheists and for us, having sex in church is like doing it any other place
So do it some place else! The only reason to have sex in church is for the added kink and/or shock value and if you aren't getting anything out of using the confessional besides claustrophobia why not get a room? No money? Maybe we should take up a collection...
Somehow I suspect these two of being ex-Catholics who still get a little thrill out of being naughty in church. Oh, well, we were all young and foolish once.
Priests shouldn't rape choir boys either. Do they have a special spell for 'cleansing' crime scenes?
Probably wasn't a good idea on their part, but their retort was rather dumb. It was almost a non-sequitur. They could have said anything that isn't Christian. It is really an issue of property rights, those people didn't have a right to use the church's property in a way the church doesn't approve. We often forget the reason churches annoy us so much is that they think a whole lot of things are their property (our bedrooms, public schools, the military, our children, history, morals) when they aren't. This was definitely their property though.
Well, yes, but they are also human beings who live within a society which imposes some restrictions on your behavior -- they shouldn't be having sex in a time and place where the activities of others will be disturbed.
This. This and the fact that a church is private property, it is little different then sneaking into someone's home or business and doing this. This just gives atheists a bad name, disrespecting religious buildings this way, what are they trying to prove, other then it is possible for atheists also to be unmitigated jerks? Or to give the impression that all atheists are? Nice going dumbasses.
If I were the bishop, I have them criminally charged and then sued for any damages.
a) I'm British, and I still say it is grubby and not right.
b) I'm not adverse to a bit of al fresco sex if I know there is little chance of me being caught, but there is more than a slight whiff of contrived procation here.
c) How is getting head in a confessional apparently whilst members of the congregation are present in the building any different from copping a feel in a supermarket, or just going around someone else's house and screwing on the carpet whilst the occupants are in bed upstairs?
We have various laws covering public decency, and being an atheist doesn't give special exemption to start shagging like rabbits in churches, and especially not when you're likely to be caught. Anybody who wants to have sex in a churchyard should at least wait until nobody else is going to have to suffer to see it, and they certainly shouldn't do it for such horribly dull and unimaginative reasons such as annoying religious people.
"We are atheists and for us, having sex in church is like doing it any other place."
Well, that seems pretty blatantly dishonest. I doubt that they chose that location for convenience, it probably has more going for it kink wise than their own bed.
While I appreciate the kink and applaud the goths on their pursuit of hot sex, I can on some level sympathize with the church, although the sympathy falls far short of finding it "an outrage of notable proportions which bespeaks unutterable squalor." (Props for nice phrasing.) I really wouldn't be cheering at the idea of people having sex, say, at/on/around my cubicle. And I am pretty sure that was going on after hours at my last office, if not in my own cubicle then in the general vicinity. (Thank you cleaning crew.)
I think it would have been ok if they'd done the deed in the priest's presence as a illustrative element of confession. "Forgive me Father for I have sinned. I am an oversexed atheist. For the purposes of illustration ..."
That's a bit like sending your holiday videos to a lifer in prison. Harsh. Really, harsh.
Akk, everyone knows that the only sexual act permitted during confession is the priest jerking off to the juicy details- keeps him off the choir-boys y'know.
As the saying goes- "Come in the boot, not in the boys"
Remember, folks- 5-a-day:
Five homo-erotic confessions a day,
keeps the priest from the boys away
(NOTE: it may take more)
"let's not even speculate about the possibilities with rosary beads"
No, LETS! I've always been quite suspicious of those nuns who ALWAYS carry around their pleasure.. I mean ROSARY beads..
There wasn't a confessional-cam in there, was there?
...speaking of Hell's Most Wanted.
I recall reading an article in the Readers's Digest, probably in the 1940's, about efforts to bring gang members to Christ, or some such. They were having a meeting in a church, and the gang members were giving their testimony. This one gang menber and his girfriend had sex in one of the pews while this was going on. When they finished it was his turn to come up and give his testimony, and he did so. This was given as an example of how degenerate the gang members were to begin with.
fallacio as a form of social protest.
That sounds like what fundie protesters do - 'fallacio' would be holding signs with logically fallacious statements.
Now, fellatio as a form of social protest....sounds like a Woody Allen movie.
And I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks 'ouch!' I've only seen confessionals when I've been in churches for weddings, and they're a box, usually poorly-finished oak, without padding. It hurts to sit in 'em for any length of time.
It's definitely got a whiff of deliberate provocation about it, and I like that....sacrilege gets true believers to show their true colors almost instantly, and gives the lie to their claims to meekness, tolerance, et cetera.
Hahahahahahahaa!!! The only dumb thing that happened is they got caught! They should just be sneakier next time, just think, they probably did it in there quite a lot before and never got found out.
They might have chosen a church because they found themselves suddenly horny, and it was the most convenient place available at the time. They may not have chosen the church for its kink-value.
@Matt H: Of course it hurts, it's a frickin' punishment cabinet. And you know God jacks off to our pain...
And yes, snitzels... The problem is that they got caught. I mean, come on... SHHHH! It's still against the law so try to be subtle. :P
Ah, a new email sigline for may collection
fallacio (n): speaking logical nonsense
:D Exactly! It would've been WAY more fun to get off scot-free! (pun intended)
"an outrage of notable proportions which bespeaks unutterable squalor."
I dream of a day when my sexual encounters are described in this manner.
Then, finally, I'll know for certain that I'm doing it right.
At #43 sure and Mary Whitehouse was a brit too.I did not say all, just that there would be more who own up to having done so.
The big problem i have with this is the perps use of Atheism as an excuse, that is going to give many of the fundies ammunition.
Xtian or atheist: if they got away with it the illicitness of the act plus the fear of being caught would have added thrill and could have made up for the discomfort etc.
This to me is not the same as coping a feel in sainsbury's or wally worlds.Or as nasty as doing it in a toilet back in highschool days.Glad that stage of life is over! This is more like doing it on your boss's desk with his secretary while he is out at lunch. Get caught and its bad news, but lots of folk would think its VERY exciting to get away with.
Meh, all I can think is "lame attention-whores."
Re #55 Shouldn't that be "swallowing" rather than "speaking"?
Having had sex with a Christian girlfriend in a cathedral, and with a Jewish girlfriend in a synagogue, I gotta say it's the least the religious authorities can expect.
Many of us had to sit through thousands of hours of church and thousands of hours of religious instruction when we were young. What did we get for it?
Not laid.
I want an accounting of all the people that they talked out of having sex with me. And I want reparations, buddy, bigtime.
I'll feel guilty about having sex in their holy places when they start apologizing and undoing the damage they've done.
BTW, it's not just atheists who get a kick out of sex in church. There are plenty of theologically liberal people who think their religions' attitudes towards sex are stupid and harmful.
I tend like those people.
When PZ gloated over the priest flying off to his doom on a chair lofted with balloons, it bothered me. No matter how deluded the guy was, his death was not something to be happy about.
This strikes me as a more reasonable response. The religious types are over-reacting as usual, but PZ notes that the couple did do something wrong, and - here's the important part - explained why without resorting to invisible sky men saying it's bad.
Lol... what damages? Oh no, how will we ever put a price on the sanctity of the church!
I don't think it was a polite thing to do, and really it's obvious they were doing it to offend people, but if you charge them with anything, please charge ever bible-basher shouting that we're going to hell, as that's far more offensive.
It's not tresspass, they're allowed in (well, they were. Maybe not anymore).
It's not vandalism, there's no damage.
It would fall under public indecency, I suppose, but that's a pretty stupid charge, given that you can apparently shout at people that they're going to hell to burn in flames, and parade around pictures (or figures!) of a man strapped to an instrument of torture.
Someone post that on YouTube, PLEASE! ;)
@#31: High-school days? I guess I'm dragging out my youth. Where do you think my second child was conceived? What can I say, Stone Mountain, GA was exciting 8-D
The special ceremony would involve Vestal Virgins of some kind I would imagine...
Suing? Heck no. Here's what I think. Seriousness this time.
What they did was against the law. There's no mistake there. But it should not be treated any more specially than if it were people having sex in the walmart's bathroom. And I doubt the walmart's owner would sue the people fucking in his thrones. He'd get them arrested though.
I wonder what Brenda would think? Or K-boy for that matter. Alas we'll never know. This just doesn't fit the NDE criteria does it? Or does it?
In my Catholic high-school, the church was as good a place for making-out/having teh sex as the school's auditorium. The nuns caught more than one couple in 'inappropriate circumstances' there every single year.
Then again, we always thought the nuns were getting it on with the priest there anyways.
Don't assume that. In both cases I alluded to above, we were careful not to get caught, and wouldn't have done it if the chance of getting caught wasn't very near zero. We really did not want to freak anybody out, just have a private moment that was symbolic of rebelling against oppression, personally meaningful and healthily ecstatic.
(In one case, the woman had the keys. She was actively involved in the church, and good friends with the minister. I'm pretty sure that he, being quite theologically liberal and enlightened about sex, wouldn't really have cared, so long as we didn't frighten the sheep.)
A friend's wife is an ex-Mormon philosopher and she would like to have sex in a Mormon temple, but hasn't---only because she can't figure out how to be pretty much guaranteed that the Mormons would never know.
Like me, she thinks that it's "fair use" of a governmentally subsidized (tax exempt) building, but doesn't want to freak anybody out. Her husband is out of luck, but then he was raised irreligious and probably wouldn't find it such a giggle.
P.Z. is spot on that you should of course leave the place as clean as you found it; you should have your private moment and not rub anybody's unwilling nose in it.
That's terrible! Next thing you know, lesbians will be kissing at a ballpark! Oh, wait....
http://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/articles/2008/06/05/20080605lesbiankis…
@63 Epinephrine said:
Lol... what damages? Oh no, how will we ever put a price on the sanctity of the church!
Well these days people succeed in suing for money for "emotional distress" and other ridiculous premises, so why not?
Seriously though I meant for any actual physical damages done to the booth, which is possible, and if there is, then sure I would sue them for the costs to have it fixed, or cleaned (hey, there could have been a misfire), or whatever.
Also trespassing is a possible charge, we do not know if they were invited in or not, or if they snuck or broke in, so that charge may work, we simply do not have that information from the linked story.
please charge ever bible-basher shouting that we're going to hell, as that's far more offensive
You are comparing public indecency to free speech?
I can personally vouch for the existence of "alter shots" - shots of liqour poured and drunk from the top of a churches marble alter - as well as "alter sex", you get the idea. (whiskey or vodka was the choice I think, neither was top shelf. I have no details about the second part, thankyouverymuch.)
It was most definitely not me who did this, but I lived in said church and was at the party that got out of control. Luckily no Christians were warped who were not already more than a little bit bent before they arrived.
It is not your typical Lutheran church, but it was not Unitarian/Universalist either.
[In your best Dan Aykroyd as product pitchman voice (Don't ban me bro!)]
It's a spunk remover and a dessert topping. Endorsed by the Roman Catholic Church. But wait, don't order yet - there's more...Fresh lemon scent will have your confessionals sparkling clean and it tastes great on pie.
Get SpoogeAway(R) today!
Sex in a confessional, killing two birds with one Bone, I'd say.
I wish I could remember where (I believe it was in Austria) I toured a cathedral that had several elegant medieval wood carvings, including, under a bench, a carving of a couple engaged in...well, the same thing the reported couple was doing in the confessional. Our tour guide took great delight in pointing it out to us too. Obviously no one had a problem with it...as long as it passed as art.
My earlier joke aside, I agree with Bernard.
Can you say tacky? I wondered if they'd used the "We're atheists" excuse simply because they were embarrassed to be caught and just spouted off the first thing that came to mind.
Oh, I hope so. I haven't been tattled on since high school (yeah, that's right Randy; I haven't forgotten) and Spring tends to arouse the bad boy in me.
In case my comment didn't give Brenda the vapours, I'm going to keep hammering away until I do.
If they were doing it anally, it would qualify as a NPE--a Near Priest Experience:
"Well, there was a tunnel--no, more like a tube, a long, flexible tube. And there was a penis in the tube. And I heard a voice chanting or praying, 'Oh God! Oh God! OhgodohgodohgodohGOD!' And then my boyfriend put his elbow on my hair and I came to just in time to see some guy stuffing quarters from the collection plate into the confessional slot like he thought at any moment the light would go out and the little window would slide shut. At first I was going to yell at my boyfriend for making me sit in the wet spot, but it was just one of those little fonts full of holy water.
"So what's the punishment here? A few Hail Marys? How many did Madonna get for making that "Like A Prayer" video? 'Cause I may have 'accidentally' filmed the whole thing on my camera and uploaded it to YouTube.
Tell you what: you let us off easy, and we'll edit in a few of those funky 'Stations of the Cross' stained glass windows as product placement."
Graveyards... good memories. Peaceful, beautiful, content and happy places; how can that not spark the romance. (Mind you, the old ones are much nicer IMO.)
Maybe civil disobedience would be a better term.
Personally, I'm quite a bit more offended by the Hell thing than by public "indecency." I'm offended that other people find nothing wrong with the former and a whole lot wrong with the latter.
Think about it. Millions of people condone infinite torture, but get in a complete tizzy about a little consensual sex. They really ought to get over it.
Those people are dopes, and in a better world, we would NOT have to cater to such sickness.
In the real world, I don't think it's good strategy to unnecessarily frighten the sheep in that way.
My wife is of a different race than me. When my parents got married, our marriage would have been a serious crime, and quite offensive to the locals where we currently live. I'm not sure, but just I think just kissing my wife in public would have gotten us both put in jail, and just possibly lynched; it certainly would have been deemed scandalously "indecent" by the majority here.
Fuck those people and the horse they rode in on, in the church where they worship their genocidal, vindictive, misogynistic, racist infinitely-torturing Bronze Age god.
In principle.
