This week's top stories ...

Check out another thread to see why 'gay ordination' can never be Christian.

Pastophilip,

are you saying that it is unchristian to ordain a person based on their sexuality whether or not they have ever acted upon it ? Are you actually saying there are a group of people who are born never to be good enough to be ordained?

Mind you in light of Wills question I guess there are some christians who have already ruled out over half the population in that regard.

Re "US preacher warns end of the world is nigh: 21 May, around 6pm, to be precise."

There's also

"Rome earthquake prophecy claims trigger cataclysmic mood"
https://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/10/rome-earthquake-prophecy-claims

Will,
You missed a really important news item this week.

"An Orthodox Jewish newspaper on Monday apologized for digitally deleting Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from a photo of President Barack Obama and his staff watching Navy SEALs move in on Osama bin Laden."

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/video/video-paper-deletes-hillary-clinton-from-iconic-photo/article2017007/

I am sad that you of all people missed my point on the other thread about the importance of Neuroscience and how the brain makes us what we are, is the source of action (conscious & unconscious) and is where beliefs are made.

As for your comment about scientists, come on now, ask yourself what would Jerry Coyne say

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/05/04/once-again-does-religion-produce-knowledge/

How can you expect that those who haven't grown past religion can grasp that no one is born believing in superstitious nonsense but the ideologies are conditioned. Those same folks don't want to understand biology and that people are born gay and those who are cruel to different folks tend to cite religion rather than facts and evidence.

What would the group say about rugby players and homosexual acts?

"Last month the four all admitted a separate count of outraging public decency by committing obscene acts in front of other passengers. "

"On September 20, 2010 Lewis Baker, Alex Bye, James Devlin and Daniel Hammond outraged public decency on a public service bus travelling from Cheltenham to Gloucester, masturbated themselves while naked and allowed themselves to be masturbated by another within the site and outrage of other persons present."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/students-admit-lewd-sex-acts-on-bus-2279409.html

What goes on in sports locker rooms huh!

Misogynists continue to stand in the way of women achieving equal job status and and the sexually repressed don't get that there are lots of ways to enjoy intimacy.

I am sickened by males who fertilize eggs without intending to procreate. Unprotected sex, that is not using condoms to prevent disease and pregnancy is unforgivable.

Is that 6:00pm Israel time, I wouldn't want to miss it by getting the time zone wrong but I am sure he must be mistaken because I think the Queen is in Dublin that day and surely she would have been here to do the meet and greet.

LucyQ,

"What would the group say about rugby players and homosexual acts?"

I would say that there is no evidence of homosexuality, same sex sexual acts perhaps but to be honest there was a documentary on ITV a few years ago following another rugby team and they were up to much the same in fact probably more explicit. It's not that uncommon and in the right environment part of the culture so pretty harmless and don't even try and investigate what squaddies get up to. It is however inexcusable to do it in a public place where people rightly have no expectation to be confronted by it so they deserve to be in court. Remember that the charge is outraging public decency which means that there is no judgement on the act itself (plain common or garden heterosexual frolics would get the same charge) but on the fact that the public could see it and someone reported it.

Well you did ask me !

As for men not using condoms, I would spread the blame more evenly, men should use protection, so should women (or morning after pill) or keep their legs shut until they have the maturity to only have sex responsibly.

4. _Ryan_ :

Yes, we live in exciting times!

What are your plans for 22nd May? About tea time?

@ Dave

"same sex sexual acts perhaps" = gay sex

There is no shame in same sex intimacy.

Semantic justification is rather feeble when the facts are up front.

I have sat on a las Ramblas street bench and watched married sailors buy from transsexual prostitutes. Oh sure when they wake up sober the next day and think about it the claim is that they were too drunk to tell the difference between girl and boy parts.

8, newdwr lol don't we just
Sunday week teatime... let's see..a very late breakfast & a walk on the beach would be nice, darn it with all these predictions :p

"...the world is nigh: 21 May, around 6pm, to be precise."

And what will happen to this old goat, once his prediction is disproved by reality?

'Nothing', is the answer. He'll just go on rambling about 'the end', assuming he hasn't killed himself the night before (not unusual for cranks).

But ask yourself, how different is this doom merchant to the doom merchants of mainstream Christianity? Hardly a generation goes by that the 'signs' predicted in the Bible don't come to pass.

'There will be great tribulation'; you don't say? "There will be wars, famine and pestilence'; honestly? Those things are not exactly infrequent.

This particular nut job is no different in effect than those that preach 'end times' from the pulpit every weekend.

So let's not have anyone dismiss this particular crank whilst broadly accepting mainstream religious 'crankery'.

LucyQ,

I have a different view, to me homosexual sex implies that there is a same sex attraction driving intimacy. The reports suggested drunken antics not intimacy or sexual connection. Still nothing wrong with it in the right environment but there is nothing to label the perps as homosexual. I have done some work with HIV prevention groups - condom distribution and awareness work and you would be surprised at the number of straight men who avail of the services. In those circle the overall term is Men who have Sex with Men (MSM) as it is inclusive of both gay and Bi men but also the other groups (rent boys or men who just do not identify as gay). You may view this as semantics but given the stigmatism attached to being perceived as gay in some quarters these semantic differences are important in making sure that prevention, testing and treatment if necessary get to as many people as need it and if that means being pedantically semantic then I am guilty but unrepentant lol.

I am well aware that there is no shame in same sex intimacy, I have never been ashamed of it, either before, during, between or after either of my long term (same sex) relationships.

Your Las Ramblas comment is interesting but to be honest some men seem to be able to have sex with almost anything when given enough drink. I think it says more about the effect of drink on their libido and inhibitions than it does about their sexuality. Having spent many years living and working in a 70% gay holiday resort I got to observe a lot about male sexuality of all parts of the spectrum.

