Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
30 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Vatican reprimands American nuns rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
MGK
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ayup:

Quote:
The Vatican’s assessment, issued on Wednesday, said that members of the group, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, had challenged church teaching on homosexuality and the male-only priesthood, and promoted “radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith.”

The sisters were also reprimanded for making public statements that “disagree with or challenge the bishops, who are the church’s authentic teachers of faith and morals.” During the debate over the health care overhaul in 2010, American bishops came out in opposition to the health plan, but dozens of sisters, many of whom belong to the Leadership Conference, signed a statement supporting it — support that provided crucial cover for the Obama administration in the battle over health care.


Discuss.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric "Shippy McShipperson" Mowrer
United States
Vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Ami. Geek.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
"Crucial" cover? I think that's being overstated a bit.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kelsey Rinella
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
I am proud to have opposed those who describe all who oppose them as "Tender Flowers" and "Special Snowflakes".
badge
Check out Stately Play for news and reviews of games worth thinking about.
Avatar
mbmb
These are not the activities I was hoping had prompted the reprimand.
8 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
いい竹やぶだ!

South Euclid
Ohio
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Odd; the Church as a whole is in favor of universal healthcare. The Vatican should have reprimanded the bishops in 2010.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jack Smith
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Nuns on the Run.

Like all cults minions must do what the leaders say or else.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Liam
Scotland
flag msg tools
admin
badge
I am BGG's official honey trap
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Control and Power.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Neon Joe, Werewolf He-yump
United States
Lincoln
NE
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
rinelk wrote:
These are not the activities I was hoping had prompted the reprimand.


Kind of a theme with the Catholic Church, like the decisive action they took as a result of Vatican City's Deputy Governor exposing massive, widespread corruption in the city-state's financial matters, turning Vatican City from deficit into surplus in the process

I'll give you a hint: it wasn't against the corrupt SOBs

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-01-26/europe/306658...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alaren
United States
flag msg tools
Turtle Power
badge
all the way down
Avatar
mb
stpauler wrote:
Sounds like the Vatican doesn't want to lose their tax status in the US by getting involved in partisan politics*.


Please stop spreading this misinformation. I get so tired of hearing it.

Tax-exempt status enjoyed by 501(c)(3) organizations, including but not limited to religious organizations, permits them to involve themselves in politics under the protection of the First Amendment. They are not permitted to get involved in political campaigns "on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office"--that means, generally, that they cannot campaign for or against specific politicians. In particular, commenting on issues relevant to the organization's interests, including ballot initiatives, is generally acceptable. (The usual disclaimer applies--I am not your lawyer, this is not legal advice.)

Further reading available here.

I know it is very popular among the unwashed hordes to call for the stripping of 501(c)(3) status every time a church issues a politically unpopular statement, but that's not how the law works, because the First Amendment is still (thankfully) stronger than that. So next time you hear someone cry about churches "getting involved in politics," kindly point out to them that such comments only expose their ignorance of the law and, perhaps, their bigotry against the religious. After all, they aren't crying about the political participation of other properly-registered 501(c)(3) organizations, such as the NAACP, are they?

...we now return you to your regularly scheduled thread...
11 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
The Steak Fairy
United States
Columbia
South Carolina
flag msg tools
Games? People still play games??
badge
Specious arguments are not proof of trollish intent.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
stpauler wrote:

Feel free to admit that you were incorrect any time you want. whistle


If he does that he loses his RSP correction-exempt status. Not a precedent you probably want to establish.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
MisterCranky wrote:
stpauler wrote:

Feel free to admit that you were incorrect any time you want. whistle


If he does that he loses his RSP correction-exempt status. Not a precedent you probably want to establish.


I'm voting for Pike because he writes well. He may also be a good lawyer, not that trivial distinctions like that matter in an RSP debate on law.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Schaeffer
United States
Unspecified
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Alaren wrote:
As I have yet to ever be incorrect about anything ever, I have no admission to make.


You forgot a few words, Ken.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damian
United States
Enfield
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Golux13 wrote:
You forgot a few words, Ken.