In practice, I don't think it's a useful form of civil disobedience. Better to talk about it, and why it shouldn't be such a huge deal to them, than to rub it in people's faces and get their backs up.
Absolutly, I agree.
The Pope of the United Ecumenical Atheists owes the Catholic Church an apology for members using their church for having sex with:
a. a female
b. an adult
Nice one, scooter. I actually laughed out loud.
I wonder how many purification rituals they've done, and publicly announced, due to priestly pedophilic sex.
(That's not a rhetorical question---they may have done a bunch; I'm just curious.)
Yep, I agree with most here, they should be a bit more discreet. Still, I admit, in my younger days, I made a few riskier choices in this area. Still, I guess I'm lucky cause my wife and I never got caught. There was never a real chance of us getting caught in a confessional or such though. I avoid those type of places like the plague. Even the enticement of a blowjob might not get me to hang around a church.
I did accept having a pastor marry us though. But he was a Unitarian, we didn't marry in a church, and he did a shot with me and my best man before the service and told me he didn't care if I believed in a god or not (my brother's got me beat, he got high with his pastor before their wedding).
A rhetorical question: but how would the priest tell if the purification ritual worked? Does he have one of those CSI thingamjizms that show up semen or sin stains or what?
Better watch that you're not sued for plagiarism, PZ. That's what's posted in the choirboys' changing room up at St. Mary's.
Scooter... I choked on my drink, damn you! :P
This whole story, and Brownian at #22 have made my day, and it's barely after noon here!
Sex in a confessional does sound pretty perilous, though. Can I have a little peril?
I think the whole thing is hilarious. Not just because of my absolute lack of respect for the institutions of religion, but because of the extra special condemnation the act receives since it involves both disrespecting religion (gasp) and oh my god.....SEX!!! It is both hilarious and pathetic that sex is viewed as so dirty and feared by so many people. It really doesn't compare to any kind of vandalism, or any real crime at all. All they did was briefly interrupt a private club's meeting, and make a few old idiots go "Eeeewwwwww!" I understand that people want to have their property respected by others, but the only real crime here is grossing out a few people.
With all the things wrong with the world, I can't understand getting upset about silly shit like this. Let the idiots say their magic words to scare out the naughty vibes, and I'll have a good laugh at that, too.
Being an atheist means you can use your mind in church... not your genitalia.
Kinda makes you wonder whether this is ultimately a joe job. "Oh, look at what those evil atheists are like! See why we always warned you about them?"
Of course, if my own experiences with goths are any indication, the couple in question were likely too dumb to even notice they were used as pawns (IF they were, of course).
Having gone to a fundamentalist school, I can safely say that much worse has been done in much holier places. However, it was done simply because it was an unoccupied place and you had a bunch of sexually repressed teens forced to go to school there. That said, these two were just being obnoxious. It seems they only did it to get a rise (if you'll pardon the pun) out of it.
I've heard an awful lot of stories about confessionals being...used that way. The one in the chapel of my nominally religious university was rather notorious for being used for such.
Still, it's always bad for to get caught getting it on in public.
Though now I'm also reminded of a friend of mine who gave another fellow a blowjob while they were both in a packed church. Without being caught.
C'mon, you know more than one priest has touched himself while listening to a particularly hot/juicy confession...
And you know they got off during the Inquisition examining the bodies of accused "witches" for "marks of Satan", telltale signs like "a third nipple", etc. Pervs.
30+ year old Goths... I thought everyone grew out of that before getting out of college. Although I do appreciate some of the Goth aesthetic, I find most people who adopt it are doing it purely for shock value. Look at me I am moody and dark. This goes right along with that. Look at us we are doing it where we aren't supposed to, we are kinky and perverted. Eh whatever. Grow up.
He added that a special ceremony would be held to purify the confession box.
That would be the "Mass of Reparation".
"The Mass, the representation of the sacrifice of Calvary, is specially suited to make reparation for sin. One of the ends for which it is offered is the propitiation of God's wrath. A pious widow of Paris conceived the idea of promoting this object in 1862. By the authority of Pope Leo XIII the erection of the Archconfraternity of the Mass of Reparation was sanctioned in 1886."
And Bishop Antonio Lanfranchi of Cesena-Sarsina thinks Goths are weird? Okey dokey.
--386
Put this on your page if you support Emos.
╔═╦══╦═╗
║╩╣║║║║║
╚═╩╩╩╩═╝
Help Bunny by Copying and pasting Bunny into your web page to help him gain world domination.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Before they go casting the first stone, the clerics might want to dust a bit and check out the cheeky wood carvings, full of pagan symbols and profane behaviors, usually found beneath their misericords, devices made especially for a priest's hindquarters.
If I were the bishop, I'd practise what I preach and forgive them.
What the priest should of done was what into the woman started saying "oh god, oh god" and responded in deep voice
"yes".
Damn, why couldn't they say they were christian and just communicating with their creator by yelling out "oh god, oh god", and expressing their gratitude for providing them with earthly and earthy pleasures! Oh sure, a cleansing ceremony will definitely remove all evolutionary stains with an idiotic mumbo-jumbo farcical,"begone, you detritus of intense humamoid passion!"
Well, I can confirm that pews are NOT a comfortable place for it. I tried it with my girlfriend (now wife) years ago and they're small, hard, and awkward. Even the rowboat was better.
We did leave it completely clean, though, and no one caught us, though there was some danger of being caught (it was during the day, and there was a town fair outside).
@79: Paul W. said:
In practice, I don't think it's a useful form of civil disobedience. Better to talk about it, and why it shouldn't be such a huge deal to them, than to rub it in people's faces and get their backs up.
Personally it looks more of the allure of the excitement of "forbidden" sexual acts in a church then a real civil disobedience, which was the excuse they just came up with, however this is personal opinion.
Discussion and debate about issues (in this case the issue of religion and religious beliefs and the assertion they are only harmful), I am all for that, it is your free speech rights and that right should not be abridged. Again though, that is free speech, which to me, is vastly different the what happened in the linked story, which would be little different then a couple sneaking into your garage and engaged in oral sex and discovered by you after your child mention hearing something in the garage. At least that is how I view it.
Well, I was told that miserable sinners who do not confess will eventually be well and truly fucked..... looks like they got that about right.
I think I agree in this case. (Especially since I saw the sidebar on the story, which has points that weren't in the body of the story, and I missed them the first time.)
I think I disagree that there's a clear line between free speech and public indecency in general. For example, in the lesbians-kissing-at-the-ballpark case cited by Slaughter@71.
That's a situation where I could get behind some civil disobedience, with folks showing up and kissing people of the same sex, precisely because too many people think it's "indecent." (The point would be that if you don't want your kids to see that at the ballpark, you shouldn't take them to the ballpark; don't expect people at the ballpark to behave according to your homophobic standards of "decency.")
The sex-in-church thing is a bit different because it's a kind of private property that's less of a general public accomodation. The fact that it's a state-subsidized doesn't really override the fact that it's private property, so their rules do apply.
I would say to church folks that if they don't want me doing things in their church that they don't approve of, they should render unto Caesar and pay fair taxes. They shouldn't get too bent out of shape over a little "fair use" by people who believe differently.
#22
No! Brownian! It's too perilous!
Oral sex? Should I assume which role the 31-year old laborer was performing, and what role the 32-year old teacher was performing?
I guess it's all give and take.
I dunno...
The last confessional box I saw profaned was one where a vampire was eating the preacher in it.
"..and let's not even speculate about the possibilities with rosary beads."
They're not very good as anal beads, stick with the real thing.
Like actual priests ('Father') and nuns named 'Mary'? Okay, but I'd had enough of that when I was an altarboy.
"Anal beads"?
You learn something new every day.
But, damn, with Mothers' Day already passed...
Unless the church officials involved made a decision that this event necessitates the "sanctity of the confessional", it seems more than likely that the laborer's friend may already be more accurately described as an "ex-teacher"...
Sven DiMilo: Never tried anal beads myself, but just read a porn story in a book called "Dirty Girls" that featured just that scenario with a rosary. Heroine and hero left the vacant church admitting they were both going to hell if there was a hell. But they were smiling...
Pretty juvenille story and even worse are some of the responses. Ummm, can someone tell me where it is taught that sex is considered "dirty" for Christians? I'm Catholic. Where in the Catechism is it taught that sex is "dirty"? So much ignorance but I guess it's a lot more fun for you to remain ignorant.
It's mildly funny, because people caught in the act are always funny.
But what's really funny is the priest's reaction. Oh noes! The dreaded sex! An outrage of notable proportions which bespeaks unutterable squalor! Because we all know that sex is unspeakably vile, dirty, and evil, and you must save it for the one who love. He must immediately recite some magic words to clean up the place!
But, damn, with Mothers' Day already passed...
well, father's day is June 15, right?
Hey, it's definitely not another tie!
grow up @ 110 You're a catholic (note small letter)? That is enough to brand you for all your ignorance. Your turn.
Hey, Ich, you're right! And it's so hard to find just the right gift that bespeaks unutterable squalor!
So, um, do they have these at, like, Sears?
Pretty juvenille story and even worse are some of the responses.
you mean responses like that of the Bishop?
"an outrage of notable proportions which bespeaks unutterable squalor."
that response?
yeah.
So, um, do they have these at, like, Sears?
sadly, no.
Walmart, maybe?
:p
(do note the name of the person wrote the article)
Shoppers: announcing a Blue-Light Special in Housewares on anal beads!
I love the scene at the end of Eurotrip.
Poor Frau Farbissina!
Shoppers: announcing a Blue-Light Special in Housewares on anal beads!
LOL
sounds like the makings of a good comedy sketch.
I'd think to cast Brenda as the shopper who first complains to management.
Re: #110 by "grow up people":
Not being Catholic, I couldn't tell you where the catechism teaches that sex is dirty, if it does. Of course I could point to a million examples of sex-fearing attitudes among christians of all stripes, for example in the overdone drama of the Bishop's response to this prank.
If you really believe that the church shouldn't be teaching that sex is dirty, perhaps you should take up that issue with the Bishop instead of the commenters here, as he is clearly the one with the problem!
Never in a church. Couple of times in a 'sacred sex temple'
grow up people:
I'm not sure where in the Catechism it is, but everything I've read suggests Catholics believe sex to be inherrantly dirty and sinful outside of boring missionary position intercourse with your opposite-sex married spouse. If something has changed where I haven't heard, and *you can tell me what part of your Catechism it is in, I will apologise for my ignorance and admit I was wrong.
Ever notice that most porn stars are wearing a cross necklace in their scenes? Not that I watch porn... hah! Or that most guys with cross tattoos are anything but moral examples, thugs, or redneck assholes?
Are you brave enough to attempt to explain why one form of public behavior that is known and probably calculated to make third parties exposed to it extremely uncomfortable should be treated differently from another?
Shame it wasn't a gay couple instead, that WOULD have been hilarious. Just to nitpick, why the assumption they were engaging in fellatio, they could have been performing cunnilingus, which is much more fun :-P(|)
No response from the catholic grow up people @ 110. Perhaps he was warned by Brenda that he will be crucified (something that he should be familiar with) on this site, especially if he reports us to the catholic league or his local insane diocese for godly support. Oh yes please do, for it would be a colossal thrill to mash the big morons of his demented faith. " My god will get you with my bishops help, you raving rationalists!"
Except, being an atheist, the guy would have been calling out
"Oh, Nothing!"
Anon Ymous , The answer to the question is...nowhere does the Catholic Church teach any of the nonsense I have read on here. Actually, if people took the time to learn what the Church ACTUALLY teaches on this or any of its other teachings that get misrepresented, you would probably be surprised at the wisdom and beauty. The Catholic Church's teaching on marriage and sex is beautiful and can lead couples to a fulfilling relationship. When you say things like "I'm not sure where in the Catechism it is, but everything I've read suggests Catholics believe sex to be inherrantly dirty and sinful outside of boring missionary position intercourse with your opposite-sex married spouse"
I ask what are you reading? Where do you get your info? Probably not legitimate Catholic sources. If you let you opinion of Catholic teaching be influenced by people with agendas and the ignorant, what do you expect? There is a ton of free material out there about the Catholic faith from good sources. My advice is to learn before you attack. For those who just want to argue, why not take your attacks to a Catholic site and see how well you do? If you are so well informed...why not? Just a couple off the top of my head. http://www.jimmyakin.org/ or http://catholic.com For those a bit more mature and open to learning. Here are just a few ideas for free Catholic audio.
1. http://catholicaudio.blogspot.com/
2.A priest local to me that has great podcasts about a variety of topics including marriage. http://olgcparish.net/frjohn.php
3. Marriage/Sex related. Theology of the Body by Pope John Paul II. Christopher West does a great teaching series on Theology of The Body.
4. Catholic.com
The Catholic Church's teaching on marriage and sex is beautiful
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh, please, stop! It hurts!
The love of Nazinger. Feel it! Touch it!
"We are atheists and for us, having sex in church is like doing it any other place."
Speak for yourselves. I'm an atheist and I don't want to have sex ever, much less in a church.
grow up people,
So it's perfectly beautiful and fulfilling for me and my girlfriend to have protected sex (she's on the pill, too)? Or are there some restrictions that I don't know about, which would make me think Catholicism is best left in the Middle Ages? You are the one who feels we should be informed, so tell me, there's nothing wrong with what I do is there?
St. Ann's Catholic Church, Houston Texas. At least when I went there.
Do keep in mind that about 30 percent of U.S. scientists were raised Catholic, and most of us are ex-Catholic now. It's not like there's a shortage of people here who got a Catholic education, and remember it all too well.
I don't have my CCD book handy, but just ask the bishop who decided they needed a purification ritual for that confessional booth.
Either you're confused on the concept, or the Bishop is. I suggest you take it up with him.
