Bishops to hold conference on lack of belief in real presence
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
“Joy- Richard Carrier, David Fitzgerald, Robert Price.
Three serious historians who doubt the historicity of jesus. Respected historians, 2 of them with phds in relevant fields. Carrier has the first peer reviewed book out on the subject, one that takes 28 hours worth of time as an audiobook.”
Wow, you guys are worse than climate change deniers.
The historicity of Jesus relates to whether Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure. Virtually all scholars who have investigated the history of the Christian movement find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain,[1][2][3] and standard historical criteria have aided in reconstructing his life.[4] However, scholars differ on the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the gospels.[5][6][7][note 1] Despite this, very few scholars have argued for non-historicity and have not succeeded due to abundance of evidence to the contrary.[8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
Lawrence Mykytiuk, an associate professor of library science at Purdue University and author of a 2015 Biblical Archaeology Review article on the extra-biblical evidence of Jesus, notes that there was no debate about the issue in ancient times either. “Jewish rabbis who did not like Jesus or his followers accused him of being a magician and leading people astray,” he says, “but they never said he didn’t exist.”
Archaeologists, though, have been able to corroborate elements of the New Testament story of Jesus. While some disputed the existence of ancient Nazareth, his biblical childhood home town, archaeologists have unearthed a rock-hewn courtyard house along with tombs and a cistern. They have also found physical evidence of Roman crucifixions such as that of Jesus described in the New Testament.
Within a few decades of his lifetime, Jesus was mentioned by Jewish and Roman historians in passages that corroborate portions of the New Testament that describe the life and death of Jesus.
Another account of Jesus appears in Annals of Imperial Rome, a first-century history of the Roman Empire written around 116 A.D. by the Roman senator and historian Tacitus. In chronicling the burning of Rome in 64 A.D., Tacitus mentions that Emperor Nero falsely blamed “the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius.”
As a Roman historian, Tacitus did not have any Christian biases in his discussion of the persecution of Christians by Nero, says Ehrman. “Just about everything he says coincides—from a completely different point of view, by a Roman author disdainful of Christians and their superstition—with what the New Testament itself says: Jesus was executed by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, for crimes against the state, and a religious movement of his followers sprang up in his wake.”
“When Tacitus wrote history, if he considered the information not entirely reliable, he normally wrote some indication of that for his readers,” Mykytiuk says in vouching for the historical value of the passage. “There is no such indication of potential error in the passage that mentions Christus.”
Ehrman says this collection of snippets from non-Christian sources may not impart much information about the life of Jesus, “but it is useful for realizing that Jesus was known by historians who had reason to look into the matter. No one thought he was made up.”
https://www.history.com/news/was-jesus-real-historical-evidence
@ Joy less
Ohhoh clutching at straws hey? Oh, your first paragraph is a classic "appeal to authority" fallacy and as such is dismissed.
Scholarly opinion is changing rapidly with advances in textual analysis, forensic archeology and other advances.
Let's go then:
"Lawrence Mykytiuk, an associate professor of library science at Purdue University and author of a 2015 Biblical Archaeology Review article on the extra-biblical evidence of Jesus, notes that there was no debate about the issue in ancient times either. “Jewish rabbis who did not like Jesus or his followers accused him of being a magician and leading people astray,” he says, “but they never said he didn’t exist.”
And of course what you carefully neglect to tell us is that the good professor is a THEOLOGIAN and therefore committed to the presupposition of your Jesus figure.
You also carefully neglect to mention that that phrase quoted is based on a verse in the NT.....you do realise that the bible texts are CLAIMS nor evidence? They cannot be used to prove themselves? Or did that escape you in papacy excuses 101?
Extract from his bio:
M.T.S. summa cum laude, Theological Studies, Asian Theological Seminary, Quezon City, Republic of the Philippines, 1983
"Archaeologists, though, have been able to corroborate elements of the New Testament story of Jesus."
No, they have not. Read the paragraph below and you will see even the archeologist Dr Ken Dark who was in charge of the dif says:
"Was this the house where Jesus grew up? It is impossible to say on archaeological grounds," Dark wrote in an article published in the magazine Biblical Archaeology Review. "On the other hand, there is no good archaeological reason why such an identification should be discounted."
he City of Nazareth looms large in the story of Jesus and his family. And yet what do we really know of this holy City?
Well, it is apparently big enough to have its own synagogue, for Jesus to preach in. And it is on or near a precipice. So it should be a fairly simple process to locate this metropolitan hub of first century Galilee.
Surely either a Greek or Roman geographer can help us with this?
But, No, not a word .No Roman or Greek speaks of this 1st century city.
Well what of Jewish writers.
Josephus In his histories,
Josephus has a lot to say about Galilee (only 900 square miles in area).
During the first Jewish war, in the 60s AD, Josephus led a military campaign back and forth across the tiny province.