Isn't the first rule of lawyering, "don't admit to any fault, ever"?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
flag msg tools
Heart full of soul, head full of shit
badge
Snob of the People
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I hope they spank the nuns and put video of it on the Internet.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

mightygodking wrote:
Ayup:

Quote:
The Vatican’s assessment, issued on Wednesday, said that members of the group, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, had challenged church teaching on homosexuality and the male-only priesthood, and promoted “radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith.”

The sisters were also reprimanded for making public statements that “disagree with or challenge the bishops, who are the church’s authentic teachers of faith and morals.” During the debate over the health care overhaul in 2010, American bishops came out in opposition to the health plan, but dozens of sisters, many of whom belong to the Leadership Conference, signed a statement supporting it — support that provided crucial cover for the Obama administration in the battle over health care.


Discuss.

What more is there to discuss?

After all, this is just more evidence of the same mysogynistic legacy of the Roman Catholic Church that's more directly attributable to the early Christian Church's co-opting of the more mysogynist themes of Mithrasism and Sol Invictus and grafting them onto Christianity in order to make the Christian faith more appealing for upper-class Roman gentile men to adopt.

After all, you should remember that women had prior held positions as teachers and lay preachers in the early Christian church. Indeed, in many early sects, the position of minister had been rotated among both male and female members. What's more, the first upper-class gentile Romans to embrace Christianity were women because the Christian Church offered them not only a place in the common pews upon which to sit (and not in some upper, darkened, out-of-the-way balcony) and the early Christian Church also offered women a voice to be heard in discussing religious matters and carrying out outreach, missions, and church work.

1 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jacob Fulwiler
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't see why this is controversial at all. There are large groups of nuns out there that are acting and teaching ways that are against church teaching. The people they are teaching are getting incorrect information and deserve better. The vatican is trying to make sure the groups in question stay true to church teaching (OMG!)

Wouldn't any group do the same? If a chapter of PETA (or however they organize themselves) was promoting eating steak every week, don't you think the head of the organization would eventually come down on them and correct them for spreading a message contrary to their organization?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

Bataar wrote:
I don't see why this is controversial at all. There are large groups of nuns out there that are acting and teaching ways that are against church teaching. The people they are teaching are getting incorrect information and deserve better. The vatican is trying to make sure the groups in question stay true to church teaching (OMG!)

OMG, indeed! Especially since much of what the Roman Catholic Church is teaching and advocating as it pertains to women is incorrect information and not true to the actual first Christian sects, much less the first gentile Christian sects of Rome, where women held positions of authority -- lay ministry, teachers, etc. - and whose first upper-class converts were upper-class gentile Roman women. Why so? Because they were driven away by the msyognist ways of the pagan Roman religions of Sol Invictus ("The Unconquerable Sun God") and Mithrasism where women sat apart in an upper gallery/balcony in relative darkness.

Like it had done in co-opting other pagan celebrations (such as Saturnalia which it converted into Christmas), the Roman Catholic Church co-opted the misogynist beliefs of Mithrasism and Sol Invictus to make Christianity more appealing to upper-class Roman men.

Something very similar happened in the American antebellum South when the first Baptist and Methodist preachers arrived there in the early 1700s. At first, they were very receptive to women having leadership and teaching roles in the church. Even black slaves were welcomed in the main tabernacle of the church. The true power-holders, the male plantation owners and landed gentry, however, weren't attracted so much to Baptist and Metodist churches back then because they knew they'd be expected to change their ways and thus found it "unmanly" to attend.

However, over the next 150 years, things began to evolve and change as Baptist and Methodist preachers began to change their approaches in order to appeal more to and draw male southern plantation owners and landed gentry to their churches. They did this by altering their practices -- that is, they no longer permited women to serve in leadership roles and prohibited slaves from entering the main tabernacle -- and came to embrace and endorse slavery as Biblically-sanctioned. Indeed, the Southern Baptist denomination came about because the National Baptist Association in 1845 refused to ordain the son of a slave-owning southern plantation owner because they considered it the worst sort of hypocrisy to send a missionary abroad to a country where he might be ministering to the very relatives of the souls whom his father held in bondage as slaves back in the USA. As a result of the National Baptist Association's refusal to ordain that slave-holding plantation owner's son as a missionary, the Baptists in the South broke off from their northern brethren and founded the Southern Baptist Association in 1845.