And if you think that sex that isn't intended for reproduction isn't a sin, ask the Pope. While you're at it, ask why it's not okay to use a condom unless the condom has a hole in it. Ask about the whole birth control thing, while you're at it.
And about "days of fasting and abstinence."
And ask him why priests are supposed to be celibate. And why homosexuals are mostly born that way, but nonetheless should resist their inherent(ly) sinful inclinations.
Damn. Where were you taught Catholic doctrine that said sex isn't dirty?
: Dennis N, There is no way I can spend the time to teach the theology behind these teachings on a message board. My point was that people can either continue to attack something they know little to nothing about or you can take the time to learn for yourself what the church actually teaches. I just happened to stumble upon this thread while researching a topic for school. I attend a Catholic Seminary (not for priesthood at this point but maybe in the future). So, I am just passing through and I really don't have the time to give full theological teachings. Nor do I desire to engage in a silly little insult wars. Sorry Holbach, Middle school was a long time ago for me my friend.
Take care
Heh-heh! Cue "Being raised in a Catholic household doesn't make you a Catholic" variant on the No True Scotsman Fallacy™ in 5...4...3...2...1....
Dennis N, There is no way I can spend the time to explain the theology behind these teachings on a message board. This topic especially is pretty deep theologically. My point was that people can either continue to attack something they know little to nothing about or you can take the time to learn for yourself what the church actually teaches. I just happened to stumble upon this thread while researching a topic for school. I attend a Catholic Seminary (not for priesthood at this point but maybe in the future). So, I am just passing through and I really don't have the time to give full theological teachings. Nor do I desire to engage in silly little insult wars. Sorry Holbach, Middle school was a long time ago for me my friend.
Take care
My point was that people can either continue to attack something they know little to nothing about or you can take the time to learn for yourself what the church actually teaches.
courtier's reply, anyone?
No, but for sex advice you direct us to a guy who's either never had sex in his life, or is lying about it.
Too funny.
Yes, Theology of the Body is deep. It's deeply fucked up, is what it is.
So I will assume there is nothing wrong with my safe, consensual practices. Good, then I see nothing wrong with the Catholic view of sex.
Yes, Theology of the Body is deep. It's deeply fucked up, is what it is.
DING! DING! DING! We have a winner!
Then again, hating your body is a good thing.
Grow up people @ 128 Good grief, you want us to our attacks to a catholic site? Hell, you bring your nonsense to a site that has no bearing on your insane beliefs and will never acknowledge them other than with ridicule and contempt. You cannot seem to comprehend that there are rational beliefs outside of your demented catholic faith, and your every statement is enmeshed with your catholic indoctrination which does not allow for any rational discourse.
Oh please, sex is not beautiful, but just a natural urge to reproduce and expend the sexual desire. That crap is still being taught by the papist catholic church as it has
been for centuries because it is a gift from your god. Oh what nauseating puke your religion attaches to the basic elements of evolution. Deformities are beautiful because they are your god's gift for variety in the human species. Your molesting priests are also your god's gift to prove that the molesting priest and the molested have the gift of free will. The catholic religion is one of the most pernicious and demented insanities ever to be puked from the minds of superstitious cfretins. You claim your faith is the one and only true one, and likewise all the other moronic faiths claim that distinction and all laugh and belittle the other, none of them aware that they all are groping in the dark of insanity. All religions are nothing but insane nonsense and only prevail because the minds of most humans are mired in superstitious crap which will forever perpetuate this endemic insanity.
This site is peopled by mostly intelligent minds who will debate other persons with a modicum of intelligence mostly bereft of complete religious insanity. If you uncautiously continue with your complete religious restrictions, then you will find this site most trying and exasperating. I will never waste my time and brain cells to banter with your type on your brain-dead blog site, and don't be deceived in thinking you will find succor in a seemingly tolerant site. I will speak for myself here: I am not and will never be tolerant of any religion, nor the mind that holds such superstitious and insane beliefs in spite of blatant reality and inherent commom sense. You have as much chance in altering my opinion of religion as I have in being cloned as the Baron d' Holbach.
#83 wrote:
My flatmate and I called them jizz-lamps and whenever one of the CSI-types brandished one whoever spotted it first would shout 'jizz-lamp!' and we'd crack up laughing.
Good times.
As for the Catholic thing I distinctly remember two stories - the film version of Like Water for Chocolate where the (Hispanic, Catholic) married couple did it using a sheet with a hole in it so there'd be minimal contact and even less freedom to actually enjoy seeing their partners body; the other was in a biography of JFK where it was explained that, because (apparently) sex is only for procreation and not pleasure, his (Irish-American, Catholic) mother would stop sleeping with his father as soon as she knew she was pregnant.
Neither of those seem like they're wanting it to be much fun at all. More of a necessity we're meant to feel guilty about enjoying and therefore should avoid.
Well, I find sex to be beautiful at times. Maybe I'm just a romantic. I find sunsets beautiful as well. There's no need for non-naturalistic explanations for why something is beautiful. From an evolutionary perspective, it makes sense that humans would place high priority and deep emotions on coupling and sex. For most of existence, sex has been about reproduction. Compared to many other species, we produce rather few offspring, and we are, at least, naturally serial monogamists (as far as I know, I'm open to being correct). It also seems, given how difficult it is to get pregnant, that we've evolved to have lots of sex. Additionally, we spend a great deal of time raising our offspring to maturity. Your choice of partner was/is very important. I personally don't take Holbach's view that sex can be summed up as the urge to reproduce and expend sexual desire.
I meant open to being corrected**
fallacio (n): logic that sucks
I take pride in knowing that, generations ago, our ancestors survived because of their ability to take more pleasure in the act than their competitors.
Survival of the horniest.
Survival of the horniest.
My weekend motto.
fallacio (n): logic that sucks
I am so stealing that...because no matter where you turn peoples' reasoning blows.
1 Corinthians 7:9
But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
You know, grow up people, that line shows the shear beauty of christian marriage. I guess I am too ignorant of catholicism to be inspired by the deep meaning.
☠All this fuss over three minutes of squishing☠ ...Sid Vicious
Posted by: Kseniya | June 5, 2008 11:30 PM
And the definition of one who never uses fallacio -- would that be a cunning linguist?
That's just GREAT! Thanks a LOT! Having read your admonishment not to speculate about rosary beads, now all I can do is speculate on the uses of rosary beads!!!!
First, I agree that what they did was wrong - it's not their church or confessional and they have no more a right to have sex there than in someone other's car or home.
I am a bit cinfused by the priests statements, though: "an outrage of notable proportions which bespeaks unutterable squalor." How exactly can the act bespeak unutterable squalor? The squalor is unutterable.
Perhaps he should have said "..which with great difficulty manages to bespeak squalor which was only very slightly utterable."?
Or "..which would undoubtedly have bespoken unutterable squalor, had the squalor not, as we already stated, been unutterable."
Don't they learn language at all as clerics?
Hello, Soldier. :-)
I believe you are correct. This opens the door to a whole array of new terminology...
dildactic (n): a penetrating treatise on alternate moralities
from the Greek dildaktikos, skillful in reaching, from dildaktos, penetrated, from dildaskein, dildak-, to reach, to penetrate.
French: dildactique
Italian: dildattico
Russian: дилдактичение.
Janne, that has been troubling me, too. I like your sensible rewrites of the statment.
@soldier:
If you get the chance, go track down a youngster that's been posting under the 'nym Walton and set him straight, would ya?
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/are_you_on_this_list.php#com…
so sad to see an 18 year old so confident, but so full of ignorance (and a Coulter fan, too boot!)
Someone who does use fallacio must be fulla trix.
Okay, it would be nice if everyone, including the agnostics and atheist, would be considerate in all things and particularly considerate about where and when they have sex.
That out of the way it occures to me that:
What is the point of confessing if you don't have anything juicy to confess. A little misplaced oral sex keeps the priest from getting bored.
I'm reminded of a PBS series about a spirited lady and what happened when she made her erotic confession. Quite hilarious. I wish I could remember the name of the series.
There is something to the doctrine that says you must sin to be saved. That you must experience the joys and pain of sin to be qualifies to chose to give it up. Without this experience there will always be temptation that emerges out of novelty and ignorance. Better to know and turn away than to never know.
Also, if they are offering oral sex in church your going to draw in more people. Sex sells. This has been shown to work for religion. Marriage is essentially a church sanctions agreement for the exclusive use of a female in return for financial support. Or in Texas, where the head of the household is regularly granted under aged girls and suicide bombers are promised 70 virgins. Directly offering sex in church just cuts out the delay and pretext.
Surely we can work the concept of transubstantiation into this somehow.
replying to me, MAJeff said:
That's completely uncalled for. We've never even met!
I have sent a letter to the Seed management about your offensive remarks.
Eh. Now if it were squid sex in a confessional, that might be interesting....
The pontificating seminarian above made me think of the word seminary for the first time in years. The root of the word couldn't mean... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seminary
Yup, it does - seed-bed.*
*I know the seed isn't literally meant to be jiz but it is funny I reckon.
Well, for many centuries, it was thought that it was the male who planted their seed in the female. So, yes, the jizz is the seed.
"an outrage of notable proportions which bespeaks unutterable squalor."
Methinks the bishop is reading HP Lovecraft on the side. He also described last Friday's pot-luck as "that eldritch, corpse-like, antediluvian abomination".
Holbach et al: Sex IS beautiful.
And Catholics are dirtier than anyone; they require their church's official representatives to practice the most unnatural sexual perversion known.
"Come out, Virginia, don't let me wait
You Catholic girls start much too late"--Billy Joel
"You know how us Catholic girls can be
We make up for lost time eventually"--Alanis Morrisette
When shagging in church, one must always consider the question; Who would Jesus do?
But what about the Pygmies and Dwarves?
[ba dum tish]
Thank you, I'll be here all week. Wait, no I won't - tomorrow is Saturday. POETS!
Would the poor bishop be able to utter the squalor for the outrage (outrage I tells ya) upon seeing a confessional stuffed with a half-dozen or so little people 'getting their oral on' ?
So, who growls during sex?
Atheists having sex in church, eh? I just went to the end of the comment list to post so I don't know if anyone else has brought this up, but... do you have any idea how many Xians have had sex in church? Judging by some of the Xians I've known (and "known"), I'd say quite a few!
Have a few friends that love the church sex thing (or so they claimed during a bout of "never-have-i-ever"). There's an appropriate word for that I think:
Sacrelicious.
Or the altar.
Too bad there isn't a Heaven, and a pearly gates, because skronking right in front of St. Peter just before he sends you off to the down escalator would be so freakin' awesome. Then they'd make some noob who just got his wings try to clean the jizz off of the clouds, and it would be hard, and he'd be saying to himself, "I avoided shellfish and cotton/polyester blends for 68 years just so I could de-spunk a cloud on my first day?" and maybe he'd be overheard by former lepers who'd been wondering why they and Jeb Bush ended up in the same place even though he got to keep his fingers and maybe they'd band together and strike, or even better, riot, and so Heaven would totally have a morale problem.
And meanwhile, in Hell, you could convince everyone who's screaming in anguish to scream "I just saved a bunch of money on car insurance by switching to GEICO" in unison instead, because that'd get really annoying for the listening Godbots after awhile, especially if you have everyone say 'BEICO' rather than 'GEICO', plus it gets around copyright infringement issues. Also, it wouldn't be that hard to steal Satan's keys while he's off burying fossils. And since you're already in Hell and nothing could be worse, you have no incentive not to do doughnuts on the lawns of JWs with Satan's Camero, so Hell would pretty well be a free-for-all, and eventually, what with Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great and all the rest just sitting around anguishing, it would be a relatively easy task to take over Heaven. And as the ringleader, you'd get to say to God, "Hey, you! Get off of my cloud!" and Mick Jagger won't even know it because he and Keith Richards will still be alive on Earth due to whatever longevity potion made from Smurfs they use.
*Backs slowly away from Brownian whilst reaching for the phone...*
That's what I always thought, too. We are going to need a secret signal for the Fifth column meet-up in Hell! But come on, you got all the godless scientists there too, I hope you aren't planning to take over Heaven using horsies, bows and arrows?
I dunno. They're all good Christians, right? Full of love? I imagine it'd be like slaughtering Care Bears. And if memory serves, Care Bears are easily defeated by my mom using an old washing machine and a dryer set on 'high'.
Then again, nobody's heard from God or Jesus in nearly two thousand years. Maybe there's already been a coup.
For an omniscient God, I don't think He thought the idea of putting all of history's greatest and evilest military leaders in the same lake of fire through enough.
For those of you wanting to take over heaven, you'd better hope that Kenney isn't dead, but remains in his persistently vegetative state.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | June 6, 2008 12:33 PM
Hilarious! And thanks, Brownian - I read that and promptly proceeded to choke on a Frosted Flake...
For those of you wanting to take over heaven, you'd better hope that Kenney isn't dead, but remains in his persistently vegetative state.
Why would he even be there in the first place?
That's the cannon fodder. You are forgetting about the career military.
What's better than Rose petals on my piano?
Tulips on my organ.
Fact:The confession box was originally invented as a means of keeping priests from taking advantage of/raping girls or women whose confessions they were taking.This was common enough,apparently.
Fact:The confession box was originally invented as a means of keeping priests from taking advantage of/raping girls or women whose confessions they were taking.This was common enough,apparently
cite?
MaJeff,OM:
god let Kenney in to defeat satan's minions. (He used to just let in mormons.)
for more info, here is a link to the South Park episode:
Look windy, I don't know why you're seeing this a such a big deal.
You're talking about the Heavenly Host, right? Well, a host can be either good or bad. A good host sees to his or her guest's comfort (tea, cakes, good conversation and the like), while a bad host fails to do so (and seats you next to the guy who collects cleft palate surgery before-and-after photos as a hobby).
