pope francis awesomeness

[rbijon]

Dear Scholars, if you are scholars....fire is right!

 

[bailadora]

Somehow, I think if Breezy had been my history prof, I probably wouldn't have nodded off as much. (Thank God for recorders!)

 

[silverwhisper]

cumference, i apologize for the delay in my replying to your responses. i was planning a vacation & had an unexpected workload issue prior to that. i am generally more responsive than you have experienced in our exchange but i ought to have so informed you.

the vacation, incidentally, was fucking awesome. :>

cumference quoth:
my religious background is, as i stated clearly in the post you quote, local (before becoming a despicable apostate). and i answered based on danish legislation, history et cetera.

i understood your perspective on christianity but i appreciate your reminder. :>

cumference quoth:
female priests:
it was clearly out of the question among the jews, you would even have to come from the right tribe to be a priest. in the early ears of the christan cult, women seem to have had lots of central roles, but that stopped when christianity became a state affair. patriarchy was back in a central role, an the women back in the bed/kitchen.

on this we are in agreement. i fear our disagreement arises from other things later in your post.

cumference quoth:
and now i have a problem: my sources are in danish, and since i'm not a native english speaker, i simply do not know the english terms.

this requires a bit of an explanation on my part. i've known europeans and have some experience discussing theologic matters. your own disclosure is appreciated: in exchange, allow me to provide my own.

i am quite well versed in american christianity and attitudes arising from it. my own mother is a deaconess in her church, and my wife is in the church we attend. she is the daughter of a pastor herself. due to the foregoing, i have made a practice of understanding & exploring christianity from the US perspective, and have had a fair bit of experience exploring & learning about it.

i have no illusions about my limited understanding of european christanity outside of the catholic church, which of course has little direct relevance to your own background. despite my earlier, dismissive tone, i am hoping therefore therefore from our exchange to become better educated, and perhaps there is room for us both to learn from one another.

cumference quoth:
in the catholic church, only men could attain the "specielle præstedømme" (special priesthood?) that was disbanded by the reformation. luther was pretty harsh about priests not being something divinely special.
luther said, that anyone baptized had access to priesthood ("almene præstedømme" normal/general priesthood?), but it was not followed, and stayed a male business.

a certain amount of misogyny has been--at least IMHO--part & parcel of the christian experience. the proliferation of liberal sects of christianity to the point of ordaining female and even in some cases, gay clergy in some sects is the odd bright spot in this respect.

cumference quoth:
in denmark it became law in 1947, that female priests could be ordained. the first three were ordained in 1948. (but even as late as 1968 one of the bishops refused to ordain female priest.... and the responsible church ministers did not have the balls to sack him!) today we have approximately 50% female priests in denmark.

your statement seems to imply that some form of christianity enjoyed state sanction, because i fail to see why a law was required to permit ordination of female clergy. can you please clarify?

cumference quoth:
divorce: am i quoting matthew or luther wrong? (as far as i remember, matthew is not part of the torah?)

i'll be honest, i'm not sure. luther was an ordained priest so he obviously knew his scripture pretty damned well. i think where we are having a problem on this point relates to knowing specifically what it is you are quoting. some clarification on this point would be most welcome.

cumference quoth:
no reason to roll around in the school yard, it would not look good for either of us.

heh. very funny.

cumference quoth:
well, Jesus was a jewish cult leader, and keeps referring to the jewish scripture. he was circumcised (and enough foreskin to build a tent was kept as relics!). but i agree, that the christian relationship to the old testament is pretty weird. some really heavy cherry picking is the norm, where some parts are considered the god-given truth, other parts are just valuable moral lessons and some parts can just be ignored (ignored! It is the word of god!). and which is which, varies with the sectarian directions. and yes, the early christians dropped a lot of the jewish traditions.

yeah, they did--yet as an orthodox jewish rabbinic student has on many occasions pointed out to me, the christians have retained the tithing concept. that one they kept and yeah, the self-interest element therein is--at least IMHO--telling. ;>

cumference quoth:
missionary activity is not a jewish core competence, the christians have on the other hand had it as a clear, well, mission. so they dropped a lot of the "we're a closed group doing weird things for ourselves"-things.

i've had some very interesting conversations with the same orthodox rabbinic friend i mentioned earlier along those lines.

cumference quoth:
ritual genital mutilation, not being allowed to eat what you usually do and keeping the sabbath, would be both uncomfortable and draw unwanted attention. not a smart way to get new members!

besides, pork is damned tasty!

cumference quoth:
in denmark it was the law until the year 2012, that all shops must be closed from 20:00 saturday to 0600 monday morning (and on all church holidays). and quite a few people from the church argued strongly against that law being disbanded, insisting that it would make even fewer people attend mass.

i'll confess i think that's a goofy argument on their part. i think it stupid to legislate morality if the activity in question does no harm to the state, you know?

cumference quoth:
another example from norther europe is, that the birthday of jesus was conveniently moved to midwinter, probably on the realization, that if converting meant dropping the midwinter feast (yule), they could forget about it! some of the more bawdy traditions stayed (much frowned upon by the church) and even today quite a few people sacrifice porridge to the house gods on christmas night. ("it is just a funny tradition and we do it to entertain the children")

i am completely with you on this one, for what it's worth.