Josephus mentions 45 cities and villages of Galilee – yet Nazareth … not at all.
So , it appears the only reference to this elusive city is in the Bible , thus let us now examine what the “Good Book” has to say…
Well there are the obvious references in the 4 Gospels.
But looking further we start to notice strange omissions.
The Old Testament ,in its entirety, has not one mention of Nazareth.
Further, the Book of Joshua (19.10,16) – in what it claims is the process of settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area – records twelve towns and six villages and yet omits any 'Nazareth' from its list.
Curious … perhaps if we go the source for the Old Testament we may do better …
Lets look to the Talmud.
The Talmud, despite naming 63 Galilean towns, says absolutely nothing about Nazareth, neither does early rabbinic literature.
Perhaps Nazareth is only significant to the new cult of Christianity ?
But no .
No lesser person than Saint Paul himself , prolific letter writer and enforcer to the early church.
In all his attributed works he refers to Jesus more than 220 times but Nazareth ?
Not once.
Ah well ,when all else fails we can always rely on science.
The archaeologists must surely be able to nail down this elusive city.
Nope .
Despite all archaeological efforts over a period of nearly 60 years there is NO evidence of any sort for a city ,town ,hamlet or village at Nazareth during the 1st century.
What evidence there is all dates to after the Bar Kochba revolt of AD 135 when Nazareth was finally re-settled after being deserted for approximately 700 years following the Assyrian invasion of 738 BCE.
So a (so far) non existent town , fits with a non existent prophesy.
(and please don’t pull the “Nazareth House 2009” card its already been debunked (from an earlier article of mine)
In other words...no. Not evidence at all.
Next: Have you actually read Tacitus? Or just regurgitating your apologetics 101?
I recommend that you a) discover that he was writing about the Great Fire of Rome in 60 CE; now even your pitiful grasp of the 1st century tells you that 60CE was some 30 years after your alleged Jesus Figure and so not contemporary.
In addition Tacitus was not writing about "chrestus" but about a reviled group of a sect of Jewry who worshipped Chrestus, ate his flesh and drank his blood and was reviled by the populace of Rome for setting the fires. NO MENTION OF JESUS.
Here are the actual entries: I give you the latin as well as I am sure you are proficient in your studies:
“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.
Ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit, quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Chrestianos appellabat. auctor nominis eius Christus Tibero imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat; repressaque in praesens exitiablilis superstitio rursum erumpebat, non modo per Iudaeam, originem eius mali, sed per urbem etiam, quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque. igitur primum correpti qui fatebantur, deinde indicio eorum multitudo ingens haud proinde in crimine incendii quam odio humani generis convicti sunt .
It was also written at the turn of the Second Century...about 110 CE....so was only third party reporting.
Dear oh dear Joyless Fail #3
And just to shut you up here are all the other famous mentions of the jesus figure, not ONE contemporary, that amateurs like you dredge up without reading or understanding when or what they were about.
Josephus makes only one direct reference to "jesus" and that is a late 3rd century interpolation, aka fraud. Neither is it contemporary. The other reference is to James at the Jerusalem Temple. Scholars are still debating which Jesus is referred to, also the phrase brother 'in' christ or brother 'of christ' Again Josephus was writing many years after the events. Not contemporary.
Pliny was writing in 112 CE...hardly contemporary and was writing about the legal status of christians, he didn't mention a physical Jesus or christ.
Lucian: You are joking aren't you? I quote: "Lucian's statement was written near 170 CE (about 140 years after the crucifixion), and Lucian himself was born in 125 CE (about 95 years after the crucifixion). It seems rather unlikely that Lucian was an eyewitness."
Babylonian Talmud a 3rd century CE (at the earliest) document that parodies the gospel stories and christianity in general. Not contemporary and contradicts most of the gospel narratives.
What your comment proves is that you have neither read or made the effort to research anything to do with your religion but rely on biased hearsay.
Once again I state there are NO contemporary references to a jesus as described in the gospels.NONE.
Now to a last and hilarious canard. You lectured about "historicity" but you know that Ehrman relies exclusively on historiography to make his conclusion that a very Human jesus figure probably existed sometime in the early 1st century.? You know that do you?
When you have looked up historiography and than what Ehrman actually said about the magic zombie jesus of the gospels then by all means come back and refute me.
Oh and look up what exactly Ehrman referred to in his summation of probability.....sheesh.
I can quote mine to prove a point but I am interested in facts Joyless, something that you seem to be totally unacquainted. .
I stand my ground: There is no contemporary evidence for a magical zombie jesus as described in the gospels. NONE. The existence of such a figure is improbable in the extreme.
The existence of a very human Jesus figure as the basis for later fantastic tales is "Not Proven"...refer to Scottish Law for the definition.
(edite spelling and last paras.)