Since the job of the Heavenly Host is to protect heaven from incursions (by whom, by the way? Shiva? Aliens? Captain Picard? Who is God afraid of that he needs an army?), a good Heavenly Host could be problematic, while a bad Host will be a pushover.
But we've already seen that a good host sees to its guest's needs (and what is a marauding army but a bunch of guests who have yet to be offered refreshment?), so a good Heavenly Host won't oppose us, by definition. On the other hand, if the Heavenly Host does make a fuss, then they aren't a very good host, and a bad Heavenly Host won't offer up much of a resistance.
I see you people have a lot to learn about Heaven.
Ouch.
My link got eaten. Sorry. The name of the South Park episode is:
Best Friends Forever.
Nevertheless, I still think it's better to shoot first and not stop for tea, so that the Host won't have time to deploy the holiday slides and other WMB's. We will be greeted as liberators!
Oh, that's all but guaranteed. Since angels lack free will, they'll greet us as liberators if we find a way to give it to 'em. If we can't find a way to give them free will, we'll just tell 'em to greet us a liberators.
It's a no-lose situation, no matter how many Yale graduates with Gentleman's 'C's we put in charge.
Get ready, universe: ex nihilo, ad brownio.
OMAJ! Now THAT is funny. You and Brownian have me laughing in a way that makes my virus-damaged lungs hurt. Damn you.
:-)
I confess; I did it on the altar once. But the church was abandoned, which made the whole act waaaaay more creepy than it should have been...;)
Well, it's better than fucking and driving. "Having sex in the car while driving 100 mph down a packed freeway is just like doing it in any other place," might generate just a little less sympathy, at least after the final body count. So if dangerous sex is what gets you off, what better place than a mid-day confessional is there?
BMcP
Sure, I'll compare them. Free speech relates to freedom of expression, not just speech. Both have to do with the ability to have certain personal freedoms. I think they're fairly comparable, really.
In Canada, our law reads, "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." We have free speech, subject to sensible limits.
So it depends on whether you feel that scaring children with tales of burning forever in hell for not being of a certain religion constitutes hate speech, for example.
I've never been in one (for any reason) but I have seen these Confess!™ brand wooden maidens--and they look to me like an early model of the Orgasmatron.
Janine ID , That scripture verse when put into correct context proabaly doesn't mean what you think it means. That is, the way YOU inerpret scripture may not be they way it is supposed to be interpreted. Just pointing that out is all. It's usually not a good idea to start throwing around bible verses to make a point unless you really know how to interpret scripture properly. It's not as easy as you might think. I studied scripture through the Catholic Church(btw the Catholic Church authored and produced the Bible) for a couple of years.
A more damning phrase has never been penned...
Just pointing that out is all. It's usually not a good idea to start throwing around bible verses to make a point unless you really know how to interpret scripture properly. It's not as easy as you might think. I studied scripture through the Catholic Church(btw the Catholic Church authored and produced the Bible) for a couple of years.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
the Catholic Church authored and produced the Bible
Well, I knew the accounts of Jewish history in the OT were not written contemporaneously - they contain far too many absurdities, anachronisms and internal contradictions for that - but I hadn't realised they were forged in toto by the Catholic church! You live and learn. Who's gonna tell the orthodox Jews?
Kseniya , Why do you say that? Is that a comment on the bible in general or the fact that it was the Catholic Church who produced the bible?
Nick Gotts , My bad. I should have stated that the new testament of the bible was written by Catholics. It was then tha Church who decided on the final canon of scripture for the entire bible.
MAJeff, OM "BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" ?? Can you expand here a bit?
you really know how to interpret scripture properly.
This statement had me rolling on the floor.
The idea that there is some inherent meaning in a series of disparate texts that were pulled together for political reasons, and that said meaning can be obtained through one, and only one, technique of study (that laid out by those same political leaders), and contains Truths by which we must live today....Ridiculous on its face.
And, ooooh, studying that ridiculous book with such a corrupt organization. What an awesome thing to brag about.
ded@198. Even for the NT, your statement is highly dubious. I know you will claim that the Catholic church has existed ever since St. Peter, but that's special pleading. All the books of the western NT were written before the Catholic church separated from the Nestorian, Armenian, Coptic and Eastern Orthodox churches (some of these include additional material in their Bibles), and before the doctrine of Papal supremacy was generally accepted.
ded - It's all in the use of the word "authored."
Nick Gotts , Sorry but you are incorrect here. History does not support your claims. The Catholic Church was an original. This is a matter of fact for the vast majority of scholars (outside of fringe 'religious' groups like gnostics and others) They (catholics) never broke away from any other church. The Catholic Church has as its roots Jesus and his apostles...so we are talking 30-33 AD It was the Catholic Church that Jesus founded. So, all that he taught as oral tradition was what the Catholic Church believed. The bible came along later in the 4th and 5th centuries through a series of Church councils. There was no other 'christian' church until the Orthodox split off in the 11th century. After that it was snother 500 years until Luther broke away.
MAJeff, OM , Wow that's quite a list of assertions. It would take an awful lot of effort to prove any of that.
Ah, the arrogance of Catholicism. Such a lovely thing from such a lovely organization.
Nick Gotts , My girlfriend( she is Catholic) wanted me to add that Papal supremacy was accepted well before the canon of NT was settled as evidenced by writings we have fom the earliest christians in the 1st-3rd centuries.
Also, I reread my last entry and all that I was getting at is that widely accepted historical evidence points to the Catholic Church as being established by Jesus in 30-33AD. All other 'christian' churches are offshoots of the original.
Jesus founded the catholic church???
Mwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Good one ded,whats next,Moses founded Manchester United?
Apart from those pesky Coptic Christians and other early Eastern churches. And the Eastern Orthodox church thinks it's the same church that was founded by the apostles, too.
Re #303 You're ignorant, ded. Christians started persecuting each other (as well as everyone else) as soon as they had the power to do so: Trinitarians split from Arians and Sabellians (or Patrepassians) in the early fourth century, Monophysitism (followed by the Coptic Church and Armenian Apostolic Church) and Nestorianism in the fifth to sixth century. All these groups killed each other whenever they could: the Catholic/Orthodox group were just the most successful gang of murderers.
windy , The Eastern Orthodox are considered "catholic". For instance, catholics can receive some of the sacraments (confession, eucharist) in an orthodox church if circumstances necessitate it.
clinteas, (#207) Ummm, yes. It's commonly held knowledge.
well, can't spend all day on the puter. Maybe I'll check back later.
peace
Re #210. Well, well! It's really Catholic doctrine that Moses founded Manchester United? So are fans of Chelsea to be condemned as idol-worshippers?
Nick Gotts , I'm not sure how what you wrote addressed my contention that the catholic church was an original and was established in 30-33AD. And yes, since the Catholic Church was established, there has been splintering to the level of currently having around 35,000 non catholic christian denominations. The Catholic Church still holds the same doctrines and is still the same church. All historical data support this.
@210,ded:
//Ummm, yes. It's commonly held knowledge.//
Ummm,no,its commonly taught belief amongst catholics....
That does not mean it is in any way shape or form historically accurate im afraid,rather the opposite.
@ded--I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here, but claiming that Catholicism is the One True Christian faith, and that you know this because the Catholics told you so, is absurd beyond description(see comments #195 and 207).
If you could go ahead and move on to "The Bible is the word of God, and I know this because it says so right in the Bible" you'd save us all a lot of time. (Please substitute 'The Catholic Church' and 'My girlfriend' wherever applicable)
I don't mean to be insulting, really, but I feel it's only fair to caution you that in all my years of admittedly very casual discussions and studies of religious history, I have never, ever encountered a group of people so knowledgeable and well read on the subjects as I have on this blog. Indeed, the reason that the majority of them visit this blog in the first place is that they learned their lessons a little too well, if you take my meaning. Nothing kills faith like robust scrutiny of the holy texts.
If you have a question, ask it. If you have more platitudes to spout about why Catholicism works for you, I question your choice of venues, but by all means, get on with it. If you're expecting to dazzle us all into a conversion with your command of scripture, though, you're in for a let-down.
"Jesus founded the catholic church???"--- Yep
"Moses founded Manchester United? " I'm not sure. What position does he play?
@#212 ded --
Catholic doctrine unchanging? While I would hardly view such rigidity and unwillingness to grow as an endorsement for a religious sect, this isn't even true. What about clerical celibacy? Or, more recently, limbo?
Danio, I'm simply putting forth reasonable arguments that are backed by history and good scholarship. If you can't handle that, well that's your problem. If I see a Catholic being unfairly attacked (the seminarian who posted earlier) I will stick up for him. Just as well, I will stick up for an atheist if they are being unfairly attacked. Like my girlfriend points out very often. " Catholics get attacked by others by what they THINK we believe" I agree with what the seminarian said as far as knowing something about what you are attacking. I for one want to know all sides of the issue. I can tell you, that atheists more often than christians twist the other persons 'beliefs' into something unrecognizable.
Etha Williams(216), Those are not doctrine. The CAtholic Church has doctrine (unchanging beliefs) such as the real presence of the eucharist. There are other things called traditions (small t) that are more like disciplines or suggestions. These things can change. They are not essential to the faith.
gotz to go.
peace
The Ded sez :
//Danio, I'm simply putting forth reasonable arguments that are backed by history and good scholarship//
By history you mean biblical scholary history? And by good scholarship good biblical scholary catholic scholarship? So thats like a Real Madrid fan getting his sports information from Real Madrid TV then,isnt it.....
Sorry,im watching EURO 2008 lol.....
The Ded sez:
//These things can change. They are not essential to the faith. //
Yep,catholics are so flexible arent they,doctrine here,traditions there,some stuff we insist on,but some really stupid stuff that noone could possibly believe in anymore who has more brain cells than a banana,theyre just "traditions",and open to change LOL
Love your work mate...those evolved death cult trolls,gotta love them....
ded, dear, if Jesus existed as a single individual and is not an amalgam of many like teachers of about that period then - sit down, please - he lived and died a Jew.
If you believe that he rose from the dead then as what - a Jew? a Christian? a Catholic? or maybe as God?
Suggest you check out the history of the term "Christ."
Hey wait....don't clean that up....I think I can see the Virgin Mary in that splooge running down the wall...quick get out the cash box and start selling tickets...it's a miracle...The Virgin Mary appears in the semen of the no good for nothing nasty atheists...
The Immaculate Conception is unequivocally a doctrine (see both Catholic Encyclopedia and wikipedia articles), but it was not defined as such until 1854. The notion itself does not trace back to the early church; it was originated in the 11th century in a tract by Eadmer. Before being officially adopted as church doctrine, it was celebrated on a feast day (what you might call a "suggestion" rather than doctrine). Many earlier theologians (Bonaventure, Aquinas, etc) expressed disagreement with the idea of the IC.
Sex in a confessional, killing two birds with one Bone, I'd say.
Posted by: scooter | June 5, 2008 3:24 PM
Now that is funny....
Etha,isnt it funny how they always abandon ship when someone calls them on their lack of knowledge of their own holy book....I like it when you do that girl,it always makes my night...:-)
This looks really,really promising(OT) :
Trailer for Bill Maher's "Religulous"
http://youtube.com/watch?v=W2nneK1uYVw
Um, first you said that they "split off" from Catholics in the 11th century, now you say that they are still Catholic.
(Their full name is 'the Orthodox Catholic Church', yes, but they don't consider themselves part of your Catholic Church.)
Or "more like guidelines", LOL
"Etha,isnt it funny how they always abandon ship when someone calls them on their lack of knowledge of their own holy book....I like it when you do that girl,it always makes my night...:-)"
Now now, controll your pride. I for one have better things to do than have online debates for hours and hours.
Pope Pius IX officially defined the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in 1854. When you claim that the doctrine was "invented" at this time, you misunderstand both the history of dogmas and what prompts the Church to issue, from time to time, definitive pronouncements regarding faith or morals. You are under the impression that no doctrine is believed until the Pope or an ecumenical council issues a formal statement about it. (For abundant evidence that the sinlessness of Mary is not a new idea in the Church you can research for yourself further if you would like.) http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0309frs.asp
Doctrines are often defined formally only when there is a controversy that needs to be cleared up or when the Magisterium (the Church in its office as teacher; cf.. Matt. 28:18-20; 1 Tim. 3:15, 4:11) thinks the faithful can be helped by particular emphasis being drawn to some already-existing belief. The definition of the Immaculate Conception was prompted by the latter motive; it did not come about because there were widespread doubts about the doctrine. In fact, the Vatican was deluged with requests from people desiring the doctrine to be officially proclaimed. Pope Pius IX, who was highly devoted to the Blessed Virgin Mary, hoped the definition would inspire others in their devotion to her.
Just a question here. Is there something wrong with being an atheist AND learning what 'the other side' has to say? Judging from readers on this site, apparently so.
ded,you seem sufficiently indoctrinated to hold an official position within the catholic church mate,do you?
windy , Yes. More less guidelines. What's the big deal here. In ADDITION to unchanging doctrine there are disciplines in place that can serve roles in anything from the type of vestments a priest wears to the use of incense and such. These disciplines have nothing to do with divine revelation.
"ded,you seem sufficiently indoctrinated to hold an official position within the catholic church mate,do you?"
No, not at all. I just find there is a lot of truth to Catholic teaching when looked at and studied objectively outside of atheist influence and opinion.
Ehm,well,now....
There is also a rather large amount of truth to science teaching when looked at and studied objectively outside of death cultist influence and opinion.
"No, not at all. I just find there is a lot of truth to Catholic teaching when looked at and studied objectively outside of atheist influence and opinion."
Such as how homosexuality is a sin, as is the use of contraception ?
Want to put a number on how many those teachings have killed ?
Ded,
I don't know whether you're a liar or just ignorant - but it is simply false to claim that it is a general conclusion of scholarship that Jesus founded the Catholic church, or indeed any Church. Take a look at work by the Jesus Seminar or Geza Vermes for example.