FB quoth:
i really don't want to get involved, but gentlemen, if i may, i would like to point out a few historical facts to help with your discussion. it's extremely fascinating to read, but i am compelled to indicate some misinterpretations - i hope that you will allow me to point them out before i gracefully bow out. i mean no disrespect to anyone, and i hope that i am addressing all discussants here (i am not pointing anyone out) and i hope i am not pontificating .

i've never yet known you to pontificate, FB. :>

FB quoth:
also, i'd like to remind you of keeping things in historical perspectives. you all bring intriguing points, but are forgetting to historically and culturally contextualise - which, i might add, if you were in any classes that i lecture, would get a huge penalty from me .

woo-hoo! a scholar chimes in!

FB quoth:
please remember that in the 16thC (and before) all the way until 20th, in the western world, women were not considered to be full persons. you can blame the graeco-roman mentality for this one which predates christianity and judaism. everyone knew this and science proved it - hell, it was believed, and scientifically accepted at the time - that women were prone to hysteria and were weak and so forth and so forth. therefore, women were not considered to be ministers in luther's mind.

with respect FB, i don't believe anyone at all in this exchange as made that mistake, but certainly informed input is always welcome. and yeah, i'm sure both cumference and i both know you aren't taking sides. :>

FB quoth:
judaism as we know it is a product of the post-second temple period, that is after 70 CE with the destruction of the temple. before then, rabbis had minor roles in certain Jjwish sects. and many jewish sects at the time did actively recruit new members. it was after 70CE, when there was no more temple and therefore no sacrifices to be conducted, and the jewish diaspora truly began (there always was one but now there was a mass exodus from judea) that the rabbis played a central role and rabbinic judaism as we know it truly developed. so do not apply post 70CE judaism to judaism during the time of jesus, because that form did not exist. sorry.

FB quoth:
jesus did exist, he was Jewish and yes he was one of the many messiahs that existed...[snip]...the thing about jesus was that he was a popular messiah who amassed a large following, and his message was spread and attracted interest amongst many many different types of jews and non-jews alike, which for anyone of the time, was pretty much unheard of.

and chiefly had appeal among the disenfranchised in roman society, as i understand it. ?

FB quoth:
romans didn't persecute christians because they were intolerant of other divinities. this is the biggest falsehood of them all. romans didn't give a flying fuck what deity you worshipped, as long as you fulfilled one caveat: you sacrificed. they persecuted christians at times (and to lesser extent jews after 70CE) because christians did not conduct any sacrifices and refused to eat of the sacrificial meat dedicated to the state gods. in other words, they were considered to be atheists, which was a crime of treason, because sacrificing to the state gods, you were swearing allegiance to the emperor. that's it. add to the fact that this was a new movement/religion, and at that time, all the way to the enlightenment, anything new was suspicious (old was good, because it stood the test of time, and therefore must be true. this is why Jews at this time were rarely persecuted because it was an old religious system). this why the apologists existed in the 3rd c, to convince pagans that the eucharist was a sacrifice in its own way and besides, they are cool with the emperor. period.

while i appreciate the historic context, i don't believe anyone at all has made a representation contrary to the foregoing. if there was one, i would certainly appreciate knowing of it, as it has escaped my own notice.

FB quoth:
the vatican, as most religious institutions in history, was enmeshed in the politics of the time. it was a secular as well as a religious institutions. keep that in perspective that this was nothing new. most religious institutions throughout history and throughout cultures had a political influence, and most secular institutions had an influence on the religious ones.

well, except the jews anyway...

FB quoth:
if that didn't happen, then the reformation, which most scholars would say would have taken place, would have been a reformation of the roman catholic church, and there probably would not have been a protestant movement.

i'd like to know more about this part: are there any books to which you can point me for further self-education?

FB quoth:
religion, and expressions of religions, is entrenched in history and in culture and has so many variety and expressions that one cannot even begin to fathom.