You also missed the Irish memorial mass for bin Laden...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/8502361/Irish-parish-mass-for-bin-Laden-causes-outrage.html

"by Our Foreign Staff 12:18PM BST 09 May 2011
Residents of Howth near Dublin, were bewildered to see Osama bin Laden listed for two memorial services in their parish newsletter.

The Roman Catholic Church in the seaside town had named the terrorist – shot dead by US navy seals in a heavily-fortified compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, last Sunday – among those to whom it planned to devote a Mass."

Chuckle.

In other news, a mary has appeared at the offices of Sojourners, speaking words of wisdom...

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

You're definitely a local. Tell me. Do you stick your index finger in your mouth when you're raising your eyebrows in that way to decide if this posting is allowed? Have you ever seen anyone post here who seems like they might be under 18? Or 16? Do you go to church? Or are you so afraid you might lose your night shift handy number as a student straight out of a journalism degree that you might not get your leg up in the famously difficult media industry so you act all nazi?

Do you know what the BBC is supposed to be for?

Do you know anything?

These are genuine points of concern. Forget the BNP. Old Auntie is has 1984 going on here.

LucyQ, read you in these two latest threads.
Why do you sound so ‘preachy’? You are proselytising to some science thing when there is no exogenous exhortation to do so. And if you are doing so endogenously, is it because of some ‘inner brain or spirit thing’ which we are not aware of?

Even your referencing to Dawkins for some evidential support earlier on, seems like idolising the source of your enlightenment. At least Flip Wilson, a US comedian, did show his regards for attribution with “The devil made me do it”.

Your missionary zeal is note worthy.

I noticed this statement from the Archbishop of Canterbury in response to the imminent passing of the ant-homosexuality bill in Uganda.

It seems to say that

a) It's a tad harsh
b) It makes our wee pastors jobs a bit difficult

so nothing wrong with having the bill and punishing people for who they are but killing them is a bit over the top and it might cause us a bit of discomfort if we have to shop people, I know the gays are getting it worse by being locked up or killed but just think about us losing a nights sleep wrestling with it.

As a major player in the christian church (part of which started and fuelled the bill) I feel this is a bit weak (to put it in a way which can be printed) and shows more concern for their freedom of operation than for the people being persecuted.

AF - I am deeply intrigued by your interaction during the night, are you going to give us a clue what got you moderated or will we just speculate.

Forget what he posted, I want to know what he was on! ;-)

Here's another thorny issue related to religion and parenting.

Sadly a 10 year old kid in the USA is charged with murdering his Neo-Nazi pa.

"Jeff Hall, a white supremacist leader in the Los Angeles area, was shot to death by his 10-year-old son on May 1. In an account of the neo-Nazi's life, the New York Times notes that Hall managed to win custody of the children from his ex-wife. Can a judge take extreme political views into account when deciding a custody battle?"

"Religion is the thorniest issue, because it's tied up not only with free speech, but also the First Amendment right to practice religion without state interference. In 2003, a Pennsylvania judge prohibited a fundamentalist Mormon father from advocating polygamy to his daughter. Three years later, the state supreme court reversed the order, deciding that parents have a right to teach their faith to their children—even if the behavior in question is illegal—as long as the religious lessons don't present an immediate danger. Parents have also been prohibited from trashing an ex-spouse's religious views in front of the kids."

https://www.slate.com/id/2293768/

Once societies get over the hurdle about what is appropriate to teach children then religion will be obviously marginalized and deemed for adults only.

As for the societal problems inspired by religious sectarianism I think the people of N.I. only have to look around the neighbourhood.

(ooops) I put the post on the wrong thread, sorry folks.

@ 1. & 2.:

The news item re. U.S. Presbyterians is relevant to just one of several Presbyterian factions in America. The "Reformed " & other divisions of U.S. Presbyterians do not hold the same convictions as the group in the news article.
As an American, I think the religious news coming out in the press tends to be a bit skewed.Many conservative folk, both Catholic & Protestant quietly go about their business, support their church's doctrine, & never become an item on the evening news.
Here's a link to the Reformed Presbyterian site & their mission trip to the North of Ireland.( I expect they might be able to provide scripture based answers, too, regarding the ordination of women.) Hope the link works.

https://reformedpresbyterian.org/index.php?option=com_events&task=view_detail&agid=240&year=2011&month=05&day=20&Itemid=45

William, to get back to your question at #2. Ordination of a gay man works; ordination of a woman doesn't work. In the same way that you can't say Mass with pringles and irn-bru - just doesn't take.

mccamleyc,

Why not? What's more important; the items used in the ritual or the ritual itself? Are you placing more importance on the ritual itself than what it's supposed to mean?

Is there something intrinsically wrong with the ordination of women? Are they inferior somehow?

...placing more importance on the ritual itself than what it's supposed to mean...

I wonder..is there a word for that lol Too much emphasis on ceremony, is it style over substance?

mccamleyc,

"Ordination of a gay man works; ordination of a woman doesn't work"

Have to say that's one of the most ... I actually don't know what to say.

But it wasn't going to be good,

So half the population aren't good enough to be ordained, but they can get married. 6% of the population can get ordained but they can't get married. Those that do manage to be ordained can't get married either but if they abuse kids we'll look after them. (Oh and if you are from another religion you can join us married or not and be ordained... even though we don't allow ordination of married people)

Have I missed something ?

The "Reformed " & other divisions of U.S. Presbyterians do not hold the same convictions as the group in the news article...Here's a link to the Reformed Presbyterian site & their mission trip to the North of Ireland.( I expect they might be able to provide scripture based answers, too, regarding the ordination of women.) Hope the link works.