"Ehm,well,now....
There is also a rather large amount of truth to science teaching when looked at and studied objectively outside of death cultist influence and opinion."
You know we say things like this as if it has any real meaning. Death cultist? C'mon now. And science...What about science!!? Really, what about science? We hear this all the time in atheist cirlces and we get ourselves all puffed up with arrogance. What is this supposed huge gap between 'scientific' atheists and 'anti-science' christians? My family is Catholic and you know...and they prety much have the same scientific beliefs that so called atheists. What I am learning is that the Catholic Church is not and has not been (outside of historical occurences that have been misrepresented by secular sources) 'anti-science" As my Catholic friend pointed out to me recently, a great percentage of the most influencial scientists in history have been christians! (as in they believed in the god of the bible). So, it's best that we realize that atheists do not have science to themsleves.
"No, not at all. I just find there is a lot of truth to Catholic teaching when looked at and studied objectively outside of atheist influence and opinion."
It works from inside. But when you step outside of it, it collapses faster than a house of cards in a hurricane.
The CAtholic Church has doctrine (unchanging beliefs) such as the real presence of the eucharist.
Gimme that old-time religion. MAGIC!
ded,
How many Catholics believe that Mary really was virgin, or that Jesus really did rise from the dead ?
I am willing to bet a good number think those things really did happen. Well if they do, they are anti-science. Mammals do not go in for parthenogenesis and people do not come back to life after they are dead.
How many Catholics think god answers their prayers ? Again, anti-science.
Indeed, any religious belief that has a god intervening in the universe is anti-science.
Pope Pius IX officially defined the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in 1854. When you [Etha] claim that the doctrine was "invented" at this time... - ded
It seems you can't read, either. Etha said it was invented in the 11th century by Eadmer; and that other theologians disputed it.
You might also like to address the matter of papal infallibility (formally promulgated in 1870). In the 14th century John XXII proclaimed in his Bull "Cum inter nonnullos" that the doctrine of the poverty of Christ, which his predecessor Nicholas III supported in his Bull "Exiit qui seminat", was heretical. So which was the heretic, John or Nicholas?
"let's not even speculate about the possibilities with rosary beads"
meh. What you really need are those fat prayer beads you see Bhuddist monks carrying around! Pop! Pop!
By the way, when are we going to see a little more covreage of non-western religious bunkum? With the increase in Asian immigrants in recent years it's a growing concern, and every bit as goofily amusing as anything the Jew/Christian/Muslim trifecta has come up with.
What I am learning is that the Catholic Church is not and has not been (outside of historical occurences that have been misrepresented by secular sources) 'anti-science"
Ah, so the Church didn't murder Giordano Bruno by the spectacularly cruel method of burning him alive, or force Galileo to recant? How have these lies got into the histroy books?
"It works from inside. But when you step outside of it, it collapses faster than a house of cards in a hurricane."
Well then why hasn't it collased? If non believers and anti-catholics have all this death-kill info that can bring down the mighty Catholic Church, than why hasn't it happened? Maybe because there is a lot more there than what we give it credit for.
"he CAtholic Church has doctrine (unchanging beliefs) such as the real presence of the eucharist" The catholic may answer "Matter just sprang into existance uncaused, give me some more of that old time secular magic" ?? :)
Well then why hasn't it collased?
Lies, terror, and the exploitation of ignorance.
Posted by: ded | June 7, 2008 3:57 PM
WHOOSH!
Matter springs into existence all the time, scientists can measure it (Casimir effect): does your magic have any measurable effects?
"So which was the heretic, John or Nicholas?"
I don't know. I'll have to ask a Catholic.
"Matter springs into existence all the time, scientists can measure it (Casimir effect)"
I haven't heard of that. Can you sum it up? Does it say that matter can come into existence uncaused? Nothing coming from nothing?
Well, I better take a break from the online thing lest my girlfriend unplug the computer.
peace
"Matter springs into existence all the time, scientists can measure it (Casimir effect)"
I haven't heard of that. Can you sum it up? Does it say that matter can come into existence uncaused? Nothing coming from nothing?
Well, I better take a break from the online thing lest my girlfriend unplug the computer.
peace
I meant to say something coming from nothing.
"that have been misrepresented by secular sources"
I see we're hitting a bit of a stumbling block to thought here. "Secular" sources are actually the ones to trust. "Secular" merely means an outsider's perspective; objective and unbiased (as much as can be, anyway). It merely means that religious beliefs and doctrines and the desire to protect such are removed from consideration. "Secular" can be seen as technically atheist in that the presence of supernatural beings is not taken as a given, but it does not mean anti-theist or anti-Catholic. "Secular" has been made into a dirty word by the Christianist power-mongers in America, but a truly secular society would protect all religions, not just the one in majority.
Very true Rey Fox.
Indeed it is possible for a country to have an established church and yet be highly secular. A number of countries in Europe fit that description. The UK, or actually just England now, has an established religion, and yet the UK is a pretty secular place. Sure we have religious groups trying to influence Parliament and society but most people, even religious people, think that overt religious views do not belong in public debate. For most voters and most politicians the issue of religion is a private one and few politicians make an issue of any religious belief they may have. I have no idea what the religious views of any of my elected representatives are, and to be honest unless they start supporting what are obviously religious causes I do not care what they are.
As Tony Blair said, the British public tend to regard overtly religious politicians as being nutters.
What has be rolling on the floor is the fact that these people are clueless enough to assume that we've never heard the idiotic "out of context" line before.
Just out of curiosity, ded, would you care to produce a context that would make Numbers 31:17-18 ("Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.") defensible?
Actually, Ded, don't bother answering until you've learned the difference between an assertion and an argument.
Funnily enough, and on something of a tangent I know, in Tudor times St Paul's Cathedral was such a popular venue for nuns selling their sexual services that the archbishop had to pass an act specifically forbidding it.
They could continue outside the cathedral precints, though.
"Numbers 31:17-18 ("Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.") defensible?"
Wow, I was surprised to see that this thread is still going. I am the 'seminarian' who posted a few messages what must be a hundred or more posts ago. I really don't have much time to spend online but I can add some perspective the preceeding quote. When intrepreting scripture, context is very important. For instance, the passeage you quoted is dealing with war. Not only that but it's dealing with war in the context of the time of Moses thousands of years ago.Many Things that occured in the ancient world would be inconceiveable to us today. That's just one part of the context. Just look at the first book of the bible and the story of creation. What do we mean by "day". Some people believe a day is 24 hours, others believe it is a undetermined period of time or even millions of years. Who's right?
Everyone approaches sacred scripture with their own bias and attitudes. As an atheist, you will draw out of the bible what your attitues and preconceptions lead you towards. I assure you that if I gave out a dozen bibles to a dozen different people and had them read select passages and then had them report on the maning of the passages, there would be a dozen different interpretations. I can look to my protestant brothers and sisters as an example. Protestans (non catholic christians) use the bible alone as the foundation of their faith. The CAtholic Church is not 100% dependent on the BIble in this way (that's a different discussion) Why are there over 35,000 protestant denominations? Well, because each of them disagrees with at least one interpretation of sacred scripture. If you say a passage means one thing, a protestant says it means another, and I say it means something else, what do we do? Who is right? One (quick) way to answer this is to find out who is (or claims to be) the authentic interpreter. The bible is not self interpreting. Sure, there are some simple and straight forward passages but a lot of it is very deep and needs propoer unpacking as it were. As it has been mentioned earlier, the bible is a Catholic book. I know that this disturbs many people but it is true. You don't have to be a Catholic to belive this. Verifiable history proves this. Even Martin Luther thanked the Catholic Church for producing the bible. So, when it comes to interpreting the bible the way it was meant to be interpreted, you need to seek out the legitimate and authorative interpreter. That would be the Catholic Church. If there is a disagreement on some passage of scripture, does it really sound reasonable to tell the author of the book that they don't know what the book REALLY says?
Scripture is very complex. There are different generas and literary devices used with the different books and authors. There is history, poetry, allegory, paradox...etc. There is so much to consider when interpreting a pasage of scripture. What is the meaning that the author intended for a particular passage? When you read scripture, you not only need to put it in context but also read it and understand in light of the way the author (Catholic Church) in its living tradition does. I know people want to believe that they can simply pick up the bible and read it from cover to cover and come to a complete understanding of its meaning. It's not that easy folks. Especially if you come to the bible with deep seeded presuppositions. I will spend years studying scripture as I work towards ordination. At that point I will (as all priests here do) have a masters degree (philosophy and theology). Even then I will need to continue to study all aspects of the faith including canon law, scripture, church history.
Sorry this is so long and I didn't have time to edit this. I might not have the time to get back online any time soon so I wanted to put out some thoughts for consideration.
Take care.
Oh, I forgot to mention. The passage you quoted. Do you really think the Catholic Church would include passages of scripture in it's bible that could be used against it as you are attempting to do here? That's just a simple question I throw out to people when I am confronted with 'proof texts'.
take care
Look, "grow up people", the passage shows your God order ing "his people" to commit genocide. All the rest of the bilge in your answer is just a dishonest attempt to distract from that clear and undeniable fact. And the claim that the Catholic Church is the author of the Bible would be disputed not just by Protestants, but by Jews (who I seem to recall had something to do with the part of it under discussion) Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, Armenian and Nestorian Christians. I would say your arrogance is astounding, but in fact it is exactly what I would expect from a trainee member of the world's largest pedophile ring.
in the context of the time of Moses thousands of years ago
All of the bible deals in that context. If the moral value carried in this passage is outmoded, then so is everything else. And if you think that butchering and raping children is in war inconceiveable to us today then you haven't been paying attention.
Funny, that.
In all the thousands of years that the bible has been in existence, and all the thousands of religious disputes, these disputes sometimes becoming so heated that one or more disputants has killed one or more of the other disputants, not once has God made an appearance and spoken for himself, explaining exactly the correct and true meaning of the more insane text so that everyone could understand and agree.
Not once.
It's always been some human being or other. Oh, they claim to be "inspired by God", but so do those who say the exact opposite!
Look at Acts. Here's the Old Testament, filled with various chapters that say "DO NOT EAT THIS" for various types of animals. And this dude has a dream where he sees someone saying "TAKE AND EAT", and that has more weight than all of what is in Leviticus.
Theology. It's all just dreams and made-up fiction pretending to be true, and people take whatever they want out of it.
Pfah.
Posted by: grow up people | June 8, 2008 12:50 PM
Yes, because when the books of the "Catholic" bible were decided upon (which actually happened at the Council of Nicaea in the year 325, which was presided over by Constantine), they did so with the understanding that they could dictate the tenets of belief to their subjects. The freedom of mind top decide your own beliefs was noyt recognized until many centuries later. So your analysis of the situation is seriously deficient, and betrays a serious ignorance on the course of political and religious history.
brokenSoldier, OM , You are incorrect. The new Testament canon was settled at the council of Rome in the year 382 under Pope Damasus I. But I am ignorant right? You have your own version of what you think happened so that you can justify your assumptions and hate of the Church. You have that right my friend. I tell a lot of people that the Catholic Church that they constantly attack and have created in their own minds and the actual Catholic church are completely different establishments. As long as you hang onto half truths and outright lies, you can continue on with your hate for the Church. That's fine. Just know that you are attacking a church of your own making. A lot of the things that are said on this and many other 'atheist' sites is completely incorrect. So many people attack things that we don't even teach! What's the point of that? Oh well. I have tried to give an insight of someone who actually studies in a catholic seminary so as to try and show a little perspective. But I am ignorant and you know what my Church teaches better than me? Hmmm. I will more than likely not continue this discussion. Name calling and closed mindedness to easily obtainable facts are hardly an atmosphere for productive discussion. I wish you the best.
Well, it's been...... interesting.
Take care
@#255 grow up people --
Times change, but your god claims not to:
"I the Lord do not change" (Malachi 3:6).
"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning" (James 1:17).
Why would an immutable god, supposed arbiter of right and wrong, change those morals based on the socio-historical context?
(Emphasis mine.)
The unintentional irony is hilarious.
"grow up people", you are incorrect. The only source for the claim that the Council of Rome under Damasus settled which books should be included in the Catholic/Orthodox Bible is a claim that the first three chapters of the Decretum Gelasianum date back to Damasus, but since these contain a long quotation from St. Augustine, writing in 414, this cannot be so. Professor v. Dobschütz argues that the Decretum Gelasianum is a pseudonymous work dating from between 519 and 553. In any case, I fail to see how any of this justifies "God" telling his "chosen people" to commit genocide and mass rape.
And stop telling us to "take care", you creep.
In other words, even later than the Council of Nicaea.
At Nicaea, they were trying to settle conclusively who Jesus had been and what Christianity was.
Because Jesus, in all the time that he lived, and even after he putatively came back from the dead, didn't tell his followers "Oh, by the way, I was in fact begotten, not made, and I am of the same substance as Dad, and co-eternal with him. [and so on] Just to head off any disputes you might have on the subject."
Theology.
Pfeh, again.
Because, oddly enough, God just won't tell us his version.
It's always just people, making stuff up and pretending that God is talking. You might as well be worshipping a hand-puppet.
Fixed that for you...
You got me - I was off by a whopping 57 years in that mistake. But that hardly does anything to shore up your ridiculous claim that the Catholic Church created the bible with a conscious avoidance of including anything that might weaken their claims. The point of my post - if you happened to read it - was that the Catholic Church was operating from a position of absolute spiritual and intellectual dominance, removing any need for them to worry about their claims and their factual defense.