And lest we forget, the Roman Catholic Church didn't start prohibiting married men from becoming priests until around 1000 A.D. One of the main cited reasons for that change was because the Roman Catholic Church Church didn't want its married priests leaving their inheritances -- especially their land holdings -- to their wife and children but to the Church alone.


Bataar wrote:
Wouldn't any group do the same?

Yes, any entrenched dogmatic, orthodox group would do the same, no matter how ethically, morally, and factually wrong they were.


Bataar wrote:
If a chapter of PETA (or however they organize themselves) was promoting eating steak every week, don't you think the head of the organization would eventually come down on them and correct them for spreading a message contrary to their organization?

False and erroneous analogy. If you want to make a contextual example, then select an organization that deals with human interaction with and care and aid to fellow humans as its mission statement.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew Tadyshak
United States
Dallas
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmb
robigo wrote:
Odd; the Church as a whole is in favor of universal healthcare. The Vatican should have reprimanded the bishops in 2010.
Of course, as long as there isn't birth control or abortion involved.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jacob Fulwiler
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:

Bataar wrote:
I don't see why this is controversial at all. There are large groups of nuns out there that are acting and teaching ways that are against church teaching. The people they are teaching are getting incorrect information and deserve better. The vatican is trying to make sure the groups in question stay true to church teaching (OMG!)

OMG, indeed! Especially since much of what the Roman Catholic Church is teaching and advocating as it pertains to women is incorrect information and not true to the actual first Christian sects, much less the first gentile Christian sects of Rome, where women held positions of authority -- lay ministry, teachers, etc. - and whose first upper-class converts were upper-class gentile Roman women. Why so? Because they were driven away by the msyognist ways of the pagan Roman religions of Sol Invictus ("The Unconquerable Sun God") and Mithrasism where women sat apart in an upper gallery/balcony in relative darkness.

Like it had done in co-opting other pagan celebrations (such as Saturnalia which it converted into Christmas), the Roman Catholic Church co-opted the misogynist beliefs of Mithrasism and Sol Invictus to make Christianity more appealing to upper-class Roman men.

Something very similar happened in the American antebellum South when the first Baptist and Methodist preachers arrived there in the early 1700s. At first, they were very receptive to women having leadership and teaching roles in the church. Even black slaves were welcomed in the main tabernacle of the church. The true power-holders, the male plantation owners and landed gentry, however, weren't attracted so much to Baptist and Metodist churches back then because they knew they'd be expected to change their ways and thus found it "unmanly" to attend.

However, over the next 150 years, things began to evolve and change as Baptist and Methodist preachers began to change their approaches in order to appeal more to and draw male southern plantation owners and landed gentry to their churches. They did this by altering their practices -- that is, they no longer permited women to serve in leadership roles and prohibited slaves from entering the main tabernacle -- and came to embrace and endorse slavery as Biblically-sanctioned. Indeed, the Southern Baptist denomination came about because the National Baptist Association in 1845 refused to ordain the son of a slave-owning southern plantation owner because they considered it the worst sort of hypocrisy to send a missionary abroad to a country where he might be ministering to the very relatives of the souls whom his father held in bondage as slaves back in the USA. As a result of the National Baptist Association's refusal to ordain that slave-holding plantation owner's son as a missionary, the Baptists in the South broke off from their northern brethren and founded the Southern Baptist Association in 1845.


And lest we forget, the Roman Catholic Church didn't start prohibiting married men from becoming priests until around 1000 A.D. One of the main cited reasons for that change was because the Roman Catholic Church Church didn't want its married priests leaving their inheritances -- especially their land holdings -- to their wife and children but to the Church alone.


Bataar wrote:
Wouldn't any group do the same?

Yes, any entrenched dogmatic, orthodox group would do the same, no matter how ethically, morally, and factually wrong they were.