Certain, really? Cough bullshit cough. No credible historian uses words like certain Joy. personally I don't care, as an atheist the existence of the historical figure is entirely moot, as it's the woo woo claims for supernatural magic that I disbelieve, because no objective evidence has ever been demonstrated. Jesus's existence, and biblical claims, regardless of how many natural facts they contain, no more validate these superstitious claims for magic than the Harry Potter books validate wizardry.
@Mikhael
"I'm sure she also will not stop to give pause to why most historians have heretofore supported historical Jesus-"
Sorry mate, as far as I'm aware, that claim is simply not true.
There has never been a consensus among historians about the historicity of Jesus. Agreement by a ruling power paradigm does not in itself equal a consensus.
As far as I can tell, the closest to a consensus among historians today is;
That AT BEST, a rabbi with a name something like Yeshua/Yoshua bar Yussuf MAY have lived in first century Judea. (not an uncommon name in that place and time)
That he MAY have founded a small Jewish sect.
That he MAY HAVE BEEN crucified by the Romans for sedition. Sadly a common fate for many Jews in first century Judea. The the Romans crucified THOUSANDS of Jews during their occupation of Judea.
That the religion that became known as christianity after a few hundred years had little if anything to do with a poor little rabbi who died in unspeakable agony, inflicted by a brutal and vicious imperial power.
The above is also my view, but I welcome credible evidence to the contrary,
I don't disagree, I think we might have just got wires crossed? All i was saying was that for a good portion of history, continuing today, a majority of scholars are in or came out of religion and often have tobwork against a preconcieved notion. There are a lot of examples of scholars who have faced major backlash from their schools or employers for suggesting ideas a lot less forward than Jesus not existing.
Sources, Fitzgerald, Carrier, and Avalos (I'm sure I've heard Avalos remark on this regarding the patriarchs and Jesus but it's been a while since I've seen his content so I may be wrong and mixing up content !)
@mikhael
There has never been a consensus on historicity of Jesus. The claim that "most scholars think Jesus was an historical person" is a dishonest claim perpetuated by christian apologists. The same people who continue to insist on using the 'no true Scotsman fallacy' to discredit their critics. IE Christians with different views are 'not true christians' . Scholars who disagree are 'not real scholars'
Even our Joy insists that she is in possession of exclusive absolute truths, and that Christians in other sects are in error.(to be fair ,it goes both ways) No wonder such people tend to be so dismissive of atheists--and no wonder their arrogant claims are met with such contempt by so many atheists.
Me? I'm a skeptic, I avoid absolute claims as far as I can and look with deep suspicion at any who make such claims. Right now, the only absolute claim with which I feel comfy is that I and every other human being will die.
As far as I can tell, the closest to a consensus about the historicity of Jesus is currently, and has long been has long been something like the following:
AT BEST there MAY have been a rabbi in first century Judea with a name something like Yeshua/Yoshua bar Yusuff (not an uncommon name at that place and time)
That he MAY have founded a small Jewish sect.
That he MAY have been crucified by the Romans for sedition. This was a not uncommon fate for Jews in first century Judea.The Romans crucified thousand of Jews during their occupation.
THAT the religion which came to be known as Christianity has little if any connection to a poor little first century rabbi who may have died in unbelievable agony at the hands of a brutal and vicious imperial power.
This is also my position.
The mythicist position ,IE that Jesus did not exist has always been very much a minority view among scholars.
From Wiki I'm afraid : "The Christ myth theory is a fringe theory, supported by few tenured or emeritus specialists in biblical criticism or cognate disciplines.[4][5][6][q 2] It is criticised for its outdated reliance on comparisons between mythologies,[7] and deviates from the mainstream historical view."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
A word on wikipedia
I grew up with Encyclopaedia Brittanica as THE go-to reference source. After submitting my very first minor paper at university,I learned never to use Britannica as a reference; it wasn't reliable. Apparently because the entries were written by undergraduates, who were poorly paid .
Then along came wikipedia . Entries may be written by anyone, and may be edited by anyone. Sounds ghastly, but it seems to work.
There are only a few areas in which I could once have claimed expert knowledge. The few times I've looked at Wikipedia about something I know about, the entries have seemed pretty good, although I would not an do not cite them as reliable sources. However imo, they are good enough for the level of discussion on every internet forum to which I have belonged.
If one doesn't trust Wiki for even the most basic information, most entries have pretty reasonable bibliographies, as far as can tell.
When wikipedia first launched, I would agree it is a mess. (I was in college at the time.)
Then wikipedia added in the sources/citations.
I figured out real quick to never quote wikipedia in any paper I turned in, but what I did do was use the citations on the wikipedia article, to great, great effect. Many of my papers initial research started with a wikipedia search to get a base 30 second summary/understanding, and a start on relevant articles via the citation section.