Posted by: Owlmirror | June 8, 2008 2:21 PM
Nicely put, indeed, Owlmirror. :-)
"You got me - I was off by a whopping 57 years in that mistake" (267)
It's not the number of years that matters. It pretty much dissolves your whole argument (260). Thus Constatine was not involved. I know many people falsely accuse the church of "creating" the bible under the direction of Constatine. Well, forget that idea. The evidence just isn't there. I'm not saying that you were proposing this but it seemed like you were headed in that direction. So if you were wrong about this, isn't it possible that you are wrong about other things as well? There's nothing wrong with being wrong, but calling others ignorant even when they are right because they don't agreee with you shows an unwillingness to listen to reason or just plain obstinance. I have been following this thread with an open mind and I must admit that "grow up people" made good points. So far I am finding much more evidence from reputable sources to back up what he said about the origins of the Catholic Church and where the bible came from than anything that was offered by people attacking him. I have been treated very kindly on some christian websites and forums I have been checking out. Sadly, opposing viewpoints don't seem to be tolerated well here. Heck, you even get insulted for being polite. Some people on here aren't as well informed as they think they are. So, with that being said. It's been real atheists but you just don't do it for me anymore.
"You got me - I was off by a whopping 57 years in that mistake" (267)
It's not the number of years that matters. It pretty much dissolves your whole argument(260). Thus Constatine was not involved. I know many people falsely accuse the church of "creating" the bible under the direction of Constatine. Well, forget that idea. The evidence just isn't there. I'm not saying that you were proposing this but it seemed like you were headed in that direction. So if you were wrong about this, isn't it possible that you are wrong about other things as well? There's nothing wrong with being wrong, but calling others ignorant even when they are right because they don't agreee with you shows an unwillingness to listen to reason or just plain obstinance. I have been following this thread with an open mind and I must admit that "grow up people" made good points. So far I am finding much more evidence from reputable sources to back up what he said about the origins of the Catholic Church and where the bible came from than anything that was offered by people attacking him. I have been treated very kindly on some christian websites and forums I have been checking out. Sadly, opposing viewpoints don't seem to be tolerated well here. Heck, you even get insulted for being polite. Some people on here aren't as well informed as they think they are. So, with that being said. It's been real atheists but you just don't do it for me anymore.
Uh, no. You don't read for context, do you?
It was "grow up people" who implied that had the compilers of "the canon" had a choice, they would not have included such vicious writings in the canon, since those could be used against them.
The point of brokenSoldier's argument was that the church leaders that got together and selected various writings to be "the canon", several hundred years after Jesus died (assuming he even lived in the first place), were able to control not only what was the "real" word of "God", but how the texts would be interpreted and disseminated to the people. Such as saying "Well, they deserved it," and/or "They would have turned out evil anyway," and/or "God's plan was more important," and/or... whatever else they could come up with. And anyone who disagreed was in danger of excommunication/being declared anathema/being tried for heresy.
In those days, society and politics were far more vicious anyway. Wars, famine, plagues, and crime were common, and far more devastating per capita than today. The common folk were so used to tyranny anyway that the idea that God was also a murderous and arbitrary tyrant, albeit far more powerful than the local despots, would have been less problematic.
Besides, it is only now, when hygiene and medicine and crop surpluses and diplomacy and law enforcement all allow for a much higher standard of living, that people look at the bible texts that describe mass murder and say, "You know, we've figured out how to live better without doing that to everyone. Why didn't God?"
Hey, that's what atheists say about God. And religion. And theology.
Pfui.
I have been following this thread with an open mind - ded
Liar.
The RCC is a human organization with pluses and minuses like all others. That being said the Protestant reformation(despite a the southern nutters in the USA) was a turn from the superstitous nonsense the RCC is overrun with to a more 'rational' religion.
Well if you are just there slepping up the usual RCC spiel and preparing to toe whatever line you must perhaps you do know RCC doctrine better. But history? hardly. What the church teaches is often bad enough and on enough issues Protestant scholarship- science-reason has shown RCC stances to be in error but that doesn't stop the RCC from continuing as it has for years.
Carry on chap.
That being said the Protestant reformation(despite a the southern nutters in the USA) was a turn from the superstitous nonsense the RCC is overrun with to a more 'rational' religion. - JimC
Bilge. Just a slightly different load of superstitious nonsense; and the two major figures of the reformation, Luther and Calvin, rival any of the Popes for sheer evil.
grow up people:
Wow, g.u.p., you're really showing astonishing ignorance here, or worse.
The fact that you could ask such a question, obviously thinking it should carry weight, shows that you either know nothing about the actual history of the Bible, or would rather pretend not to because it's inconvenient.
Of course the Bible contains a lot of embarrasing stuff. The passage you avoided dealing with is one of many fine examples of Bronze Age barbarism in the Old Testament.
The Catholic Church couldn't edit that out because the Old Testament was well known and widely copied long before Jesus. Jesus (supposedly) claimed to be the son of the Jewish god JWJH, and to be the fulfillment of the all-too-well-known Hebrew scriptures.
Christians couldn't very well edit out the inconvenient bits of the Hebrew Bible in the first century, when they were surrounded by Jews who knew their scriptures and had Bibles. They'd have been laughed out of town. So they were stuck with all the old Bronze Age and Iron Age stuff Jews were stuck with.
After that, it was too late. Even before there was a Christian canon of gospels and letters and whatnot, the Christians had committed to the Hebrew Bible being canonical.
And if anything in the Hebrew Bible was canonical, it would have to be the Pentateuch, the oldest and weirdest but most respected of the Hebrew scriptures.
The Hebrew Bible had the same problem. It was stuck with the Pentateuch because everybody knew from way back that the first five books of the Bible were the most important. (And traditionally, attributed to Moses himself. Which was nuts, but that's what they thought for a thousand years.)
The Pentateuch has the same problem. It's a mishmash of stuff from before and after the Jews came together as a united people. Genesis in particular is largely a woven-together bunch of oral stories from different tribes, with inconsistent versions of events.
They couldn't throw anything out in the early days, because too many people knew the oral stories by heart. That's how oral cultures work. So when the J people (who called God JWJH) got together with the E people (who called him Elohim), they took the two versions of Genesis and interleaved parts of them. Everybody got to hear the bits they were familiar with, but it made Genesis a total mess, with bits of the story being repeated in different dialects, with lots of inconsistencies. (Did the animals go into the ark 2 by 2, or 7 by 7? etc.)
You can separate out many of the original texts that the Pentateuch was woven together from, using modern linguistic analysis. (With techniques similar to the ones used in genetics, noticing where things have been copied and mutated.)
This is very well known stuff to Bible historians. It's the received view except among fundamentalist kooks.
If you sincerely do not know this stuff, run, do not walk, to a library or bookstore and get Richard Elliot Friedman's book Who Wrote the Bible, second edition. It's an excellent, very readable introduction to (OT) Bible history.
It's used in many seminaries and rabbinical schools; it's not an atheist tract. I got turned onto it by a Methodist minister friend in a Bible class I sat in on; he was turned onto it in seminary.
You are evidently getting a crap education in your seminary; either that, or you're being taught to lie by omission and implication.
Either way, you should fix that problem. At any rate, stop saying such inane, ignorant shit here. There are people here who are perfectly capable of calling you on it.
If you are not familiar with the E, J, D, P, and Q sources, you do not know the most basic ideas about the history of the Bible. Stop condescending to us as though you knew something, and start addressing the issues people raise, or go the hell away.
The questions about the genocides commanded by God in the Old Testament stand. Stop dodging them with your Courtier's Reply. Did God command such things, and do you worship such a God? Was it okay in those days, but not now? (What kind of moral relativism is that?) Is God unchanging, or did he change his mind about such things?
ded:
No, it's not - for the reasons I clearly stated in my post. I won't regurgitate them here, as they are already listed.
Again you're mistaken - I recognized and admitted that I was wrong in citing the Council of Nicaea as the event that chose the books of the bible. I called him ignorant because he ignored the fact that the date was ancillary to my main point that his claim - that the Church consciously engineered the Bible to be impervious to contrary claims - was flat-out wrong.
Just because you say it doesn't make it true. But you are correct in placing yourself and your ideas alongside grow up people - from the things you've posted, you do seem to be of a like mind, though that type of mind is far from open.
That clearly tells me that there are some serious problems with your capacity for research...
Faulty logic - since you're clearly not an atheist, your viewpoints would hardly be opposed on a religious website. Therefore, your treatment on those Christian websites could hardly be representative of how they treat opposing viewpoints. And that is beside the fact that your suggestion that Christian websites are devoid of ill treatment of dissenters is comically false.
I'd be excited about your supposed departure, but many trolls have made the same claim, only to prove themselves liars by showing up again very soon after.
Not necessarily. After all, there are still denominations that consider Catholics to be more or less equivalent to Satanists, and certainly not "Christians".
Tangental note: There's a memorandum written by George Washington to the commander that he wanted to ally with the [mostly Catholic] French up north, saying basically "Y'know, could we please not offend these people we want to work with by burning the pope in effigy (on Guy Fawkes Day)? Thanks ever so much."
Not sure what that has to do with anything, other that demonstrating that sectarian anti-Catholicism has a long history in the US.
Owlmirror:
True - I should have elaborated more. That was an assumption based not only on his religious viewpoint, but also on the tone and content of the things he's said on this site. From what I've read, he's way more likely to be one of the nodding heads on such sites than a voice of disagreement.
Owlmirror@276 There's one town in England (Lewes) where they still burn the Pope in effigy on Guy Fawkes Day. And roll blazing tar-barrels along the street. Quaint, eh?
Google "Casimir effect".
Obviously, it's about how to get a good batch of virgin females for your Drosophila research.
Paul W. , Wow, such anger and rudeness. I must say I haven't been treated quite like this since certain fundamental christians were insisting that I was a member of a "heretical post Vatican II Church, the whore of babylon" . As I have alluded to from the beginning, I don't have time to have a point by point back and forth debate. It's really not that important and I just don't have the time. I don't even bother to edit what I write. Most of what I write is done in haste. I wrote a rather lengthly response and yet you focus your anger on a simple extra thought I put out there. I think you missed the greater context of the question. If the Catholic Church is this massively corrupt institution that makes up doctrine and deceives its followers ( as is the picture that is painted on here) why in the world would would the church include passages that could be used to prove it to be a false church or (enter reason here)? If they were as corrupt and deceptive as everyone thinks they were, then leaving out 'problem' books or selectively editing them wouldn't have been a problem. Martin Luther took out seven books from the OT and selectively edited one. That seemed to work out pretty well for him and he didn't even have the legitimate authority to do it. That's all I was saying. Sheesh.
Do you really think I haven't had these 'proof text' passages thrown at me before? It's par for the course with atheists and I can see why they are used to attack the Church. When you don't know how entire bible is supposed to be read, it can be confusing that christians would worhip such a 'vengeful God'. When challenged with these passages at a point in my life that I had more time on my hands, I would go over several things with the person throwing around proof texts before even dealing with the 'problem' passage. What is their perception and understanding of who God is vs what a Catholic believes about God (it's not always warm fuzzies). That's a huge thing to consider. God is all loving-yes but He is also all just. There is no way to dive into these concepts adequately on a blog. Just in that one passage that was quoted from Numbers, there is a lot to consider. You can look into the groups involved in the war, who were they?, why were they fighting?, and why did God act the way He did?. Could sin have something to do with it? That's how a Catholic reads scripture (or at least that's how they should) Are there disturbing passages in the bible, particularily in the OT?. There sure are but if you don't put them not only in correct context of the rest of the passage but the rest of the bible, you aren't reading scripture correctly. Jesus healed the sick and cared for the poor. He was tortured and died for all mankind on a cross. Hmm, now how does that reconcile with the vengeful God of the OT? The mistake that is often made is to make these 'proof texts' a basis for attacking God or the Curch or ..whatever without putting it in the context of the whole bible AND the living tradition of the Church. You say "the god you worhship is evil and condones violence" or something like that. Is is important what YOU think? Are you an infallibe and authorative source for interpreting the Catholic Bible? How about how does the church approach the passage? That's what is important. The church doesn't just stop at the simple quick answer. That's why people study scripture and history. Is there violence and death in the bible?. Of course. You forgot about sodom and gomorrah and the flood. A lot of people were wiped out there as well. Why? The quick answer-Sin has a lot to do with it.Sounds familair. How all this is interpreted and taught in the Catholic Church is what is important. Attack what the church teaches rather than your own personal opinion. Find out the "why" to Catholic teaching.
I don't need a lesson in the history of the developement of the bible from you. I know you have your pride to fuel by slamming me and accusing me of being ignorant....so be it. I have no pride in this discussion. I have been firm in my contentions but I have also been polite. Do you think I really have time to spend on debating the history of Old Testament scripture? There's tons of info to consider. I was called ignorant for asserting the Catholic Church is the author and producer of the Bible (particular focus on the new testament. Well, I got called a lot of names but was not given any solid refuting evidence. It's not an arrogant statement to make the claim that your church authored the bible if it is true. I point it out when people start quoting scripture to make a point. By the way, if it wasn't the catholic church, then who was it? What other church decided the canon of scripture? Were the new testament authors gnostic? or maybe some secret underground christian sect? or were they catholic in their beliefs and practice? Produce some refuting evidence.
Again, I'm just throwing out questions as a general response to things I have read on here and don't have time to respond to each and every one. I hope you will take this answer as an attempt to make clear my position rather than an opportunity to insult.
"If you are not familiar with the E, J, D, P, and Q sources, you do not know the most basic ideas about the history of the Bible. Stop condescending to us as though you knew something, and start addressing the issues people raise, or go the hell away."
I forgot about this. The JEDP theory? Is that what your whole rant was about? So, this (theory) in your mind is the be-all and end-all of OT scholarship? C'mon. It's like the one person who said on here that I should look into the Jesus seminar. Then I would be set straight. Aye. Am I ignorant if I don't subscribe to this stuff? Hmm. Maybe the reutation I read on the jedp was wrong? Maybe those authores were ignorant too? I could be wrong, but the last I heard, the number of (liberal) seminaries that taught the jedp was dwindeling. You will have to tell me. It seems to be going out of vogue. Again I could be wrong. I haven't been following the travels of the feared jedp theory.