Bataar wrote:
If a chapter of PETA (or however they organize themselves) was promoting eating steak every week, don't you think the head of the organization would eventually come down on them and correct them for spreading a message contrary to their organization?

False and erroneous analogy. If you want to make a contextual example, then select an organization that deals with human interaction with and care and aid to fellow humans as its mission statement.


What does any of that have to do with correcting nuns who are engaging in teachings/practices contrary to church teaching?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

Bataar wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
Bataar wrote:
I don't see why this is controversial at all. There are large groups of nuns out there that are acting and teaching ways that are against church teaching. The people they are teaching are getting incorrect information and deserve better. The vatican is trying to make sure the groups in question stay true to church teaching (OMG!)

OMG, indeed! Especially since much of what the Roman Catholic Church is teaching and advocating as it pertains to women is incorrect information and not true to the actual first Christian sects, much less the first gentile Christian sects of Rome, where women held positions of authority -- lay ministry, teachers, etc. - and whose first upper-class converts were upper-class gentile Roman women. Why so? Because they were driven away by the msyognist ways of the pagan Roman religions of Sol Invictus ("The Unconquerable Sun God") and Mithrasism where women sat apart in an upper gallery/balcony in relative darkness.

Like it had done in co-opting other pagan celebrations (such as Saturnalia which it converted into Christmas), the Roman Catholic Church co-opted the misogynist beliefs of Mithrasism and Sol Invictus to make Christianity more appealing to upper-class Roman men.

Something very similar happened in the American antebellum South when the first Baptist and Methodist preachers arrived there in the early 1700s. At first, they were very receptive to women having leadership and teaching roles in the church. Even black slaves were welcomed in the main tabernacle of the church. The true power-holders, the male plantation owners and landed gentry, however, weren't attracted so much to Baptist and Metodist churches back then because they knew they'd be expected to change their ways and thus found it "unmanly" to attend.

However, over the next 150 years, things began to evolve and change as Baptist and Methodist preachers began to change their approaches in order to appeal more to and draw male southern plantation owners and landed gentry to their churches. They did this by altering their practices -- that is, they no longer permited women to serve in leadership roles and prohibited slaves from entering the main tabernacle -- and came to embrace and endorse slavery as Biblically-sanctioned. Indeed, the Southern Baptist denomination came about because the National Baptist Association in 1845 refused to ordain the son of a slave-owning southern plantation owner because they considered it the worst sort of hypocrisy to send a missionary abroad to a country where he might be ministering to the very relatives of the souls whom his father held in bondage as slaves back in the USA. As a result of the National Baptist Association's refusal to ordain that slave-holding plantation owner's son as a missionary, the Baptists in the South broke off from their northern brethren and founded the Southern Baptist Association in 1845.


And lest we forget, the Roman Catholic Church didn't start prohibiting married men from becoming priests until around 1000 A.D. One of the main cited reasons for that change was because the Roman Catholic Church Church didn't want its married priests leaving their inheritances -- especially their land holdings -- to their wife and children but to the Church alone.


Bataar wrote:
Wouldn't any group do the same?

Yes, any entrenched dogmatic, orthodox group would do the same, no matter how ethically, morally, and factually wrong they were.


Bataar wrote:
If a chapter of PETA (or however they organize themselves) was promoting eating steak every week, don't you think the head of the organization would eventually come down on them and correct them for spreading a message contrary to their organization?

False and erroneous analogy. If you want to make a contextual example, then select an organization that deals with human interaction with and care and aid to fellow humans as its mission statement.

What does any of that have to do with correcting nuns who are engaging in teachings/practices contrary to church teaching?

The teachings in question aren't the original teachings of the early Christian sects. Rather, they're the latter-day revisions made by Roman Catholic elders to make Christianity more appealing to upper-class gentile Roman men by co-opting the more misogynist trappings of the competing Roman pagan religions of Mithrasism and Sol Invictus to which most upper-class Roman gentile men were members of.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jacob Fulwiler
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:

Bataar wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
Bataar wrote:
I don't see why this is controversial at all. There are large groups of nuns out there that are acting and teaching ways that are against church teaching. The people they are teaching are getting incorrect information and deserve better. The vatican is trying to make sure the groups in question stay true to church teaching (OMG!)