Hey guys is it just me or is the Wikipedia dropping reminding you of anyone
Joy, literally everything you just quoted was refuted on multiple counts by the scholars I pointed you to but you will never read them will you?
Also to counter your cry of fake news earlier? Juan Diego, a man who never existed and is tied to a miracle that has been debunked since the 1600s, was beaitified may 6th, 1990
But I'm sure you think he's just as real as Jebus
Here you go my friend...10 more for your list: https://listverse.com/2014/05/17/10-beloved-saints-with-fictitious-biogr...
@ Old man
Hmm, should we submit a request to the Vatican to canonize Brian?
I mean, really, he was also crucified.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJUhlRoBL8M
“Hey guys is it just me or is the Wikipedia dropping reminding you of anyone
Joy, literally everything you just quoted was refuted on multiple counts by the scholars I pointed you to but you will never read them will you?”
I will read them, but you might want to tell the majority of historical scholars out there to read it as well and see what they have to say, because as of now, the majority believe historical records exist.
“Also to counter your cry of fake news earlier? Juan Diego, a man who never existed and is tied to a miracle that has been debunked since the 1600s, was beaitified may 6th, 1990”
I’m sorry, but some evidence like a Bishop did not write about him in his writings is not evidence that Diego did not exist. That would be an argument from silence. And there are several reasons why someone might want to suggest Diego never existed. Of course, skeptics or atheists are motivated to make such a claim. And some say Mexicans of European descent like to discredit the story because Juan Diego was an Indian – so there existed a cultural conflict in elevating an indigenous person as Mexico’s hero. People who want to change history aren’t likely to make a whole lot of historical record that would prevent their agenda. Keep in mind there are even people today who try to deny the Holocaust.
I think also discounted is expecting written document historical evidence when long-standing oral tradition is often the norm and way of communication. This is especially true among Native Americans. It is also important to note that proponents DO provide documentary proof. The most recent example is a document made public by the Spanish Jesuit Xavier Escalada, which purports to be a pictorial depiction of the apparitions dating from 1548.
The historian, Burrus, catalogues 25 documents for the 16th century alone, up to 1590. In the introduction he writes: "The attentive reader will easily perceive, by meansof this bibliography, the abundance and variety of Guadalupan writings produced in the course of more than four and a half centuries: manuscripts starting in 1531 and, from 1610, printed documents. The manuscripts mentioned show plainly that the eminent Mexican historian, Joaquín Garcia lcazbalceta, was mistaken when he thought that there were no 16th century documents extant proving the historical event of the apparitions and the subsequent devotion to Our Lady of Guadalupe. Even if his assertion may have corresponded to the situation at the time when he was writing (1888), it cannot, of course, be reaffirmed today" (G. Grijales -E. J. Burrus, Bibliografia Guadalupana [1531-1984], Guadalupan Bibliography [1531-1984], Georgetown University Press, Washington 1986, p. VII. Burrus, E.J., discovered the oldest manuscript that has been passed down to us, El Nican Mopohua,in the Lennox Library, New York, USA. Manuscripts section, Guadalupan Monument).
The Indians who gave their testimonies in the Informaciones Jurídicas of 1666 unanimously declared that this was Juan Diego's birth place; as proof of a living indigenous tradition concerning this subject, the Informaciones Jurídicas should be readily accepted. A Franciscan convent was built at Cuautitlán whose parish registers from 1587 contain numerous entries with the name "Juan Diego", a name seldom used elsewhere and here repeated in honour of the visionary.
Some Guadalupan discoveries in excavations carried out from 1880 by the archaeologists David J. Hally, Gordon Willey James V. Langf, John Belmont and others in the United States, in Florida, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina, by the Anthropological Society of Washington and by the Society for American Archaeology, have made a new contribution to what we know of the history of Guadalupe and its influence from the first years of the second half of the 16th century. Certain objects came to light in these excavations that refer to Our Lady of Guadalupe and to Juan Diego. The hypothesis of these archaeologists about the provenance of these objects is the following: already at the beginning of the second half of the 16th century the Spanish organized expeditions to conquer the eastern coast of America to set up Catholic missions. One of them was established precisely between 1559 and 1561, on the site of these archaeological finds (cf. in "Columbian Consequences", vol. 2, Archaeological and HistoricalPerspectives on the Spanish Border Lands East, Washington and London (1990), and in "The Recovery of Meaning", Historical Archeology in the Eastern United States, edited by Marc P. Leone and Parker V. Potter, Jr., Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and London, s.d. John S. Belmont, with a letter about the discoveries from Kanab, Utah, dated 25 May 2000, to Fr J. Escalada).
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/our-lady-of-guadalupe-historica...
@ Joy
because as of now, the majority believe historical records exist.
Lie. Big fat wriggling lie.