*refutation.
It's a bit surprising to see someone who is presumably honest about studying theology asserting that the provenance of biblical texts and theodicy are "not that important".
You really don't read for context, do you? Paul W. pointed out that the Jews were already dispersed throughout the region that the Christians were establishing themselves in.
Another point that Paul W. did not state explicitly is that the early Christians were precisely trying to position themselves as the heirs of the Jews, the "fulfillment" of the "law". They would be seriously undercutting their own mythology if they started tampering with the "holy" texts.
But they could and did tamper with the interpretation of the texts, which most people were happy about since that meant they did not have to undergo surgery or give up favored foods.
So?
Did he change or edit anything from the first five books?
Nonsense. Going by the bible, God is not just, God is not kind, God is not merciful.
Look at the Flood. God kills everyone and everything.
Or look at Job. God asserts, basically, that might makes right.
Theological essentialism was invented because the Jews realized that a literal understanding of their own holy text meant that they were in the power of a being that was quite literally insane; a being of infinite power and infinite sadism.
Naturally, they had to claim that you had to "read scripture correctly". And Christianity inherited this idea, as did Islam.
It is what it is...
In other words: They deserved it. That's one essentialist argument.
You need it from somebody. The bible was not written by God, nor inspired by God; it's a collection of accreted mythology.
Once you realize that, the insanity no longer is as important. It's just people preserving a story from their ancestors. No mental contortions necessary.
You know, you would be cut some slack if you had worded it as: The Catholic Church is the author and producer of the Catholic canon of the Bible. Because that's not only true, it's tautologically true.
You know, you might be cut just a little more slack if you signed your comments with something just a wee, tiny bit less arrogant and condescending than "grow up people". I mean, good grief, how would you like it if every single comment here was signed something like "God-believers are infantile"?
How about something like "The Very Model of a Catholic Seminarian"? (I have Gilbert and Sullivan running through my brain)
Following up on my last line, I wondered if someone had written a patter song along those lines, and discovered this:
http://cnytr.blogspot.com/2004/09/1-bats-bugs.html
and this:
http://www.kerygma.org/lee/2004/09/song-i-should-like-to-sing-when.htm
To "grow up people."
What Owlmirror said.
By the way, if we're to believe Catholics about interpreting the NT, because they wrote it, why not believe the Jews about how to interpret the OT? Including the part where they don't buy the NT.
My rabbi friends say you're full of shit. (Not so bluntly, of course.)
P.S. Check out my new handle!
"You can look into the groups involved in the war, who were they?, why were they fighting?"
What did the women and children do to deserve being killed or captured? Yes, all good questions.
"The quick answer-Sin has a lot to do with it"
Sin is bollocks.
Sin is bollocks.
And God is an asshole.
grow up people:
I'll grant that I'm a rude asshole, if you'll grant that you're just indulging in the Courtier's Reply, over and over again.
On this blog, that makes you the asshole. You're the one that needs to "grow up" and start making a serious argument that's respectful of an audience that happens NOT to buy your arguments from authority. Read PZ's post and take it seriously. If you don't, you'll have a very bumpy ride here.
If you don't have the time to engage in respectful civil discourse---and that means taking the time to make your case---then don't be surprised if we don't bother to take you seriously.
Near as we can tell, you're a twit who's drunk the Kool-aid. Sorry if that's offensive to you, but we can't help but see it that way.
It's not because we haven't been exposed to Catholicism. Many of us were raised Catholic and received a serious Catholic indoctrination. You can start from there if you like.
I'd wager that my grounding in philosophy and religion generally is better than yours. Maybe it's weak in subtle but crucial points of specifically Catholic theology, despite my unusually good Catholic education. OK, set me straight.
But don't tell me to respect the "living tradition" of the Catholic church. Most people here know enough about the Spanish Inquisition, the selling of indulgences, the theology of Limbo, etc., to know that the Catholic church has been pretty wacky at times. Give us a reason to think that its living tradition is especially self-correcting, such that its pronouncements are even vaguely reliable.
Otherwise, you're just making an argument from authority. Given that it's an authority we don't currently have a ton of respect for, you're screwed there. You have to explain your actual position and make an actual argument for it.
Condescending to us as ignorant noobs w.r.t. Catholicism isn't going to cut it. You have to make the argument that there's something there worth paying attention to.
To the minor extent that you've tried that, you've failed pathetically.
For example, you implied that the Catholic church could have drastically revised the scriptures into a more "convenient" form if it didn't have a good story to reconcile all the seeming barbarisms and inconsistencies.
I called you on that bullshit. Whether you buy the specific J E D P story of the evolution of the Pentateuch or not, it's obvious from generally agreed first century history that the Christians (not yet Catholic) couldn't have revised the OT scriptures wholesale. As I said befoe, and as Owlmirror explained a little more, they couldn't have gotten away with it.
The same applies to the gospels. When the Catholic church was forming as a specific coherent organization, there were already a bunch of widely-read gospels around. They could pick and choose among them to a certain extent, but there was big politics around that, and they couldn't just vivisect them and leave out awkward bits.
You make it sound like we don't have a good story about the evolution of the Bible or the history of the Church, so we obviously should take your word, or the Church's, on those things, by default.
Bullshit. I think we have a better story. We might be wrong, but we're nowhere near as ignorant as you paint us to be. So if you want to convince anybody here, you've got to start actually stating your points and making your case.
If you don't, we will continue to ridicule you as a presumptious little Kool-aid drinking dipshit.
Don't want to hear words like that? Then start showing a little respect. Change your asshole handle, stop making arguments from authority, and start making arguments for that authority. Start defending your theology, or expect us to continue ridicule it and you.
If it's not worth your trouble, and you don't want to be disagreed with, leave. If you want to stay, but don't want to be disagreed with rudely, change your tone.
As somebody well-versed in Catholicism, I've gotta say that the common "caricature" of Catholic theology isn't that far off the mark, IMHO. Sure, there's a massive, Baroque structure of rationalizations around it, but the core theology is every bit as crazy as it seems.
Disagree? Make your case.
By the way, I'm not anti-Catholic; some of my best friends and most of my relatives are Catholic. I'm just anti-Catholocism.
I don't hate Catholics. I do despise Courtier's Replies.
"It's really not that important" = Having an online debate in the grand scheme of my life is not important.
"You know, you might be cut just a little more slack if you signed your comments with something just a wee, tiny bit less arrogant and condescending than "grow up people".
Are you kidding me? No anti catholic arrogance on this site. Nope, none at all. the "grow up people" screen name was in reference to responses to the ORIGINAL TOPIC.
"You know, you would be cut some slack if you had worded it as: The Catholic Church is the author and producer of the Catholic canon of the Bible. Because that's not only true, it's tautologically true"
Semantics.
"You need it from somebody. The bible was not written by God, nor inspired by God; it's a collection of accreted mythology"
Ok, and you can prove this by??? How do you know definitively any of this? Specifics please. Others have proposed JEDP and "Q" source theories. Ok. Interesting examples of studying scripture but by no means definitive.
"Theological essentialism was invented because the Jews realized that a literal understanding of their own holy text meant that they were in the power of a being that was quite literally insane; a being of infinite power and infinite sadism"
Huh? And this (assertion) is proved how? Specifics please. Maybe some ancient Jewish documents. I don't see the point of these 'arguments'.
This is such a waste of my time. I was expecting a bit more from here but hey, it is the internet. A place where everyone has their own comfortable confines where they can reign supreme. BTW I never said I was a seminarian. I suspect if I was, I probably would have left here early on as the insults began. A few of you actually engaged my arguments. Well, sort of. You have been engaging a first year theology student. Oh, and I also have a degree in the medical sciences lest you think I am the stereotype anti-science Catholic clone. Miscommunications and misunderstanding of context in our discussions aside, it was .....interesting. You atheists need to lighten up a bit. Also realize that many of you don't have a grasp on what the catholic church really is and what we believe. You call me indoctrinated .... Yet I see quite a bit of it on here. You should try engaging 'the other side' on their ground outside of safe surroundings.
Adios
I meant to say something coming from nothing.
Where did all that nothing come from? Was it unadulterated? Without the adultery, whence the coming? or the Second Coming, i.e. Sloppy Seconds, for that matter, or is it energy?
Paul W. Another rude & anger filled rant but did you "Produce some refuting evidence." To what I said? You called me a lot of names and made assertions. Maybe that was a way to stray from what I was actually arguing. I've been called a lot of names and yet I remain polite. I guess I could call you on your "BS" as you have done with me.
I haven't made deep theological statements here. A debate on the proofs for God using Aquinas...now that would be a bit more deep theologically. I have made a couple of arguments about canonicity and authorship of the new testament. That's about it. Hey, if someone can PROVE to me that the NT wasn't penned by Catholics, then I am in the wrong church. It won't be proved because they were indeed catholic. What is so illogical about any of this? If I am wrong for interpreting the scripture the same way that the church who put the scriptures together in the form we have today does, then how should they be interpreted? I gave a brief explanation of how Catholics read and interpret scripture. I was asked about a particular passage remember?
Serioulsy, lighten up.
-"grow up people"
Bad news. The champion of "most words used in avoiding answering a simple question" is already over...well, damn it, now I've lost count, but was well over a thousand. Not bad for a first effort, though.
....
.........
.................are you actually claiming that the passage in question is not in the Bible?
Are you for real? The Catholic Church continues to engage in an international conspiracy to shield serial child-rapists from criminal prosecution. The current Pope, as Cardinal Ratzinger, was largely responsible for the enforcement and maintenance of the internal policy of non-cooperation with law enforcement. If you don't think that counts as "massively corrupt", you need your head examined.
No, Azky, he's saying "Reading - ur doin it wrong."
Y'see, you have to read The Bible in the right way. If something in there strikes you as evil or wrong, it's your own fault for being unschooled in the techniques required for reading scripture with real understanding.
It's like one of those secret decoder thingies, but much, much more complicated and sophisticated and subtle and junk. Much more. Like, lots. Really a lot. A ton. So much it's not even funny.
Ксения
What I find baffling is the serious discussion over the finer points of interpreting a dubious third-hand collection of the myths of bronze-age Levantine goatherds.
Am I the only one who thinks it's like discussing the correct intepretation of the description of the horn on an invisible pink unicorn written translated from cuneiform?
No, no, no! "Green and straight" means "opalescent and helical" if you read it right!
I can understand a few ancient history wonks being interested in it as a source of anthropological insight and an historical curiosity, but otherwise it seems like a rather bizarre waste of time.
2520 words and still no answer to the original challenge (which was to provide a way in which to read what is in plain english a command from a revered religious leader, to the "good guys" of that part of the Bible, to engage in mass child rape, such that this passage was morally defensible).
You're on a roll here.
I'm no scripture scholar (yet) but I did find this.
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/midian.html
I don't know who anything about the author but it does indeed appear that there is much more to the passage in question than a simple literal interpretation. I think the short answer of "sin having something to do with it" by (grow up people) does speak to the the "challenge" of explaining this passage.
"2520 words and still no answer to the original challenge (which was to provide a way in which to read what is in plain english a command from a revered religious leader, to the "good guys" of that part of the Bible, to engage in mass child rape, such that this passage was morally defensible).
You're on a roll here."
It could be that he didn't answer because there is no command to "mass child rape" Oh, but because you say that's what it says, it must be true. Is it even implied? I guess it could be but...darn if we aren't stuck again on how to interpret the words. Hmmm. Wasn't that one of "grow up people's" points?
Interesting, if true. Perhaps that is a reaction to the dwindling church attendance and dwindling number of priests: The instructors avoid any secular explanation and analysis of the bible texts, lest they lose yet more students to the secular world. They simply do not trust their students with anything that will allow them to question dogma and doctrine.
And yet here you are, having an online debate...
You mean, the topic that atheists should have some manners?
I quite agree: your claim is indeed wrong on semantic grounds.
Oh, the "mythology" is established by more than the literary analysis of the bible text. It's the fact that archaeology has provided us with many, many examples of very similar mythology among the other peoples of the ancient Near East — the Egyptians, the Sumerians, the Assyrians, the Akkadians, the Babylonians, the Canaanites, the Persians, the Arameans, and of course, the Ugaritic myths, which include the description of the family of the high God El, and his son Ba'al.
And so on.
We can prove that a knowing, powerful, and benevolent God neither wrote the text nor inspired it because the text it self contains internal contradictions and false statements. Some of these statements were obviously false to anyone who bothered to read carefully and check; others would require the advancement of modern science to demonstrate their falseness. And then, of course, there are the murders, genocides, and massacres, carried out by God or ordered by him.
And, as I note, not once does God step in and explain what the correct interpretation of these passages are. Come one. If God was a real being, he knows what I'm typing this very second, and yet he does nothing to correct me on any errors I might be making. A jealous God would respond out of rage; a benevolent God would respond out of kindness. And yet...
Nothing.
By observing that rabbinical Judaism, descended from Pharisaic Judaism, pointed out that a literal interpretation of the laws was far too cruel, and devised the concept of an "oral law" which was supposedly also inherited from Moses, to mitigate the laws' cruelty.
I note that you yourself are doing the exact same handwaving and avoidance, and denialism that are the basis of theological essentialism.
And yet, here you are.
O rly?
Did you forget, or did you change your mind, or what? This is a stupid thing to lie about, so what the hell are you talking about?
That's nice. Do you want a cookie?
Vaya con.... razón.
Easy.
"Catholic" now, does not mean the same thing as "Catholic" did when the NT was compiled. "Catholic" back then, meant "Universal". Obviously, this was something they wished to claim for themselves, rather than it really being true, since there were churches that were not part of the so-called "Universal" church.
