1. New to the board or trying to figure out how something works here? Check out the User Guide.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Hot Topics is open from 8:30 AM - 4 PM ET Mon - Fri.

    Dismiss Notice
  3. The message board is closed between the hours of 4pm ET Friday and 8:30am Monday.
    As always, the Board will be open to read and those who have those privileges can still send private messages and post to Profiles.
    Dismiss Notice

St. Peter and St. Paul

Discussion in 'Religion' started by HollyGolightly, Jun 28, 2014.

  1. jchanic

    jchanic Well-Known Member

    Gramps, I'd love to get into a further discussion of this, but (honestly) my arthritic shoulder is REALLY acting up and making typing difficult. I was told last week that I'm going to have to have a complete shoulder replacement. It's worse as the day goes, so maybe tomorrow morning I'll be able to respond.

  2. Grandpa

    Grandpa Well-Known Member

    Kurben, well stated. I'll just say that the things you mentioned, while I wouldn't directly "blame" Paul for them, I think that adoption of Paul's uptight value rigidity gave the church its cultural DNA that helped to result in the things I listed.

    John, I am so sorry. Health trumps friendly debate. Please don't endure pain just for the sake of conversation. Shoulder replacement surgery is no walk in the park. Rest, listen to what the docs say, and all the best for a successful surgery and rehab.
    skimom2, Spideyman and jchanic like this.
  3. FlakeNoir

    FlakeNoir Beta Tester Moderator

    (((jchanic ))) I'm sorry to hear you're in pain... wishing you good health and soon! :)
    Kurben, skimom2 and jchanic like this.
  4. king family fan

    king family fan Prolific member

    hope your shoulder feels better soon.
  5. jchanic

    jchanic Well-Known Member

    Thanks, everyone. I don't even get to see a surgeon until late August.

    The shoulder isn't bad in the mornings--it gets worse as the day goes.

    FlakeNoir and skimom2 like this.
  6. Spideyman

    Spideyman Uber Member

    jchanic sending healing vibes your way. May it be a successful surgery and quick heal.
  7. skimom2

    skimom2 Just moseyin' through...

    Gotcha. I do think, though, that you're tarring an entire faith with a brush of ignorance. The faith to which I belong does not through its doctrines suppress scientific inquiry, encourage repression of thought, suppress opposition, or inveigh against sex except as necessary in marriage.

    On the contrary, I am personal friends with more than one priest (Jesuits) who are decades long professors in the sciences (chemistry, biology, physics, and several of the social sciences, to be exact). All were supported throughout their education by their order, none have been discouraged from learning or teaching scientific fact as established through their separate disciplines. Actual doctrine of the church teaches that faith and science are separate, and that we cannot argue with what science tells us (I think we discussed this before, vis a vis evolution).

    Discussion of doctrine is not discouraged; that is the purpose of the Synod of Bishops that will be taking place this October (everyone in the church was asked for input). I feel personally safe in disputing or discussing any point of doctrine, without fear of being cast out (or even burned at the stake-lol).

    Points that are considered essential doctrine will not change, it is true, but those things are almost exclusively limited to the teachings of Christ himself (I'd be lying if I didn't admit some of the stuff about the eternal virginity of Mary and her bodily assumption doesn't make me sideeye; then again, those doctrines come from far later than the early church).

    Sex is reserved for marriage, it's true, but sex within marriage is supposed to both procreative and a means of bonding; if it was supposed to be wholly procreative, the church would not marry those who are infertile or aged (and these marriages happen often).

    You'll notice that I emphasized through its doctrine; there is a reason for that. Many, many people, including many Catholics, don't ever bother to learn what the church actually teaches. They rely on what they heard once from someone, somewhere, sometime. Or they rely on what popular media says the Catholic Church teaches; they never check if what they've heard is incorrect. And it's not like the info isn't out there, accessible to everyone.

    So, yes, there are people out there who spout off everything you've mentioned (even self-proclaimed 'good' Catholics), but they do not speak for the faith or for every member of the church. And I don't 'quit' because nothing will ever change if thoughtful people leave the church and let tiny minds win.

    Paul was a small minded person who put his own, heavily male-centric and Jewish spin on what Jesus said. And that's why I go back to Peter (in Mark's gospel), John, and Luke in his gospel and the Acts (Matthew is tougher going--his is a particularly Jewish, patriarchal perspective, as well. He and Paul probably got on.). Not much dispute about what's said there, right? As Kurben said, I don't think Jesus himself would have been too happy with what Paul wrought.

    *sidenote* I'm not shouting in the last few paragraphs--I just can't get my bold and italics to quit on my computer :D
  8. skimom2

    skimom2 Just moseyin' through...

    Prayers, John.
    Spideyman and FlakeNoir like this.
  9. Grandpa

    Grandpa Well-Known Member

    The church has certainly had its bad times and its good times, and if it appears that I'm contemptuous of the whole Catholic world, I'm not. I got a good education in Catholic school, probably better than my peers in public school. I got a moral code from it. I donate to Catholic Charities Northern for their work here with the homeless.