The RPCNA ordains women as deacons not as ministers. Presbyterian church polity conventionally draws distinctions between a teaching elder (minister), ruling elder and deacon (although there are variations within the same tradition between, say, Presbyterianism and the continental Reformed). As such an argument in support of female ordination to the diaconate cannot be marshalled in support of female ordination to the eldership, or, in good Scots language, the Kirk Session.

Likewise Episcopalian and Roman Catholicism, if an argument is made in support of female ordination to a particular office that argument does not necessarily apply to another office. Nor does it have presumption on its side.

If, however, one wants to argue that there is no prohibition against female ordination to any church office this requires a different sort of argument. What it looks like varies from case to case. We have the equal ops crowd, with little interest in Scriptural exegesis, who naively insist that prohibition belongs to another, unenlightened age. Then there are others who, although most likely operating out of modern sensibilities, wish to argue against prohibition from Scripture.

So half the population aren't good enough to be ordained, but they can get married.

Who said anything about 'good enough'?

So if they want to there should be no bar to it. All nonsense aside tell me why a woman cannot be ordained in terms of ability not 2000 year old misogyny ?

So if they want to there should be no bar to it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMfcfYcIDbg

All nonsense aside tell me why a woman cannot be ordained in terms of ability not 2000 year old misogyny ?

Why should ability be the decisive factor?

Why should ability be the decisive factor?

Why shouldn't it? It's certainly a decisive factor in other professions. It's clear a great deal of trust is placed on anothers ability when the job actually matters.Unless of course, the post isn't viewed as important & is seen as something merely ornamental, reflective of tradition but separate from and not part of the contempory society

Re: women's ordination issues-why not just go to the various church sites online where you can read their statements of belief/catechisms & then come back into the discussion with that understanding?

Only 8 1/2 days left before we confront the US preacher who warned that the end of the world will occur on 21st May, at tea time. I can't wait...

21/05/2011, 8PM: "Anything to say, preacher?"

(Not available for interviews is my bet.)

Dave

For a number of reasons I am increasingly reluctant to get involved in discussions which focus on the contrast between, what I will describe as, ‘biblical thinking’ and ‘contemporary secular thinking’ (Maybe there’s a better way of describing this).

This is partly because we have to spend so much time dealing with misunderstandings first that I’ve begun to wonder about the merit of the discussion at all. The debate about the role of men and women in the church is once such example, and the only reason I’m putting up a reply is to respond to the language of ‘ability’, or ‘good enough’. My aim here is not to comment on the role of men and women specifically; there is already a debate within the church about this, and you raise nothing new; and, at a personal level, I am theologically ambivalent.

My main concern is this: the language used which speaks of ‘ability’, or ‘good enough’ or, I could add, ‘merit’ or, ‘ecclesiastical rank’ (you get the idea) is precisely not the way Christians should be thinking of this. ‘Ordination’ (if biblical at all, and I’m not convinced it is) or ‘ministry’ in the church or towards the wider society, or ‘leadership’ in the church is not about ‘merit’ or ‘ability’ or ‘rank’ or ‘promotion’, and is therefore (in my view) not a matter of ‘rights’ - the biblical concept which best sums up the idea of Christian ministry seems to be ‘service’, a free relinquishment of one's rights for another, and, therefore, if this is missing in Christian ministry, then discussion about whether the ‘minister’ is a man or a woman is neither here nor there.

Unfortunately, however, the idea of ‘promotion’, or ‘rank’ or ‘good enough’ runs as deep in the DNA of the church as in any merit based organization or society. This, for me, is the church’s greatest sin: that it has allowed the language of ‘merit’ to infiltrate its thinking. Perhaps whenever we see in the church a eucharistic rush to acts of humility, rather than a clamour for ecclesiastical titles, this debate will resolve itself.

Peter2m,

You say the it's not about merit, but surely the mark of merit or ability within the church hierarchy is service; the more willing an acolyte is to be of good service to their congregation (or whoever) then the greater merit they have?

And if you don't agree with progression from merit, then what is the alternative? Progression by nepotism? Perhaps a good prayer session and then consulting the umin then thumin?

peterm2,

I understand your reluctance - it is a polarised debate and there is little love between the factions.

My thoughts are that as the church becomes more literalist that there is a tendency to simply defend certain positions as 'literal' and that all effort is diverted to defence rather than open thinking. Add to the mix that the power of the church is in decline and so to even contemplate that one of the evolved concepts might be in error or need modified is too much weakness for some to even contemplate,the old if we got one thing wrong then what else have we got wrong problem. In many ways some churches are the victims of the 'perfection' bug.

There are many things like women, slavery, witches, ethnic diversity etc which today's (by that I mean the church of the last 500 years) church sees as sacrosanct which are little more than commentaries or reflections of a society which existed thousands of year ago. Some of these (slavery, witches and ethnic diversity) have been purged from the church by society (against the desire of the church in many cases).

As an outsider to the church (and so with nothing to defend) I do not see these positions as tenable because they were never explicitly stated. They are simply a reflection of events which occurred due to the values of society at the time. eg Did Jesus only have male disciples because he wanted to give a message that only men were suitable or because that was the way society was and only men worked and thought freely.

The other problem I see is in areas where the church has developed it's own concepts such as ordination and the structures of the church. These are man made concepts which the bible comments on only because at the time it was written they already existed (the comments were never good from what I remember). I do not remember any commandment which said "you will set yourselves up apart from society to be a pillar of virtue and to dole out my rules and messages as sole interpreter of my will" or something of that ilk. What we have today has evolved from what Jesus supposedly did to cope with a specific set of circumstances in a specific societal structure. It is not set out that there ever was to be a church structure, ordination, vatican power house or kirk session - these are all man made evolutions.