OMG, indeed! Especially since much of what the Roman Catholic Church is teaching and advocating as it pertains to women is incorrect information and not true to the actual first Christian sects, much less the first gentile Christian sects of Rome, where women held positions of authority -- lay ministry, teachers, etc. - and whose first upper-class converts were upper-class gentile Roman women. Why so? Because they were driven away by the msyognist ways of the pagan Roman religions of Sol Invictus ("The Unconquerable Sun God") and Mithrasism where women sat apart in an upper gallery/balcony in relative darkness.

Like it had done in co-opting other pagan celebrations (such as Saturnalia which it converted into Christmas), the Roman Catholic Church co-opted the misogynist beliefs of Mithrasism and Sol Invictus to make Christianity more appealing to upper-class Roman men.

Something very similar happened in the American antebellum South when the first Baptist and Methodist preachers arrived there in the early 1700s. At first, they were very receptive to women having leadership and teaching roles in the church. Even black slaves were welcomed in the main tabernacle of the church. The true power-holders, the male plantation owners and landed gentry, however, weren't attracted so much to Baptist and Metodist churches back then because they knew they'd be expected to change their ways and thus found it "unmanly" to attend.

However, over the next 150 years, things began to evolve and change as Baptist and Methodist preachers began to change their approaches in order to appeal more to and draw male southern plantation owners and landed gentry to their churches. They did this by altering their practices -- that is, they no longer permited women to serve in leadership roles and prohibited slaves from entering the main tabernacle -- and came to embrace and endorse slavery as Biblically-sanctioned. Indeed, the Southern Baptist denomination came about because the National Baptist Association in 1845 refused to ordain the son of a slave-owning southern plantation owner because they considered it the worst sort of hypocrisy to send a missionary abroad to a country where he might be ministering to the very relatives of the souls whom his father held in bondage as slaves back in the USA. As a result of the National Baptist Association's refusal to ordain that slave-holding plantation owner's son as a missionary, the Baptists in the South broke off from their northern brethren and founded the Southern Baptist Association in 1845.


And lest we forget, the Roman Catholic Church didn't start prohibiting married men from becoming priests until around 1000 A.D. One of the main cited reasons for that change was because the Roman Catholic Church Church didn't want its married priests leaving their inheritances -- especially their land holdings -- to their wife and children but to the Church alone.


Bataar wrote:
Wouldn't any group do the same?

Yes, any entrenched dogmatic, orthodox group would do the same, no matter how ethically, morally, and factually wrong they were.


Bataar wrote:
If a chapter of PETA (or however they organize themselves) was promoting eating steak every week, don't you think the head of the organization would eventually come down on them and correct them for spreading a message contrary to their organization?

False and erroneous analogy. If you want to make a contextual example, then select an organization that deals with human interaction with and care and aid to fellow humans as its mission statement.

What does any of that have to do with correcting nuns who are engaging in teachings/practices contrary to church teaching?

The teachings in question aren't the original teachings of the early Christian sects. Rather, they're the latter-day revisions made by Roman Catholic elders to make Christianity more appealing to upper-class gentile Roman men by co-opting the more misogynist trappings of the competing Roman pagan religions of Mithrasism and Sol Invictus to which most upper-class Roman gentile men were members of.


Which teachings do you believe they are against? The issues in question have nothing to do with your original response. While the church has changed some of its rituals and (small 't') traditions, its core beliefs and doctrines have been the same since the time of the Apostles. This can be determined from reading books and letters that date back to the time of the early church and church fathers.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

Bataar wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
Bataar wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
Bataar wrote:
If a chapter of PETA (or however they organize themselves) was promoting eating steak every week, don't you think the head of the organization would eventually come down on them and correct them for spreading a message contrary to their organization?

False and erroneous analogy. If you want to make a contextual example, then select an organization that deals with human interaction with and care and aid to fellow humans as its mission statement.