Most scholars who espouse the existence of a human jesus (you are right the slim majority) use Historiography to ascertain the PROBABILITY that a HUMAN jesus prototype may have exited.
Why are you so determined to misunderstand this?
Even if we found the skeletal remains of a Yeshua Bar Yussuf, jewish, executed in the first third of the 1st Century CE, IT WOULD NOT PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF THE MAGICAL ZOMBIE JESUS as described in the gospels.The jesus you worshipo
Is that clear?
This is the third time of asking......you have avoided the question too many times.
You guys should Google St. Uncumber for a laugh sometime
“BTW Joy, the bible was not originally in Latin "to protect the scriptures" a simple google of the Codex Sinaiticus vs the Codex Vaticanus would give you your miseducation back gift wrapped.”
What did you want me to take away from googleing Codex Sinaiticus vs the Codex Vaticanus?
The following?
We may debate the particular wording in a few passages, but the fact remains that over 90 percent of the New Testament text is unanimously supported by all the ancient manuscripts. In those passages where the proper reading is disputed, there is no major doctrinal change, and we can rest assured that we have the accurate, revealed words of God passed down to us.
https://www.gotquestions.org/Codex-Sinaiticus-Vaticanus.html
I’m not exactly sure if you somehow think that negates the Church’s reason for adopting Latin as its official language. If it does, maybe the following explanation will help.
As I already mentioned, your misunderstanding that it was to keep Scripture from getting in the hands of the lay people is simply anti-Catholic propaganda with NO evidence.
Here is a more thorough and proper understanding:
The Church makes Latin the language of her liturgy because it was the official language of the Roman Empire, and was generally understood and spoken throughout a considerable part of the civilized world, at the time when Christianity was established.
However, Latin was not adopted by the Church because "she wished to worship in the language of the people.” But, as said above, it was the language of worship, of government and of law; and the Church, which had fixed her seat of government in the imperial city, took it as her official tongue for the same purposes.
In course of time Latin became the literary language of western Christendom, because it was familiar to the clergy, who were the educated class and the writers of books; because it was the only stable language in a time of chaos; because it was equally useful in any part of the world, no matter what was the native tongue of the people; and because it was a convenient means of communication between the bishops and the See of Rome.
“But why cannot the Catholic Church use English in England and French in France?” etc. Because she is a universal Church. A small sect or a “national church " can use the language of the country in its worship. But the Catholic Church is not a national church. She has been appointed to “teach all nations.” She is not the church of the Italian, or the Englishman, or the Spaniard. She could, of course, translate her liturgy into any tongue, but a Mass in the language of any one nationality would be unintelligible to all the rest.
How well, in the Catholic Church, her oneness of speech seems to typify her unity of faith. More than that – it not only typifies but helps to preserve it. We can readily understand that it is of the utmost importance that the dogmas of religion should be defined with great exactness, in a language that always conveys the same ideas. Latin is now what we call a "dead language" — that is, not being in daily use as a spoken tongue, it does not vary in meaning.
It is very convenient for the Church to have Latin as her official language, as a means of communication between her members and her Head. To legislate for the Church's good it is necessary from time to time to hold a General Council, at which the bishops of the entire world assemble. They all understand Latin; no interpreter is required.
https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/1035-traditiona...
@ Joy
Do not answer questions I did not pose. I have never said that Vulgate Latin was dominant voice of the bible because they didn't want people reading it. Never.
The Codex Vaticanus was produced in Latin because it was the dominant language of the time. Produced by the dominant christian sect of the time. That is all.
Over time competing copies of texts were ordered destroyed, only where Roman influence did not reach dod the original Languages of texts (greek and Coptic) survive,
The Vulgate bible was produced even later translated from the Classical Latin.
The bible is in Latin as an extension of Empire no other reason bar that the Roman Church won the power struggle....simples.
People confuse the history of the "Great Bible" of Henry 8 with the reasons for chaining bibles up. Folk tales die hard.
Now to your question: I’m not exactly sure if you somehow think that negates the Church’s reason for adopting Latin as its official language.
The reason I told you to Google the Codex was simple: you claimed that Latin was the original language of the Church. I proved it not so. The Codex pre dates Vaticanus by hundreds of years.
That is all.
You seem very fond of strawmen. Not very fond of answering questions simply and readably.
@ Joy
"She?"
Is that what you call the church? I wish to apologize beforehand if my following joke is offensive for being mysogenic.
What do they call a ship a she? Because it costs you money and takes you on a ride.
I believe that depicting the roman catholic church as a "she" is somehow offensively appropriate.
@David
"I believe that depicting the roman catholic church as a "she" is somehow offensively appropriate."
Indeed.
The organisation has long been known as "holy mother Church' . I think the intended inference is that the church loves and protects like a mother. A bit perverse when one considers it is run by mainly for putatively celibate men who fleece their flock.