    What I'm saying is that those bad things that were done - and done from the lowest to the highest levels - I believe had their foundation, to varying degrees, in the authoritarian and rigid approaches, of which Paul, or the Paulist style, was a prime originator. I don't think he did the church any favors.

    Quite right. In fact, the beginning of my interest in the early years (like, the first 400 or so) of the church came directly from a Jesuit teacher. He wanted us to think for ourselves. (Although he did want our independent thought to bring us to a certain conclusion. I didn't come to the conclusion that he wanted. Such is the danger of independent thought.)

    And that's a good thing, although it hasn't always been the case. I like the new Pope. I wish he'd come around 20 or 30 years earlier.

    Skipping a bit, brother....

    Well, and here's where I do take issue with the description of my painting with an "brush of ignorance." These topics are of interest to me, and I've done a lot of reading about them and mulling over them for the past, oh, four-plus decades or so. I just try to write on the information that I have in front of me. If it doesn't reflect well on something I like, or if it reflects well on something I want to oppose, so be it. That all has to enter into the analysis, not simply be explained away. I don't criticize what the church has done because I don't like it. I criticize it because of what it's done.

    Agree to agree. :)

    Ctrl+B to toggle on bold, and Ctrl+B to toggle it off, right? That's what I do. (And Ctrl+I for italics and Ctrl+U for underline.)
  10. skimom2

    skimom2 Just moseyin' through...

    Mea Culpa! Totally the product of my bad sense of wording--I apologize that it read like I think you're ignorant, Grandpa. Nothing could be further from my intent. You are indeed a thoughtful, well-spoken person, and I enjoy your posts. I meant that not all members of the faith are ignorant of actual doctrine.
    FlakeNoir and Grandpa like this.
  11. Grandpa

    Grandpa Well-Known Member

    I appreciate the apology, but not necessary! You're far too kind and well-meaning for me to take offense, if I did take offense from something posted in a forum, and I don't.

    And I understand the wording issue. Sometimes when transitioning from the specific to the general or vice versa, the context gets skewed. We're all good. No harm, no foul.

    And one more time, I have to say: So nice to have a civil discussion here. There have been other discussions in other forums where I have been more pointed, more digging, because the challenges were so affronting or sanctimonious. But here, it's nice to just not see the toxicity, and so to simply debate politely while sipping lemonade together on the veranda, so to speak.
    Kurben, FlakeNoir and skimom2 like this.
  12. Kurben

    Kurben The Fool on the Hill

    Theres a lot of talk about doctrines here, That they are stated and won't change. While that might be true now, which i doubt since there is so many variants of christianity, it certainly wasn't always the case. The different cummomunities that got started around the mediteranean by the first missionaries like Paul evolved in different directions. They had very different opinions of what god and jesus was and in which relation they stood to eachother. The fact that one opinion won was caused much by persecution and outright killing and not by discussion. It took a long time for the figure we call the pope to become dominant. In the beginning he was one bishop among others and other bishops didn't follow his lead. Even after niceae 323 when a doctrin was stated. It was a vote and a fraction won by majority but it was far from all that agreed. Then many were exiled and scriptures destroyed. They were considered heretic opinions and should therefore be destroyed. I think that is what were meant by the church doing these things. They continued doing similar things for many centuries and the popes went on to prove what the roman emperors proved before them. That power corrupts. While it is different now than several hundred years ago we should have in mind the history when we talk about the church and its doings.
    In reading through this i'm hoping that i'm not hurting someone. I totally agree with Grandpa that it is nice to have a civil discussion.
    Dana Jean and skimom2 like this.
  13. skimom2

    skimom2 Just moseyin' through...

    It definitely is :)

    And you're right, of course: history is important. Humans are the most fallible creatures on earth, and boy have we gotten up to some awful things over the years. I was just curious whether Grandpa saw those awful things as endemic or implacable right now. When we're talking about history... well, the proof is clear to anyone who doesn't refuse to see.
    Kurben and Dana Jean like this.
  14. Kurben

    Kurben The Fool on the Hill

    I got the impression that he was just picking examples out of history, not talking about today. But it really shouldn't be me answering that but him so i shut up. :a24:=D
  15. Grandpa

    Grandpa Well-Known Member

    I was talking in the historical context, although obviously the hierarchy and male dominance continues to this day. But the other stuff in terms of science suppression and persecution and destruction of writings declared extant, yes, those were related from a historical standpoint.

    I'm aware of the Constantine-ordered (and moderated) council of Nicea that established the accepted doctrinal arcs and the later synod of Hippo that established the modern (more or less) canon. But if I start talking about them, then I start getting into more personal and overall views of validity, and I don't wish to do that. I'm not here to evangelize my conclusions. I'm as capable of being wrong as anyone else on matters supernatural.

Share This Page

Sleeping Beauties - Available Now