What does any of that have to do with correcting nuns who are engaging in teachings/practices contrary to church teaching?

The teachings in question aren't the original teachings of the early Christian sects. Rather, they're the latter-day revisions made by Roman Catholic elders to make Christianity more appealing to upper-class gentile Roman men by co-opting the more misogynist trappings of the competing Roman pagan religions of Mithrasism and Sol Invictus to which most upper-class Roman gentile men were members of.

Which teachings do you believe they are against? The issues in question have nothing to do with your original response. While the church has changed some of its rituals and (small 't') traditions, its core beliefs and doctrines have been the same since the time of the Apostles. This can be determined from reading books and letters that date back to the time of the early church and church fathers.

And yet, those early church fathers were NOT the very first. They're just the only ones that the Roman Catholic Church recognizes despite its having destroyed the writings of earlier Christian sects and persecuted and killed those sects' members.

Let's just say that the pagan Roman religions of Mithrasism and Sol Invictus put the "Roman" in Roman Catholic Church because it was their more misogynistic beliefs that the Roman Catholic Church co-opted in order to make their version of Christianity more competitively appealing to upper-class Roman gentile men.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jacob Fulwiler
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:

Bataar wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
Bataar wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
Bataar wrote:
If a chapter of PETA (or however they organize themselves) was promoting eating steak every week, don't you think the head of the organization would eventually come down on them and correct them for spreading a message contrary to their organization?

False and erroneous analogy. If you want to make a contextual example, then select an organization that deals with human interaction with and care and aid to fellow humans as its mission statement.

What does any of that have to do with correcting nuns who are engaging in teachings/practices contrary to church teaching?

The teachings in question aren't the original teachings of the early Christian sects. Rather, they're the latter-day revisions made by Roman Catholic elders to make Christianity more appealing to upper-class gentile Roman men by co-opting the more misogynist trappings of the competing Roman pagan religions of Mithrasism and Sol Invictus to which most upper-class Roman gentile men were members of.

Which teachings do you believe they are against? The issues in question have nothing to do with your original response. While the church has changed some of its rituals and (small 't') traditions, its core beliefs and doctrines have been the same since the time of the Apostles. This can be determined from reading books and letters that date back to the time of the early church and church fathers.

And yet, those early church fathers were NOT the very first. They're just the only ones that the Roman Catholic Church recognizes despite its having destroyed the writings of earlier Christian sects and persecuted and killed those sects' members.

Let's just say that the pagan Roman religions of Mithrasism and Sol Invictus put the "Roman" in Roman Catholic Church because it was their more misogynistic beliefs that the Roman Catholic Church co-opted in order to make their version of Christianity more competitively appealing to upper-class Roman gentile men.


Still doesn't have anything to do with the nuns, but whatever. Do you have any evidence to back up what you're saying? In order for what you're saying to be true, there would have to be Christians before Jesus was even born. The Church's teaching and Traditions go right back to the Apostles. You can read their teachings and their successor's teaching. They were the first Christians and their teachings line up with Catholocism. Those other "sects" you mentioned splintered off from the original christian groups, such as Arianism.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

Bataar wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
Bataar wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
Bataar wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
Bataar wrote:
If a chapter of PETA (or however they organize themselves) was promoting eating steak every week, don't you think the head of the organization would eventually come down on them and correct them for spreading a message contrary to their organization?

False and erroneous analogy. If you want to make a contextual example, then select an organization that deals with human interaction with and care and aid to fellow humans as its mission statement.

What does any of that have to do with correcting nuns who are engaging in teachings/practices contrary to church teaching?

The teachings in question aren't the original teachings of the early Christian sects. Rather, they're the latter-day revisions made by Roman Catholic elders to make Christianity more appealing to upper-class gentile Roman men by co-opting the more misogynist trappings of the competing Roman pagan religions of Mithrasism and Sol Invictus to which most upper-class Roman gentile men were members of.

Which teachings do you believe they are against? The issues in question have nothing to do with your original response. While the church has changed some of its rituals and (small 't') traditions, its core beliefs and doctrines have been the same since the time of the Apostles. This can be determined from reading books and letters that date back to the time of the early church and church fathers.