FB quoth:
the idea that religions worldwide is the sole cause of wars is blatantly untrue. yes, many religions committed atrocious actions and against their core principles of the golden rule, and caused tremendous suffering - no one is denying that - but i'd like to point out 2 of the greatest mass murderers that ever existed: stalin and mao, both of them who killed countless millions, responsible for decades-long suffering in numbers that exceed comprehension, all in the name of no-religion and atheism...[snip]...my professional, anthropological opinion? people with some measure of power are royally fucked, regardless if it is done in the name of religion, money, or philosophy.

that was something i was planning on using a little later in this exchange, to be honest...

FB quoth:
and by the way, yes I know what i am talking about. if you want, i can supply with all the citation that you need (including some of my own research, if you're so inclined ).

now, carry on gentlemen. i'm stepping out and shutting up. it's a fascinating debate.

/history lesson.

for my part, i always enjoy it when someone with the appropriate background weighs in on something. :> thank you for the infodump. :>

ed

 

[Cumference]

No hard feelings, great to hear you had a nice holiday.

.....
your statement seems to imply that some form of christianity enjoyed state sanction, because i fail to see why a law was required to permit ordination of female clergy. can you please clarify?
.....
ed

That is quite funny in fact.

In the US, the constitution is quite clear when it comes to NOT mixing state- and religious matters.
..... and you have quite a battle keeping it that way.

In Denmark, the "Church of Denmark" is deeply ingrained in the constitution (dating from 1848) and even includes that the monarch must be a member (There is religious freedom for anyone else).
The political chain of command is a little murky, but there is a "Minister for Ecclesiastical Affairs" as the political head, and a council of bishops as the religious. The wording in the constitution is:
"The evangelical Lutheran church is the church of the Danish people and is as such supported by the state."
Approximately 80% are members and the membership fee is collected along with your taxes (normally in the range of 1% of your income).

There is quite a debate (in a non-aggressive Scandinavian way) about the separation of church and state.
The good question is whether the fusion of church and state was to strengthen the church or to strap it securely down. In the middle of the 18th century various "christian revivals" swept the country, and the "constitutionalization" was a bulwark against that. Today, the critics argue that religion is a private matter, and that giving one cult precedence over the others really is soooo last century (last millenium? ). The fundamentalist factions in the church want out too. They do not like to have their ideas moderated by mainstream, modern ideas (female clergy, non-burn-in-hell-sodomists, divorce, abortion, human rights and stuff like that. In some respects, they want to be outside/above general law).

In the middle there are all the "cultural Christians", who attend church on X-mas, and apart from that only for baptism, "confirmation", wedding and funerals. They just do not want change.

And then there is most of the church, who is terrified by the thought. Mainly because you are automatically a member once baptized, and then the membership fee is automatically taxed. The moment a 4 or 5 digit bill ended up in the mailbox once a year, quite a few people would probably start calculating the ticket prize for the 2 annual blessings relatively to how staunch believers they are.

Thus is the state of the nation, in what is probably (based on the actual role of religion in everyday life), one of the most secular societies in the world.


In Sweden, who had a similar arrangement, state and church split in 2000.
In Norway, they basically copied the Danish arrangement (But the Norwegians are quite a bit more religious).


The English entry on wikipedia is by the way quite a bit better than the Danish.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Denmark

 

[silverwhisper]

cumference, that was quite informative, thank you.

it would seem to me that having incorporated religion into law, that the real danger, at least from my perspective as an outsider, is that the state will attempt to legislate religious matters over which it ought not to have any say. the position of the church vis a vis the state is an interesting one: i find myself feeling that the intention originally was to protect the church. as slowly as laws may change, faiths change even more slowly.

i want to understand the wiki a little better than i am presently able at this hour. i will return in a day or 2.

ed

 

[Cumference]

It is the eternal power struggle.

The state wants to control the church, and the church wants to control the state.
To quote fire_breeze again.

Often political agendas will align themselves with religious agendas and both parties just want control. My professional, anthropological opinion? People with some measure of power are royally fucked, regardless if it is done in the name of religion, money, or philosophy.

But at least there is a chance to get rid of those in power who are royally fucked if you live in a democracy. If they claim to be appointed by god, and have an organization behind them with a minimum of transparency and democracy, you have to "arrange an accident" to do anything.




Looking around the world, it seems quite clear to me, that a theocracy is the surefire way to a FUBAR-state.

In cases where the church considers itself above the law, it is not pretty either.

To me, the ideal is a strictly secular state with religious freedom.
Religious freedom to do whatever your conviction tells you to, as long as you do not use it to harass or discriminate those who do not agree with you, do not use it as a cover for abuse and repression, and as long as you follow the secular laws, just like anybody else should.

 

[Sugarfoot10]

He is amazing.....i love him....and im baptist.....