Unfortunately, for society and the church, both of these areas have become literal and so beyond question. In effect they have become self supporting and inseparable from the message that any unbaggaged reading of the bible would deliver.

So we end up with many of the ordained defending the precept that there should be no women priests with the same biblical perfection as thou shall not kill when one is a reflection of society and the other is actually a specific unambiguous statement of behavioural requirement.

Many people today see these problems and either become slaves to them (fundamentalists) or walk away. Those in the middle debate at various level and some actually change. Such is evolution.

As one who walked away my only wish in life is to have the remaining claws they have in me removed by ensuring that they do not have influence over my existence. This is what drives my position of I do not care what they believe but I will fight any influence they have on me as it my human right to live free from religion. As someone whose rights the church actively opposes this is where I feel justified in commenting and debating.

Here's a bit of news from the BBC:https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13394105
It's actually not that rare to find a Tridentine Mass celebrated in the States.We have one every week in our diocese.I believe that may be the case in most US dioceses-at least the ones I'm familiar with.And I'm not aware that it creates any divisions between the faithful.It's pretty much a non-issue-just a matter of choice as in liturgical music.Some folks like the "Kumbaya" music, some Gregorian Chant.You can take your pick.

https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/go/blogs/ni/ext/_auto/-/https://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/david-quinn-staggering-that-church-still-not-fully-helping-in-child-protection-2646083.html

It seems that the Catholic Church still has a lot of problems with paedophile priests. It is indeed curious that although 272 serious allegations have been passed on to the civil authorities over the past 12 months, the National Board for Safeguarding Children has not been notified of 80 per cent of these allegations.

An institution that operates in a questionable way like this should not be allowed to boost its donation income through the tax system.

Al,

In less than a week it will all be over.... resistance is pointless.

BTW, hasn't Will done well in Nolan's slot this week? My old mum is well pleased with him!

36. Dave:

That was a very honest and thoughtful post, well said. Also, peterm2 made some valuable points.

Natman

You comments in #35 usefully highlight the differences in our thinking - but where to begin explaining? Like I said to Dave, ”we have to spend so much time dealing with misunderstandings first that I’ve begun to wonder about the merit of the discussion at all”, but anyway, here goes!

” You say the it's not about merit”

Indeed.

”but surely the mark of merit or ability within the church hierarchy is service”

You see, that’s just it; it’s the notion of ‘hierarchy’ which *is* the problem. Please don’t misunderstand, I have no quarrel with ‘ability’, ‘talent’, people being good at what they do (goodness the church needs able people), but that isn’t my point - rather, it is that the Church of Jesus Christ ought not to be modelled on a corporation predicated on ‘success’ and ‘worth’ on the basis of ‘position’, ‘rank’, ‘title’. ”in humility count others more significant than yourselves.” (from Phillipians 2) is the centre of a Christian’s gravity, and whatever one’s ‘merits’, whatever one’s ‘ability’, the Christian should be able to find that balance.

”the more willing an acolyte is to be of good service to their congregation (or whoever) then the greater merit they have?”

Which again highlights a problem both of understanding and, unfortunately, practice. To ‘serve’ one’s congregation or whoever, in order that one might be noticed, or make progress, or attain an ecclesiastical rank, or ‘ordination’ is to miss the point. To serve is to seek the benefit of another; you will note that I defined Christian service as the “free relinquishment of one's rights for another”; if this is the case, then seeking recognition for oneself is patently not the point. ”Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant” (from Phillipians 2)

”And if you don't agree with progression from merit, then what is the alternative?”

I’ve explained this - the relinquishment of one’s own rights for the benefit of another.

”Progression by nepotism?”

It’s not about ‘progression’.

”Perhaps a good prayer session and then consulting the umin then thumin?”

Well, you know what, Natman, there are those, it seems, who do view (what shall I say?), the ‘politics of the church’ in this way, and they too, too often, seem overly concerned with personal ecclesiastical ‘progression’.

I’ll put it another way - it seems quite possible to me that there are Christian ‘leaders’ all over the place; and, very often, they are those who do not wear robes or collars, they are those who do not possess ecclesiastical titles (historical or emergent), they do not pack out church buildings and summer conferences, their photos do not appear in christian magazines or ezines, and their names are not well known. It seems they just go about their daily business, humbly and quietly, and sometimes with difficulty and at personal cost, loving people in the name of Jesus. I have much to learn from them.


Dave

”As one who walked away my only wish in life is to have the remaining claws they have in me removed by ensuring that they do not have influence over my existence.”

If this has been your experience of the church, one of seeking influence over your existence, rather than (differences of worldview and disagreements or not) treating with humility and respect, then I can understand that you walked away. Sometimes those of us inside the church feel the same way.

38. newlach:

There was a time I would have called for the abolition of the RC church.

I'm married to a non-practising Catholic; she practised so much she's perfect (toh to Spike Milligan).

Then one night at the funeral of a young relative in a border town a priest called for the Catholic congregation to pray for members of the security forces (this was pre-ceasefire). I was stunned. I am a former member of the security forces.

My world changed upside down.

Your beef is with paedophile priests. I can assure you that no group is more determined to rid itself of this problem than the RC laity - and they will do it. I have grown to have immense respect for these fine people. They are decent in every respect that you and I would regard as decency and they will rid themselves of this curse.

Here's a critique of Harold Camping by W. Robert Godfrey, President of Westminster Seminary California

https://wscal.edu/news-and-events/details/the-end-of-the-world-according-to-harold-camping-by-w.-robert-godfrey?utm_source=enewsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=may2011

Here's a blog post by Bill Vallicella on atheism being 'the lack of theistic belief'

https://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2011/05/against-terminological-mischief-negative-atheism-and-negative-nominalism.html

This is a subject I have posted on here before and one which seems to come up frequently. Dr. Vallicella's post is filled with good thoughts.