And yet, those early church fathers were NOT the very first. They're just the only ones that the Roman Catholic Church recognizes despite its having destroyed the writings of earlier Christian sects and persecuted and killed those sects' members.

Let's just say that the pagan Roman religions of Mithrasism and Sol Invictus put the "Roman" in Roman Catholic Church because it was their more misogynistic beliefs that the Roman Catholic Church co-opted in order to make their version of Christianity more competitively appealing to upper-class Roman gentile men.

Still doesn't have anything to do with the nuns, but whatever. Do you have any evidence to back up what you're saying? In order for what you're saying to be true, there would have to be Christians before Jesus was even born.

Are you under the impression that the earliest known books and histories were those of the New Testament were written immediately after the events they described?


Bataar wrote:
The Church's teaching and Traditions go right back to the Apostles.

Oh, yes, they might claim as much, but that still doesn't change or reconcile the facts that women held lay-ministry and leadership posts in early Christian sects and that upper-class Roman gentile women were among the first converts in Rome to the Christian faith.

So how do you reconcile women's being relegated to the sidelines after the Roman Catholic Church asserted its dogmatic authority?

We already know that the Roman Catholic Church co-opted many of the pagan practices of the Roman festival of Saturnalia and grafted them onto our celebration of Christmas. Why would it strike you as unusual for the early Roman Catholic Church to likewise have co-opted the more misogynist tenets of Mithrasism and Sol Invictus in order to be more competitively appealing to upper-class gentile Roman men, the true power-holders of Rome?


Bataar wrote:
You can read their teachings and their successor's teaching.

Yes, if I were to put on blinders; pretend that no other competing legitimate sects of Christianity ever existed; and pretended that no other competing sects' books of Christianity existed, I'd might otherwise be naive enough to believe what I was told, especially if the church in question not only limited but also restricted education to only a chosen few -- which the Roman Catholic Church in fact did -- Dark Ages, anyone? -- and thus, in such case, I'd probably have been none the wiser.


Bataar wrote:
They were the first Christians and their teachings line up with Catholocism.

Yes, because only select Christian writings were adopted because the Emperor Constantine was more interested in exploiting Christianity as an ideological glue to hold his empire together than in any meaningfully genuine exploration of which books were legitimate on their own merits without regard for considerations of imperial consenus building.


Bataar wrote:
Those other "sects" you mentioned splintered off from the original christian groups, such as Arianism.

I'm talking about much earlier groups than that. And I also include among those earlier sects the Jamesian Christians of Jerusalem as well.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jacob Fulwiler
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:

Are you under the impression that the earliest known books and histories were those of the New Testament were written immediately after the events they described?

No, the Gospels weren't written directly by the author they are credited with but rather students/diciples of said author later on. The letters and epistles, however, are credited as being original.

ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
Oh, yes, they might claim as much, but that still doesn't change or reconcile the facts that women held lay-ministry and leadership posts in early Christian sects and that upper-class Roman gentile women were among the first converts in Rome to the Christian faith.

So how do you reconcile women's being relegated to the sidelines after the Roman Catholic Church asserted its dogmatic authority?

Women have and have always had that ability. They can't become priests, but there has always been women in leadership positions who preached and taught.

ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
We already know that the Roman Catholic Church co-opted many of the pagan practices of the Roman festival of Saturnalia and grafted them onto our celebration of Christmas. Why would it strike you as unusual for the early Roman Catholic Church to likewise have co-opted the more misogynist tenets of Mithrasism and Sol Invictus in order to be more competitively appealing to upper-class gentile Roman men, the true power-holders of Rome?

If by "practices" you mean days, than yes. They used the same day as Saturnalia for Christmas. Not only was this day celebrated as the "birth of the sun" which coincides with the birth of the Son for symbolic purposes, it is also 9 months after March 25th which is celebrated as the time of the Annunciation to Mary.

ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
Yes, if I were to put on blinders; pretend that no other competing legitimate sects of Christianity ever existed; and pretended that no other competing sects' books of Christianity existed, I'd might otherwise be naive enough to believe what I was told, especially if the church in question not only limited but also restricted education to only a chosen few -- which the Roman Catholic Church in fact did -- Dark Ages, anyone? -- and thus, in such case, I'd probably have been none the wiser.

But how do you determine which one is correct? You have to look to the authority Jesus gave the early church and how it was passed on. If one sect says one thing and the sect that has Jesus' authority passed to it says another, which one is true? You mention Jamesian christians later on and that's a good example. James understood that Peter was the head of the church. When Peter agreed with Paul about issues like circumcision, dietary needs, etc. James accepted because he knew where the authority came from. Likewise, when Paul disagreed with Peter, even though Paul rebuked Peter, he still did what Peter said. It was the Catholic church that fostered education and brought Europe out of the dark ages. Schools and universities, mostly run by monks and nuns lead the charge in education.

ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
Yes, because only select Christian writings were adopted because the Emperor Constantine was more interested in exploiting Christianity as an ideological glue to hold his empire together than in any meaningfully genuine exploration of which books were legitimate on their own merits without regard for considerations of imperial consenus building.

Constantine's mother, St. Helena was nearly a life long Christian. There is still debate whether or not Constantine was a Christian his whole life and only revealed it later on or whether that's when he truely converted. Constantine did not determine the official Bible. That developed over time and was re-affirmed at the Council of Trent.

ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
I'm talking about much earlier groups than that. And I also include among those earlier sects the Jamesian Christians of Jerusalem as well.

Again, this goes back to authority. I already showed how both James and Paul acknowledged Peter's authority. If there are 2 sects and each is teaching something different, how do you determine which one is correct? Truth cannot contradict truth so either they are both wrong or one is. They can't both be correct. With that in mind you have to look to history to see how authority is passed down and then go back to Jesus where he promised that the Holy Spirit would forever guide the church.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew Tadyshak
United States
Dallas
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmb
Bataar wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:

Bataar wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
Bataar wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
Bataar wrote:
If a chapter of PETA (or however they organize themselves) was promoting eating steak every week, don't you think the head of the organization would eventually come down on them and correct them for spreading a message contrary to their organization?

False and erroneous analogy. If you want to make a contextual example, then select an organization that deals with human interaction with and care and aid to fellow humans as its mission statement.

What does any of that have to do with correcting nuns who are engaging in teachings/practices contrary to church teaching?

The teachings in question aren't the original teachings of the early Christian sects. Rather, they're the latter-day revisions made by Roman Catholic elders to make Christianity more appealing to upper-class gentile Roman men by co-opting the more misogynist trappings of the competing Roman pagan religions of Mithrasism and Sol Invictus to which most upper-class Roman gentile men were members of.

Which teachings do you believe they are against? The issues in question have nothing to do with your original response. While the church has changed some of its rituals and (small 't') traditions, its core beliefs and doctrines have been the same since the time of the Apostles. This can be determined from reading books and letters that date back to the time of the early church and church fathers.

And yet, those early church fathers were NOT the very first. They're just the only ones that the Roman Catholic Church recognizes despite its having destroyed the writings of earlier Christian sects and persecuted and killed those sects' members.

Let's just say that the pagan Roman religions of Mithrasism and Sol Invictus put the "Roman" in Roman Catholic Church because it was their more misogynistic beliefs that the Roman Catholic Church co-opted in order to make their version of Christianity more competitively appealing to upper-class Roman gentile men.


Still doesn't have anything to do with the nuns, but whatever. Do you have any evidence to back up what you're saying? In order for what you're saying to be true, there would have to be Christians before Jesus was even born. The Church's teaching and Traditions go right back to the Apostles. You can read their teachings and their successor's teaching. They were the first Christians and their teachings line up with Catholocism. Those other "sects" you mentioned splintered off from the original christian groups, such as Arianism.
His evidence is of the "silly Christians, some pagans have what look to be similar ideas, therefor your whole religion is just pagan copy cat!" variety.

He also seems to forget that Sol Invictus sprung up after Christianity has been around for while, which by his logic would mean that it is all stolen from Christianity.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.