During the time I was a practising Catholic I could never understand why referring to Jesus as 'the good shepherd "and the members as "sheep' was so hilarious to my protestant mates. These days I'm embarrassed to realise I was such a humourless little prig.
The terms are still used as far as I know. Proving the church hierarchy either has a sense of humour or are a bunch of cynical pricks.
I try to refrain from describing such people as cunts. To do so is to demean a beautiful and utterly useful organ and I think it is an innately ugly word. I will use it at times for emphasis or when I am royally pissed off. Usually ,I use 'twat' which indicates mild annoyance.
“During the time I was a practising Catholic I could never understand why referring to Jesus as 'the good shepherd "and the members as "sheep' was so hilarious to my protestant mates.”
I doubt that. Psalm 23: The Lord is My Shepherd is a Protestant favorite. Also, my kids attended a Protestant Bible camp called Little Lambs. I’m pretty sure most Christians are cool with referring to Jesus as our shepherd as it is quite Biblical and beautiful.
@joy
Growing up Catholic in mid the 50''s early 60's meant the word 'protestant' was a synonym for 'heathen' . Even then proddies of my acquaintance fell into the amorphous mass of Aussies who were nominal christians. They attended church service sonly for hatches, matches and dispatches. Pretty sure there was no bible in the homes of 3 out of 4 of my closest mates.
The fourth was nominally Presbyterian. His dad was rabidly anti Catholic. He had a barbeque every Good Friday just to piss of the Catholics.He once forbade my mate from seeing me because I was 'a bad influence',.I told my 6 feet one inch dad. He had a few quiet words with his 5 feet 6 inch dad, over the phone, and that was the end of that.
My mate converted to Catholicism as a young adult after he joined the navy. He told me over a decade later that he had converted largely because of my example. I was a bit embarrassed because I had left the church by that time.
To give you an idea of the Catholic/Protestant thing in Oz at that time; Catholics were forbidden to attend any protestant services including weddings. My parents just ignored that, as did most catholics as far as I could tell.
When I was 7, the Irish Dominican nun who taught me told the class.: To please stop throwing rocks at the protestant children on their way home from the public school. After all, it wasn't their fault they were protestants and were going to hell . I kid you not.
My mum converted to Catholicism in 1970. She and dad were married in 1946. Because mum was not catholic, they could not be married in front of the altar. The ceremony , was conducted in the sacristy. Most of dad's mates were from the war and protestant. They were deeply offended. (by the church, not by dad)
I assure you, I didn't make any of that up. The church has indeed changed greatly since that time. The effect of The Second Vatican Council, called by John XX111 in 1959, begun in 1962, cannot be overstated. It was however, too little too late. The decline continues and continues. ---THAT is what Francis needs to do if he's serious-----imo.
“The fourth was nominally Presbyterian. His dad was rabidly anti Catholic. He had a barbeque every Good Friday just to piss of the Catholics.”
Weird to care that much. I mean if you were confident and comfortable in your own beliefs weird to want to hate others so much.
“My mate converted to Catholicism as a young adult after he joined the navy. He told me over a decade later that he had converted largely because of my example. I was a bit embarrassed because I had left the church by that time.”
Awww . . . you must be a good person. That’s so awesome. It is interesting the kind of effect we might have on others and not even realize it. People are attracted to goodness.
“To give you an idea of the Catholic/Protestant thing in Oz at that time; Catholics were forbidden to attend any protestant services including weddings. My parents just ignored that, as did most catholics as far as I could tell.”
While I understand this was your experience, it still doesn’t mean such is a teaching of the Church. If some in the Church use to tell people not to attend Protestant services, I have a feeling they were hoping to teach that doing so could give the impression that all faiths are equivalent, when they are not. And perhaps they meant a Catholic certainly couldn’t attend a Protestant service and think it somehow fulfills their Sunday mass requirement. It can get a little confusing and I can see where one person from the Church says one thing, but it gets translated as, “YOUR FORBIDDEN FROM ATTENDING!” when that really isn’t the case.
“When I was 7, the Irish Dominican nun who taught me told the class.: To please stop throwing rocks at the protestant children on their way home from the public school. After all, it wasn't their fault they were protestants and were going to hell . I kid you not.”
Wow! That’s pretty bad. Again, do you think there was a chance that was your perception of what she said? I mean maybe she said something like, “Do not throw rocks at non Catholics! You need to be a good witness and example. They might not have been shown/explained the truth!” And if you had some preconceived notion that unless you’re Catholic you go to hell, you took her words as equivalent to saying Protestants are going to hell. Or maybe she was an ignorant nun and did say that.
“My mum converted to Catholicism in 1970. She and dad were married in 1946. Because mum was not catholic, they could not be married in front of the altar. The ceremony , was conducted in the sacristy.”