43, It was a good to bring up the opposing argument, just in case any were worried about the prediction

Newdwr 42,

I can assure you that no group is more determined to rid itself of this problem than the RC laity - and they will do it

Is it possible, do you think, in the light of events affecting the Catholic Church- the abuse and falling numbers of Priests- that a more inclusive approach could be embraced by the Magisterium, or will they rule themselves out of existence.

An outspoken Priest in Chicago- Father Michael Pfleger, who once advocated Priests should be allowed to marry & that women should be able to become Priests, has been suspended from his ministry - Michael Pfleger St Sabina

There are plenty of women who would rather serve their Church in this way than see it haemorrhage, such as Marie Evans Bouclin & as evidenced here- R.C woman Priests

Maybe it's just a question of whether the Magisterium wish to face the changing world by embracing it and therefore reach out to more people, or to become a smaller, 'Orthodox' Sect of Christianity. There is at least a tradition within Christianity of married Priests- the Coptic Church & Eastern Orthodox for example.

The success of women in modern society is more a reflection of their ability than their gender-Angela Merkel, Hillary Clinton,Dilma Rousseff, Janet Napolitano, Maria Ramos,etc. Maybe change can be healthy for the Catholic Church, but that will only come if the heirachy decide to embrace the modern world, rather than turn their backs to it

newdwr54

Paedophile priests have been around for a long time, however the impetus to root them out has come from outside the Catholic Church and not from the laity. Sadly, many young victims of predatory paedophile priests who tried to tell their parents what was happening were branded liars and received sound thrashings. Of course, not all Catholic priests are paedophiles; but the great ability of paedophile priests to enforce the silence of their innocent victims and to deceive the laity is now well-documented.

“the great ability of paedophile priests to enforce the silence of their innocent victims and to deceive the laity is now well-documented”

Paedophilia is now a law and order thing. What you are saying implies an overestimation of the church’s influence and the underestimation of law enforcement authorities’ capabilities. Despite the separation of church and state are your societies still stuck in ambivalence on how to handle a public safety issue?

I teach my kids to watch out for ‘strange’ adults and so far so good as both are now university students. Even the schools in Singapore where I live and work, teachers are trained to spot child abuse and there are operational procedures set out by the Ministry of Education to handle such eventualities.

If my reading of church’s affairs in the West is one of continuous and acrimonious disarray, then, the church’s helplessness is the very thing which motivates the public safety officials to do better. Just like the police is better in enforcing the commandment "You shall not steal" than the Church will ever be.
One is too soft if one do not insist that the law enforcement officials act tough as the law prescribed.

Andrew,

The blog post by Bill Vallicella was funny as it criticises a position which it claims is wordplay by wordplay. It, like many other claims about atheism, are predicated on a basis of belief. Only a basis of belief could ever make such an unsustainable argument.

In no other field would anyone classify the disagreement with an unproven assertion an assertion in it's own right. It would simply be a lack of agreement.

47 sizzlestick

I think the importance of the Catholic Church in rooting out its paedophile priests cannot be underestimated. In recent years new "recruits" have apparently be subject to psychological testing with a view to screening out potential child molesters (I do not know, however, what happens to those who fail the test because they are suspected paedophiles - is the information passed on to the appropriate authorities?).

It is revealing that the Catholic Church declined an invitation from Sunday Sequence to appear on today's programme to explain how it is dealing with allegations of sexual abuse. Also revealing (matter raised by a respected representative of Amnesty International) that the Catholic Church has since 1997 failed to file an important report with the United Nations on children's rights.

Dave

Nevermind we've only had assertions from your good self, your post is funny because you seem to think you've answered his.

In no other field would you see a donkey thinking it has outpaced a thoroughbred.

Andrew,

Atheism is the null hypothesis; it's the stance everyone is born with and it's the stance that everyone, even you, holds on 99.9% of all the gods ever invented by mankind. Bill Vallicella makes the massive erronous assumption that there's two sides; atheism and belief in the monothesitic god of the bible. He admits to this, but casually dismisses it, as if the discussion of mono- versus polythesim is irrelevant in comparison.

Perhaps, if religion could put forwards a unified front, then the position of atheism might become untenable, as it is, atheists like Dave and myself are merely just one more god an atheist than you.

newlach

Thanks for the information. And I do agree with the Church’s stance on the confidentiality and secrecy of its profiling test. Or else ‘gaming the system’ will ensue on too much revelation.

As for UN children’s rights, the Church is old enough to figure out what is right for the kids. I leave it to the Papal Authority to sort out its relationships with the secular and much younger universal entities. I see no deficiency here.

"it's the stance that everyone, even you, holds on 99.9% of all the gods ever invented by mankind. "

Not that I want to speak for Andrew, but I suspect that 'even' he, like me, holds to the view that 100% of the gods ever invented by mankind do not exist.

As for this end of the earth thing, what I like about the report is the headline... especially the bit - "around 6pm, to be precise" - there's nothing like being almost precise. BTW, if you assign a numerical value to the letters of the alphabet: A=1, B=2, C=3 and so on, and then add up these values as they occur in the name 'Harold', multiply the answer by 2, divide by pi and subtract the square root of 2, I'm pretty sure that you get an answer which is irrational.

LOL Peter, 53 gave me a smile

Peter, hah! on both counts.

On the Vallicella link, I've dealt with this issue before so I'm not going to labour the point. His position is that atheism is the proposition that god does not exist and that redefining atheism, for instance, such that atheism means 'there are people capable of forming and maintaining beliefs who simply lack the belief that God exists' is trivially true and therefore not worth debating. Note the last two paragraphs where he follows a similar procedure with nominalism.