Especially after the Great Schism, the Roman Catholics use that term, but given the multiplicity of churches outside of it (and more with every schism and sectarian split), it is quite obviously incorrect.
The only thing more disgusting than the text itself is watching theologians try to excuse it. The very worst sort of moral relativism combined with the very worst sort of moral absolutism for a hypocritical, handwaving tour de force.
Pfeh.
Owlmirror , That doesn't prove the NT wasn't penned by Catholics. What you wrote is not established fact. I'm looking for something more concrete. Those who still hold the same beliefs and are still in communion with the Pope (or St. Peter back then) are considered to be in the Catholic Church. Writings from the earliest christians show us how the 'catholic" church viewed itself and it's authority. The earliest christian writings also show us a clear insight into their christianity. It was very catholic (belief in the primacy of Peter, the real presence...) I believe the first time we actually see the word catholic used in wrting is around AD 107 by Ignatius. Within the context of that writing we can reasonably assume the term "catholic" was already common. I would like to see contemporary documentary evidence that would suggest that the NT writers were not christian. Some ancient document that would indicate that the earliest christians did not believe the genuine authors of the nt were catholic. That would be more sunstantial proof for me. Also your "proof" that the scripture is not inspired. Interesting takess on the subject but not "proofs". Especially since I have been reading reasonable explanations about apparent internal contradictions and such.
One other thing. You can study theology in a seminary and not be studying for the priesthood. There are programs that are seminary based for lay people. They are quite common. In his (grow up) first post, he clearly states that he is not studying for priesthood. Someone later labelled him a "pontificating seminarian" or something like that.
I'm sorry, but it is an established fact that if something is not actually universal, then it is not universal. This may be a semantic argument, yet it is nevertheless correct. Or as an analogy: If someone claims to be "the tallest person ever", and is measurably only of average height, then their claim to be the tallest is false.
Speaking of "catholic", I note that the Orthodox Churches also claim to be Catholic:
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/orthodox.htm
In a theological dispute, who could possibly be right? Hey, maybe God will tell us.....
Nope, still nothing.
Ah. In other words, explanations that involve hand waving and saying "It doesn't mean what it says!" or "They deserved it!".
Theological essentialism.
Pfaugh.
Looks like another semantic problem: If someone is studying in a seminary, but not for the priesthood, are they a seminarian or not?
Sigh. I suppose that there might be some obscure definitional distinction. Whatever.
It should be obvious by now that I get my jollies from watching you humans scream at each other and whack each other with sticks. Or even whack yourselves with sticks.
That's what I like to see--little things hitting each other!
Humanity, you're my ten-thousand-year-Punch-and-Judy show, with a cast of billions.
*eyeroll*
Yeah, real helpful there God.
It's shit like this that makes theists look stupid. Gosh, I'm not even sure I can dumb down my response enough for a Catholic to understand, but I'll try.
Ded, given that you and your fellow altar boy buggerers* believe pretty unequivocally that Shiva doesn't exist, and you've got all this evidence that yours is the One True God™, why hasn't all of Hinduism collapsed on itself? Maybe because there is a lot more there than what you give it credit for.
*As a preemptive strike against dipshits like Brenda or others who are going to take issue with me characterising all Catholics based on the actions of a few, I offer that there isn't a Christian on the face of the planet who objects to being generalised as moral based on the supposed actions of one man circa 30 CE.
Would you care to provide a remotely plausible alternative interpretation of "But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves?"
Well, the handwaving does offer a plausible "out" for the child rape. Read the Christian Thinktank link.
Please allow me to summarize:
What probably happened was that all females of child-bearing age were killed, which not only solved the "Is she a virgin? Or not?" problem, but ensured that the average age of the girl-children was around 5, and the Israelistes were not known for their pedophilia, so the girls were assimilated into the population as adopted children of Israelite families. This is ok, because all the women who were killed had seduced the male Israelites prior to the events describe, and made them turn away from the Lord, and all those Israelites were punished by God too (24,000 dead from plague) so it was ok for the Israelites to wipe out the evil, lascivious Midianites and keep their girls to replace all the men who had died. It was all ok because they had alread killed all the girls old enough to rape.
"Keep for yourselves" means "Don't give'em over to Yahweh," where "give'em over to Yahweh" means "kill'em all."
However, there's no attempt to justify the murder of all the boy-children, even infants.
So we have god-ordered child-rape no, god-ordered murder and infanticide, yes.
Pure as the driven snow, it ain't.
Well, there's an attempt, just before the summary at the bottom of the page....
Which basically sums up to: taking them in as slaves or servants would have lead to the danger of slave revolts, there was no one else around to take them in, and it was totally their parents' faults for putting them in the situation, anyway.
So it was obviously the best, most moral, most ethical solution for the Israelites to smash their tiny skulls in quickly.
I mean, it's not like there was a powerful, knowing, benevolent being around, like maybe a God, who could have possibly come up with a non-murderous solution, right?
Pft.
Of course, this is a God whose idea of a fair punishment for the Israelites who strayed with the Midianite women in the first place is death by plague. So, y'know, not looking too benevolent on that count either.
Suppose we concede that the Catholic Church dates back to the mid-1st century CE. Wow. That means it has an almost 2000 year record of persecution, murder, torture, misogyny, theft, child abuse, warmongering, lies and sophistry. Impressive.
Silly me! I forgot tyranny, obscurantism, bigotry, homophobia, and anti-semitism.
Speaking of wars and plagues, why do all the acts of God look exactly like the acts of humans and nature?
Or did God also tell the Māori to slaughter the Moriori? And what exactly did the people of Anchorage do to earn God's wrath on Good Friday, 1964?
I don't sent plagues as a punishment. I send plagues because it's funny.
Oh, and about the infanticide? What part of "little things hitting each other" did you not understand?
*headaltar*
I didn't read much up thread, so forgive a late and possibly redundant post, but...
Holy shit, is this for real? By Catholics?
The author of Matthew was almost certainly Jewish. And what was all this about Peter's mission to the Jews and Paul's mission to the Gentiles? In the first 200 years after the supposed death of Jesus, there wasn't a Christianty, there were Christianities. A lot of them. And a lot of them were just Jewish splinter groups who never considered giving up the Law and never thought they were founding a new religion. Just the vast differences in theological interest among the four canonical Gospels ought to tell you that much, never minding the apocrypha. Do you people just not read this stuff, or what?
It's like the one person who said on here that I should look into the Jesus seminar. Then I would be set straight. - gup
I said that, in answer to the lie that it is established scholarship that Jesus founded the Catholic Church.
When challenged with these passages at a point in my life that I had more time on my hands, I would go over several things with the person throwing around proof texts before even dealing with the 'problem' passage. - gup
Translation: When challenged with these passages I change the subject.
Given the vast majority of these posts I can only come to the conclusion that the vast majority of you need therapy. The issue that started this thread is not one of religion but of simply common decency, and I mean decency in the ethical not religious sense. The act occuring in the confessional, while perfectly acceptable among consenting adults, was executed as an anti-social act, the issue is not about sex, not about religion, but about socially responsible behavior. A moral and ethically responsible person does not engage in behavior meant to intentionally outrage and offend others, for no reason other than to outrage and offend others. I am appalled by the number of people either defending the activity or excusing it based on the perceived faults of organized religion. I have news for you, the 2,000 year record of persecution, murder, torture, etc., etc... is just the last 2,000 years of a record of said behavior of some 50,000 years. Your problem it seems, is not with christianity or the catholic church, but with mankind, and your sactioning of such behavior as occurred in the confessional is just contributing to it. Your rhetoric and logic is worthy of a mafia turf war. Flame away, but you are wrong, and if mankind is to have any hope at all, you hopefully, in some small way, know you are wrong.
finntann, you didn't read the thread did you? Why don't you pick posts you have a problem with, and THEN we will discuss them. Until then, go far, far away.
Yes, I did read the post and thread (well at least a statistical sampling of the 300+ comments), which originated with a discussion of the activities in the confessional and devolved into a fairly irrational trouncing of the belief system of a significant portion of our population. A trouncing in which the vast majority focuses not on message but on negative historical events, which honestly were driven more by self-serving, greedy, and egotistical men than any true religious fanaticism, although in some rare cases fanaticism did play a role. My point is that the vast majority of the threads are simply persecuting christians and religious, and ignoring the content of the original post.
Please, pick (even a sampling) of the posts you would like to discuss. Should we start with my post at #41 where I said:
and
You say:
I do not care if EVERYONE holds to that belief system. That does not make it in anyway rational. It is still a belief system that is out of sync with reality. The fact that a significant portion of the population holds to it does not give it any extra respect or credibility. We are not gonna to come at religion with soft gloves. We will belittle it just like any other ridiculous idea, whether it is Catholicism or homeopathy.
Fixed that for you.
("Persecuting"? Do you even know what that means?)
So what? Are commenters not allowed to use the OP as a jumping-off point to a larger topic?
Either way, THE point is that religion does not guarantee ethical behavior, it never has, and it never will; neither does it offer any evidence of its veracity as a worldview, nor has it ever, nor will it ever. It nurtures and feeds off of irrationality, it creates and perpetuates artificial divisions between people. And yet its practitioners deign to make extraordinary claims contrary to all evidence and observation, and try to leverage these unproven claims in an effort to impose this worldview on everyone else whether they like it or not.
Oh yeah, and what the couple did in the church was inexcusably uncouth.
Fintann:
how do you feel about the similar statement
Would you be as offended if we were criticizing Communism, simply because is or was the "belief system" of a significant fraction of the world's population?
Most of us here know plenty of Catholics and like them fine; we don't think Catholics are particularly bad people.
We also don't think that they're particularly good people, or that the flaws in their belief systems are not dangerous or harmful.
I'll stop criticizing the Catholic church when the Catholic church stops indoctrinating children with ideas that are crazy and harmful, and having substantial negative influence on the politics of my country and the world.
Criticizing somebody's belief system is not persecution. Ridiculing beliefs is not persecution. Look up the word.
You seem to attribute all the bad things the Catholic Church has done to "human error." I could say the same about Communism. It's based on some basically nice ideas, but suffered a little bit in the execution, due to human weaknesses.
Or I could say that Communism and Catholicism are both dangerous wrong-headed authoritarian ideologies, which have led to a whole lot of harm.
I think that would be fair.
Your rhetoric and logic is worthy of a mafia turf war.
Erm, I think the mafia are more inclined to use murder and torture than rhetoric and logic - you need to develop a sense of proportion. Might also be worth noting that it was the Italian Christian Democrats who allied with the Mafia to keep the wicked atheistic Communist Party out of power in Italy.
What, you never heard of the Piranha Brothers?
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
OK, that's more rhetoric without logic. But still. There you go. It's just exactly as bad as nailing someone's head to the floor.
Because two adults expressing consensual mutual pleasure, albeit in an inappropriate location, is exactly as bad as murder, torture, rape, slavery, et cetera — you know, things that actually damage people?
Your concern is noted, and stupid.
A moral and ethically responsible person does not engage in behavior meant to intentionally outrage and offend others, for no reason other than to outrage and offend others.
Hey, finntann, the stick up your butt has a stick up its butt. Get over your damn self. People need to be outraged and offended, and sometimes, it needs to be done by moral and ethically responsible professionals.
Anybody who fails to live to offend and outrage has not scratched the surface of what it means to be human.
Your rhetoric and logic is worthy of a mafia turf war. Flame away, but you are wrong, and if mankind is to have any hope at all, you hopefully, in some small way, know you are wrong.
Such inept rhetorical overkill is pathetically banal. It just kills you that the sex those silly people had in that confessional was better than any you've auto-flagellated yourself for imagining, and was more life-affirming than that death-cult has ever been. You thrive on being this offended and outraged, finntann, you contemptuous toad. At least you provide an abject figure ripe for ridicule and contempt. Thanks!
"I'll stop criticizing the Catholic church when the Catholic church stops indoctrinating children with ideas that are crazy and harmful, and having substantial negative influence on the politics of my country and the world."
If they were to stop buggering children, that would be nice too.
@#316 finntann --
My problem is with a belief system that holds itself as being above rational discussion and, in so doing, can foster and encourage some of the worst elements in human nature. We can argue rationally about the ethics of sex in confessionals (and it's not at all true that the majority of people on this thread sanctioned it; some found it amusing, some thought it was legitimate civil disobedience, some thought it uncouth and wrong, etc). We couldn't have such a discussion if we claimed that it was our divine privilege/duty/etc to have sex in confessionals.
Owlmirror@326 Worse, worse: "Even Dinsdale was frightened of Doug!"
Back on topic, I'm reminded of a somewhat different outrage that took place in a Catholic Church in France (I think it was Notre Dame Cathedral) in the 1950s, perpetrated by a politico-artistic group called the Lettrists. Shortly before an important service, they managed to (temporarily) kidnap the officiating priest, and one of their number was already dressed in clerical garb. He proceeded to take the service, and all went as normal until he came to the sermon. He then, with appropriate solemnity, announced to the congregation:
"Freres, Dieu est mort." I think he got out alive.
Don't be hard on us, Fintann. Just like the priests who fuck altar boys and the bishops, cardinals and popes that quietly moved them to more fertile pastures rather than turning them in to the authorities, we're not perfect. We make mistakes.
So when we digress from a discussion of the tastelessness of having sex in a confessional during services to note that the Catholic church is about as corrupt an institution as one can create (thanks, Jesus!) and that its corruptness is due to apologists like yourself standing astride its festering carcass trying to hand-wave away the stench and we occasionally slip into an obscenity or two about your inability to think your way down the aisle of an empty cathedral, please consider the last part as a failing because we're human.
Just like you'd have us do with your collection of collared rapists.
Remember, to err is human; to forgive divine.