Again, weird. I don’t understand what agreeing to marry two people but then exiling them to the back or front of the church is supposed to do other than look really rude. That’s messed up.
“I assure you, I didn't make any of that up. The church has indeed changed greatly since that time.”
Understanding of Church teaching has changed yes. There were quite a bit of priests and nuns and lay people who got things wrong. I’m guessing they didn’t themselves know why the Church teaches what it does. Sad.
“The effect of The Second Vatican Council, called by John XX111 in 1959, begun in 1962, cannot be overstated.”
Vatican II did not change Church teaching, rather she helped clarify things. Of course some might even argue that some took a lot of what was said during Vatican II incorrectly and that too can be responsible for a lot of incorrect understanding.
“THAT is what Francis needs to do if he's serious-----imo.”
Yes. Agree. Francis needs to get the truth out and help people know what’s what and not be confused. Unfortunately, he seems to be confusing to a lot of people right now too. I think JP2 and Ben 16 were both much more clear than Francis is, but I think Francis is resonating with a lot of people so that’s good.
@ Joy
I've mentioned that I was brought up in the Irish Catholic tradition. What I've outlined are obviously teachings as understood at that time, even by clergy. . Understanding varied ,between classes and between countries, and still does, although I suspect to a far lesser extent due to IT mainly. Certainly not because of a more transparent vatican. .
Vatican 2 introduced the mass in the local language, as it had once been .THAT was HUGE. But overall, yes, a greater understanding by the laity. Especially as it had been in the 1950's .The parish priest had enormous power, much like one's doctor. We had a lovely man, so of course he was moved quite quickly. He ended up as archbishop of Adelaide . He came out of retirement ,age 84, to do dad's funeral, because mum asked him***. .
John XX111 was my favourite pope, I realise now it was because of his humility. He liked to go walkies around Rome, alone in 'plain clothes'. He was affectionately known as 'Johnny Walker'
In my last year at school. Our class teacher once mortified me in front of the whole class by describing me as 'the most apostolic boy in the class' . That continued after I left school when I became branch president of local YCW for 3 years. I was trying my utmost to be "a good person". Literally like an apostle, within my romantic view of the apostles. . Looking back , all I can see is an insufferable little prig.
The few times in my life I have been 'good' were the result of instinctive reactions,'just what one did ' . There is a saying I love; bis dat qui cito qat (who gives quickly gives twice) I see true goodness in doing right for its own sake, instinctively .I'm along way from there yet.
Late in life I've learned something of which should I have been instinctively aware ; neither our very best acts nor our very worse acts necessarily define us as people.
My self assessment right now; neither an especially good nor an especially bad person, boringly average in both my virtues and my vices.
*** my darlin' mum was a convert, and small c christian. She gave witness to her faith by the way she lived, and by her kindness and compassion towards others. She was always thus ,long before she became Catholic. Her funeral was amazing. People she had helped ,who none of the sibs knew, came out of the wood work---mum was one of the rare almost completely good people I have known .
@ Joy
"weird to want to hate others so much"
And you bounce in here and proclaim that your church is the one and true church, which directly infers that you expect to go to heaven while everyone else goes to hell.
Those are the horror stories I heard about as well.
@Joy Re: "...most Christians are cool with referring to Jesus as our shepherd as it is quite Biblical and beautiful."
You realize, I hope, that the poor sheep often tend to get royally fucked by the shepherd.
Edit to add: The sad part is that most of the sheep do not realize that is what is happening. They simply believe it is just their shepherd's way of showing them how much he loves and cares about them.
@ Joy
"I’m pretty sure most Christians are cool with referring to Jesus as our shepherd as it is quite Biblical and beautiful."
No, it is not, it demeans everyone as being second-class.
That is one problem with religion, it hides the evil under pretty prose or sweet-smelling bullshit.
I spent many years as a civilian employee of the military. Every time anyone called me a "civil servant", my response was always "I am no one's servant, I am an employee". I have pride.
Joy, You do know that the purpose of the sheep is TO BE EATEN BY THE SHEPHERD?
Sheep are some of the DUMBEST creatures on this planet. They clump in bunches and follow a seemingly random leader. The only thing they are good at is finding more creative ways to kill themselves. Being called sheep is NOT a compliment.
@ Mrs. Paul Owczarek
"Being called sheep is NOT a compliment."
Sheep are also expected to turn a blind eye to child rape.
In the dying days of my Mass attendance one Sunday the priest informed us that, like sheep, we sometimes strayed and needed rounding up. Gave me a nasty start.
It is pretty easy to tell the original authors of some of the original written works about the various god ideas in no way had the ability to write something that can stand the test of time for 2000 years.