Natman said:

even you, holds on 99.9% of all the gods ever invented by mankind...Perhaps, if religion could put forwards a unified front, then the position of atheism might become untenable, as it is, atheists like Dave and myself are merely just one more god an atheist than you.

This has been washed so many times all the colour has run out of it.

I hold that 99.9% of all truth claims ever uttered are false. Should I go 0.1% further?

Andrew,

If you think that 100% of all truth claims are false, then yes, go further.

Neither you or Peter seem happy to accept that whilst an atheist is happy to say there are no gods (or at least no reason for their existence), you're a little unwilling to vocally assert that the vast pantheons of the rest of the world are superstitious nonsense but yours is true and right and, by golly gosh, 'different' to those others.

Quite how it's different is beyond me, they're all supported by nothing more than oral tradition, an ancient book and the irrational belief of the adherants.

@Andrew

If Vallicella had taken the trouble to read the beyond the tenth line of the article he linked to, he might have found something to ease his confusion. Those buffers from the Faculty of Divinity at Cambridge give a highly condensed account of the problems of defining atheism, along with some useful advice:

...the exact meaning of 'atheist' varies between thinkers and caution must always be shown to make sure that discussions of atheism are not working at cross purposes.

At the very least Vallicella might not have found it necessary to waste time wibbling about whether cabbages can be atheists or not if he had got to grips with the rest of the text that so exercised him at the beginning, and he would have come across the resolution that satisfies most negative atheists, namely the probabilistic continuum of belief that goes from 100% certainty of the existence of God (or Allah/ Shiva et al/fairies at the bottom of the garden etc) at one end to 100% certainty of non existence at the other.

TBC

Hokay, forget the old open thread attempt. Here's part 2, with Russell's quote edited a bit cos of space.

In that framework the proposition of (strong)atheism will be put forward by a hundred percenter, of which there are relatively few (Dawkins, for eg, does not count himself in their number), the rest of us who lie somewhere between have an absence of belief that we can justify in terms of probability, lack of evidence for theistic claims etc. Those of us who lie pretty close to the 100% certainty end of the continuum, are functionally atheist, if technically agnostic.

Bertand Russell tackled this back in 1953, in What is an Agnostic?

... an Agnostic may hold that the existence of God, though not impossible, is very improbable; he may even hold it so improbable that it is not worth considering in practice. In that case, he is not far removed from atheism....If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments. An Agnostic may think the Christian God as improbable as the Olympians; in that case, he is, for practical purposes, at one with the atheists.

Natman

We've been over at least some of the differences on numerous occasions, and we could do so again, but, to be honest, your endless use of pejorative language makes me wonder how interested you really are in the discussion. Unfortunately we always end up back in the same place: Santa, Thor, irrational, pixie dust and (in your most recent comment to Pastor Philip) the circular reasoning taunt. I'm not expecting you to believe what I do, but there's rarely any evidence of you saying, "Oh, yes, I can see what you mean. I disagree entirely, and here is my specific answer to that specific point you've made, but I hadn't thought of it that way before."

Anyway here's one more point. It's in relation to that "gods invented by mankind" comment you made.

If I thought that all gods, including the one I follow, had been invented by me or others, then obviously I'd give up. This is so obvious as to be almost not worth saying.

Peter2m,

I can see what you mean, I disagree entirely and if there was a specific point to answer, I'd answer it, but I've seen, read and heard it all before; the benefits of a fairly devout religious unbringing followed by education and enlightenment.

If this was a discussion about the merits of belief, or non-belief, in Santa or Thor, people'd think we were crackers. Somehow gods are acceptable and I've no idea why.

Will;

"Philip -- Out of interest: Can female ordination ever be "Christian"?"

It is no mere hyperbole to say that people in Britain have been "indocrinated", since the advent of "womens' lib'" to believe that men and women are simply capable of doing all the same things, equally. "Ecclesial communities" which "ordain" women have simply capitulated to this erroneous way of thinking, which originated outside the Church, but seeks to impose itself on the Church. In most other countries the differences between men and women are gladly accepted and celebrated ('Vive la difference!' etc). A friend of mine, who is a doctor and a woman, living in continental Europe, once asked me in a sort of mock disbelief;

"And is it true that in your country you actually have women "priests"?

Breaking news...Men cannot bear children, and no one would seriously pretend that women aren't - often - brighter and more industrious etc than their male counterparts. But it is "an abdication of human intelligence" to maintain that the distinctive contribution of men is always bad.

How long would it have taken women to knit their first aeroplane?

The war against feminism is not over until the fat lady sings.

"How long would it have taken women to knit their first aeroplane?"

Why not ask someone like Stephanie Kwolek who invented Kevlar, and not from wool.

Helpful further reading could be the 2004 "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the collaboration of men and women in the Church and in the world";

"Recent years have seen new approaches to women's issues" including a tendency "to emphasize strongly conditions of subordination in order to give rise to antagonism," it said.

The document, which re-stated Catholic Church positions, including the ban on female priests, said that many women felt they had to be "adversaries of men" in order to be themselves.

"Faced with the abuse of power, the answer for women is to seek power. This process leads to opposition between men and women ... which has its most immediate and lethal effects in the structure of the family."

The document is a booklet-letter to bishops by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican department in charge of safeguarding and interpreting doctrine.

It criticizes feminism's attempt to erase gender differences.

This has "inspired ideologies which, for example, call into question the family in its natural two-parent structure of mother and father, and make homosexuality and heterosexuality virtually equivalent, in a new model of polymorphous sexuality," it says.

Theo "How long would it have taken women to knit their first aeroplane?"

Dave "Why not ask someone like Stephanie Kwolek who invented Kevlar, and not from wool"

Is this stuff scripted, for some reason it made me think of "Frasier" & an exchange between the Dad and either Frasier or Niles lol

This is another test, as some text seems not to be loading... again.

It looks like you're going to be spared my reply, Natman. Probably a good thing.

Theophane,

I'm with you, how dare those uppity women want to do the same things as us clearly superior men. It's obvious that they're the weaker sex, unable to contemplate high and mystical thoughts required for the priesthood. They should just remain at home, bringing up the children, cooking our meals and keeping the house tidy. Who do they think they are?!

[/sarcasm]

Seriously, Theophane, join us in the 21st century.

Natman

Here goes with another try:

To be honest I'm not quite sure why I'm bothering, but...

"I can see what you mean" - See what I mean about what?

"I disagree entirely" - about what?

"and if there was a specific point to answer, - There have been many

I'd answer it" - Great! Let's get going then.

"but I've seen, read and heard it all before;" - Two comments here: seen and heard all what before? and, you've obviously a lot less to learn than me.

"the benefits of a fairly devout religious upbringing" - I don't necessarily rate devout religious upbringings (however 'fairly' they were)

"followed by education and enlightenment" - You mean the sort that equates Jesus with Santa? That you keep doing this makes me...wonder.

"If this was a discussion about the merits of belief, or non-belief, in Santa or Thor, people'd think we were crackers." - It's just as well it isn't, then.

"Somehow gods are acceptable and I've no idea why." - Really? Even with your 'fairly devout religious upbringing'? Funnily enough, I feel the same way about the imaginary concepts you believe in - I've no idea why you find those acceptable either.

If it helps, I've never believed in Santa Christ or Jesus Claus, but perhaps my upbringing was less devout than yours.

Peter2m,

So why is belief in your god more rational and sensible than belief in Shiva or Thor?

So why is belief in your god more rational and sensible than belief in Shiva or Thor?

What's 'more rational'?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

64, For anyone suffering from Diabetes who requires Insulin & thinks women should be kept in the home- let's be thankful some women are free to pursue careers...

In 1977, Rosalyn Sussman Yalow received the Nobel Prize in Medicine for the development of the RIA (Radioimmunoassay) for insulin: the precise measurement of minute amounts of such a hormone was considered a breakthrough in endocrinology.

Wonder if any Religious clerics preach a womans place is in the home but require Insulin...

Andrew

”What's 'more rational'?”

Natman’s answered that before - an imaginary concept we imagine to help us imagine that we can give some meaning to our lives. Imagine!



Natman

A few things:

At least it’s clear now that your, ”I can see what you mean, I disagree entirely and if there was a specific point to answer, I'd answer it,” meant nothing at all.

And you’ve moved on from Santa - good man, it didn’t ever carry any weight, did it?

But to get to your question (I just love the way questions are written on this blog to avoid having to say anything); a significant part of it has to do with what is said about Shiva, Thor or YHWH - you, with your ‘fairly devout religious upbringing’ an’ all, should have some idea about the differences. But we've been round this merry-go-round before.

Having said that, if you were among those who were told to, ‘ask Jesus into your heart’, I can well understand the confusion of Jesus with Santa (or Basil Brush, for that matter). But one of the points you have consistently missed is that religious beliefs are as rational as your imaginary beliefs - this is the real irony here.

Peter2m

Sounds about right, apart from the rationality of religious belief.

Religion; proving the concept of cognitive dissonance time and time again!

So on the 21st this month the world will end? Damn, that's my birthday! Did I offend some deity or something, so that he (for it would be a he, wouldn't it?) now feels a bit vindictive?

Fortunately, come the 22nd we can simply add the pastor to an ages long list of predictions of the end of the world. Not that he has quite the stature to be remembered for any length of time, but if he had had, he would have fitted nicely on this list of failed end of world predictions, most of them judeo-christian flavoured:

https://www.bible.ca/pre-date-setters.htm

Will superstitious people learn?

There's plenty of stuff on the net from Christians arguing Camping.

More generally though, as a counterpoint to 'left behind', secret rapture type eschatology I'd recommend the work of G.K.Beale on Revelation. His commentary is immense but there is a more accessible sermon series available for download. Also, Vern Poythress, Denis Johnston and Kim Riddlebarger have a similar line (I haven't read these though).

I've come across good summaries of the mainstream options (amillenial, historic pre-mil, dispensational pre-mil and post-mil) if I can find them I'll post the links. Camping, for more than one reason, is a kook.

Men and women are different. Get over it. How obvious did God have to make this?

Theophane,

Yes, men and women are different, but why should this mean that they're prevented from wanting to do what the other does?

Whilst there are numerous examples of endevours that are performed better by one gender than the other, I can think of only one that is exclusively restricted to one gender; childbirth (and associated activities). Just because someone else is better at something, doesn't mean you should be prevented from doing it.

Men and women are equal. Get over it. Obviously god is a misogynist.
FTFY

@78:
I agree, but if one doesn't believe in God, nor His design for mankind, it makes little sense to them.
I think the world's perception of priests is skewed in the first place.To be "another Christ" is first to be a servant to others.
I'm personally waiting for news about men seeking to enter the convent-or has that already happened?

Are men and women equal in every sense? If not, in what sense are they equal?

lol @81. I don't think anyone would disagree with 78 as a simple statement -the genders are anatomically different- although, 1 in a 100 are born with anatomically ambiguous genitalia.

It's hard to read anything specific into 78 without it being elaborated upon. You could say,men & women have never clearly fit specific roles outside of reproduction. Even in Catholicism,some men & women follow their devotion to God, rather than marrying & having children.