Let alone write something that eventually large portions of the population could actually read, (with some heavy editing translating etc) When these things were first written down, less then 1 of the population could possibly even put together a book, and probably less then 5% of the population could actually read and absorb such a long book at a high level. A good thing, because a properly educated adult mind would dismiss it all nearly instantly, due to much better answers being readily available.
The authors of these various holy books also NEVER foresaw computers, the internet etc. I can right now, for free in 2 seconds search the entire bible for certain keywords. I can easily access sites that list the 1000's of contradictions, major reasoning and logic errors, and even compare how different versions of the same book based (very loosely) on the same manuscripts. Heck I could even instantly check for all the spelling errors, grammatical errors etc. A computer that can do it for me in seconds.
The fact that that the various bibles, and other holy books are works of fiction written by VERY fallible bronze age humans becomes more and more obvious.
I can also look up databases on how many times various religious figures got major "end of time" rapture/return of christ/ etc etc times... wrong.
10,000's of religious figures utterly wrong so far, how many were right? Zero.
Joy: I agree, because we know what language Harry Potter was written in AND we know the author admittedly made it up.
Great, you understand why Harry Potter is considered fiction! “
Yes, because the author admits she was writing fiction and writes about fictitious people and places.
“Now realize whatever holy book you ascribe to, has the exact same amount of "evidence" as harry potter does”
I what now? The author’s of the Bible did not claim to be writing a piece of fiction. They claimed to be recording events as they witnessed them. It’s more like “The Diary of Ann Frank” than Harry Potter.
“Put another way, one of my favorite books: The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain. Nowhere in my old copy of the book does it state that this book is fiction.”
No. But we know the author Samuel Clemens acknowledges that it is.
“ If I tell you this book is nonfiction, do you start believing everything that happened in it as real?”
Not necessarily. As human beings we are skeptical and don’t just believe things without reason.
“If anything its a much easier to believe Huckleberry Finn is a nonfiction biography then the bible or any other "holy" book that I ever read.”
Well, that’s really weird because Mark Twain, the author, doesn’t say its true, so why would you think that?
“If the book is not labeled as fiction or nonfiction, what do you do? Just believe in it because other people told you to?”
But it is labeled and we do have records of people who knew the author who talked about the books he wrote/made up. Do you think Huckleberry Finn is a true story?
“However now that you bring it up, if the bible is not a scientific treatise, by your own admission, then what is it? Sure sounds an awful lot like just about any other book that is not a scientific treatise, fiction, or, best case scenario a history book.”
Sure, like a history book you could say.
“Ever hear of a history book that got some details wrong? I sure have.”
Absolutely.
“ Yet the bible or any other holy book, written, edited, translated, by humans, over 1000's of years is somehow immune to this?”
Well, I assume you accept that WWII actually happened, right? There are a lot of history books written about WWII and some might get some things wrong, but we can still know that even if one author said 1000 people were killed in some battle and a different author put the death poll at 1500, we still would know that a battle occurred and a lot of people died, right?
“Its like my stories of rainbow farting unicorn god, it is an absurd idea.”
Yes, that is.
“Talking snakes? Garden of eden?”
Allegory. Allegories can be a poetic way of still imparting some truth.
“Creation of the entire universe in 6 days (of which at least 2 of them occurred before there even was "days"? (yet this all powerful entity sit around for ~14 billion years”
Again, not a scientific treatise. Believers are cool with 14 billion years.
The bible, and other holy books are some of the most obvious pieces of fiction I know of, even harry potter is more believable as possibly nonfiction then the various god stories are based on the size of the claims and the equal total lack of any sort of corroborating evidence.”
Then I think that actually says a great deal about you because like I said I’m pretty sure the entire world knows Harry Potter and Huckleberry Finn are works of fiction.
“Joy: “Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about.”
I will fully admit this quote does not resonate with me at all. I zero reverence for the dead.”
That’s too bad. It isn’t referring to believing in an after life. It is referring to the fact that we might actually be able to learn something from those who have gone before us. It also attempts to make the claim that people aren’t smarter/better or greater just because they happen to be born when they were born.
“I think we should of instead of honoring "tradition" and the dead, should instead be a lot more worried about the future unborn.”
Like the ones being slaughtered in the womb right now because some consider them inferior or inconvenient? I agree.
“ According to real world repeatable and testable data, we are quickly destroying the planet ability to sustain 7.8 billion (and still rapidly growing! human population) and these future unborn will have to bear the burden of the people that are alive today (and recent past) destructive habits. Meanwhile the 6 major biodiversity and biomass extinction event is well underway, caused solely by humans a process that has only been accelerating rapidly in the last 100 years or so.”
I can understand wanting to preserve the planet and certainly think we need to treat the planet better and be better stewards of it, but why value the planet over people? Or why not even just think of it as all part of the evolutionary process? The Ice Age occurred, dinosaurs use to exist, but now they don’t. Is that not what happens? Things change?
Pages