Everyone's different- people have to follow their own calling, & not some slot allocated to them Stalinist style. Whatever people think of Mother Theresa or Joan of Arc- their abilities took them outside of traditional boundaries. The same can be said for women in secular culture. If someone's ability and love for Science or Medicine takes them away from the role of homemaker then that has to be respected. What isn't to be respected is one gender subjugating another against their will.

If we're going to keep multiplying, we're going to need jobs and income.It's not like the Middle Ages were any different. A wife might be taken on because she's as strong as a mule and a good worker. How much time was left for child rearing when so many hours might be spent working the land,sourcing & preparing meals. How different are things today, the sexes are working together in shops and offices , as they once did in fields. The only difference now is women are afforded access to knowledge and learning. So that we have female Teachers, Lecturers, Doctors, Lawyers. They're just different *fields*, not a radical concept

83. _Ryan_ wrote:

"....the sexes are working together in shops and offices , as they once did in fields"

While that's true, it should be remembered that the biological make up of modern men and women was primarily evolved during the hundreds of millennia when our ancestors were developing as hunter gatherers. Settled agriculture only really began a matter of a few thousand years ago; far too soon for us to see any radical evolutionary physical changes between the sexes.

On average men have better hand-eye coordination; are faster runners; have more upper body strength; are more aggressive and are much more likely to engage in activities like hunting and fishing. All key requirements for a successful predatory animal. Some of this may be the result of social pressures, but it can't all be. Similar traits and behaviours are seen in males of our closest ancestors the chimps.

BTW, men also tend to naturally have longer eye lashes than women, and it has been suggested that this may also be a hunter-gatherer evolutionary adaptation. Longer eye lashes mean better shade in strong sunlight improving both close and long range vision. Ideal for a hunting animal. I kid ye not.

Re the prediction that Jesus will rapture the faithful tomorrow. Phil Plait of 'Badastronomy' has this to say:

"I have no doubt whatsoever that when the Rapture fails to materialize, the group surrounding Camping [the pastor making the prediction] will find some way to rationalize it. Perhaps they’ll claim the date was off. Perhaps they’ll claim it was a test of their faith (a common excuse, actually). Maybe, if they’re lucky, some will leave the movement. But no matter what, excuses will be made." https://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/05/20/unraptured/

He goes on to point out that modern Seventh-day Adventism grew out of the apocalyptic Millerite movement - 19th century 'end is nigh' cranks. There is every possibility that the failed prophecy will actually 'help' this pastor's church.

Wasn't there some guy around in early 1st century Palestine making similar claims about imminent end times? Yes there was. His predictions didn't materialise either, yet a worldwide religion was formed in his memory.

It appears that people have always been basically fatalistic and, well, credulous.

newdwr54 ,

You forgot to add that women, on average, have superior peripheral vision and more acute senses (defence of the home), a much higher pain threshold (childbirth), a brain better adapted to handling multiple inputs (looking after lots of children) and live longer (older women provide a childcare function, wheras older men are useless to a primitive tribe).

Of course, that's using prehistoric abilities and environmental factors. Few of them make any real effect on our levelled, safer modern world. Which is why gender discriminations are so wrong.

Of course, that's using prehistoric abilities and environmental factors. Few of them make any real effect on our levelled, safer modern world. Which is why gender discriminations are so wrong.

How does 'which is why why gender discriminations are so wrong' follow from 'few of them make any real effect on our levelled, safer modern world'?

Andrew,

Because the range of physical and mental differences between men and women is largely levelled out by our modern society. The factors that formed the differences are no longer in play (unless you're an athelete or the like) and so it's wrong to use them to claim some form of discrimination. I doubt very much a priest needs an increaed upper body strength to protect his congregation from sabertoothed bears.

Because the range of physical and mental differences between men and women is largely levelled out by our modern society.

Fine.

The factors that formed the differences are no longer in play (unless you're an athelete or the like)

Since you're talking about aptitude, this would only work on a case by case basis (granting your premises there are differences, some of which are no longer relevant).

and so it's wrong to use them to claim some form of discrimination.

Wrong in what sense? Are you making an ethical or inferential claim?

I doubt very much a priest needs an increaed upper body strength to protect his congregation from sabertoothed bears.

Can you refer me to someone who made, or makes, this argument for an all male pastorate?

"Wasn't there some guy around in early 1st century Palestine making similar claims about imminent end times? Yes there was. His predictions didn't materialise either, yet a worldwide religion was formed in his memory."

I'm not sure if it was that guy or some other guys who started making up stories about him 60-200+ years after he died.

89,

Since you're talking about aptitude, this would only work on a case by case basis

Equality. For a controlling body to accurately reflect the society it serves ,and for the talents,ability & efforts of those individuals within it to be recognised- without prejudice to their gender, ethnicity or orientation.

86. Natman:

Completely agree. I think that by effectively excluding women from science for hundreds of years, for example, humanity excluded 50% of its talent pool. We can't afford to do that.

I hope no one thought I was implying any form of superiority for men.

90. PeterKlaver:

Indeed. I wonder if 2,000 years from now the faithful will be expecting the imminent return of 'Pastor Camping'?

Probably!

Andrew,

It doesn't matter what the argument is, I was using the upper body strength as a rather oversimplified example. The simple matter is that a lot of people want to establish a difference between men and women, that somehow, one gender is unsuitable for a role that the other is allowed.

This kind of prehistoric thinking, especially in roles with negligable required physical ability like the priesthood, is unsupportable.

I would perhaps concede that in some roles, average members of one gender have a slight advantage in aspects like empathy over an average member of the opposite gender, but this is no grounds to deny that role to one gender or the other. The best of one gender will far exceed the average of the other, in anything.