so because we're the catholic church, we should be allowed to discriminate

[wannaBeWhateverIWannaBe]

or we'll close our

adoption agencies

I can't help feeling that this touchy-feely feminine-friendly reading of the bible has only been current in the last 30 years or so.

Like every society, ours takes the bits of the bible it likes and interprets it to fit into our concept of what it should be saying. So new user-friendly christianity presents Jesus and his merry men and women as proto-feminists who just got misinterpreted for a couple of millenia.

Pity most of the Christians in history wouldn't recognise our new version of JC.

Nothing has been re-written Caligula. It's all there in history for all to see.

People presume the Bible is sexist, but it's not until they look closely that they see it really isn't at all.

However no matter how feminine people try to make the Bible, the catholic church will never change it's stance on women priests! Although again, it's a fact that women were heavily involved with the beginnings of the church and some were even early priests.

Depends which bit of the bible you look at Rhubarb. Like any great text, you can make it mean anything you like by emphasising one bit and disregarding another. So a society which wants to support slavery (as someone earlier on in the thread mentioned) will be able to pick something out from the bible which seems to condone it and one which wants to abolish slavery will also be able to pick something out which seems to condemn it.

That's the joy of religious texts - whoever is in power can use them to fit their own agenda.

True, true.

No Caligula that is not true. That is why i deliberately used a quote from Jerome, early translator of the bible into Latin. If you read the early Mystic Christians or look at Gnostic texts you will find a very different kind of christianity to the one touted by the established church. Nothing touchy feely about it at all.

Yes but you can pick and choose your translators as well, can't you?

I don't believe a word of it, as you know, but do think Jesus sounds like an OK bloke. I like his stance on women and children and on money.

The old testament is postively evil, however.

But that's the point Caligula, I was giving an example of one of the most traditional and original translators, seen by the Vatican as the 'Doctor of the Church' And even he concedes that in the Bible God is both male and female. Some things you just can't get around. There have been a lot of lies told about original sacred texts for various reasons of propaganda.
You can choose what you want to believe, but the more I find out about early gospels and early writers, the more amazed I am about how different they are to the doctrines of the church that came aabout much later.

Isn't that the whole point of any organisation in power though Ruty?

The church bears about as much relationship to the original works of christianity as the Soviet Union bore to the ideas of Karl Marx.

Funnily enough, it's only when those organisations lose their power, that they return to the original texts and start re-examining them. Too many vested interests to allow them to do that while they cling on to power.

apart from the song of solomon aloha. which is beautiful. and sexual.

and has no mention whatsoever of god in it! Still, makes a nice change from mass murder, rape and child abuse sanctioned by the OT God.

Caligula has a point, and there is a symmetry to it as well. When you have a single strong church, people who want to dissent have to do it from within.
When Europe was close to 100% Catholic, except for some Jews who were damned good at hiding, the early protestants started actually reading the Bible themselves. Printing presses and the translation into modern languages sped this.
By this point the Catholic church had "interpreted" the Bible so thoroughly that it had drifted quite a bit. To an extent it was necessary, since for a start there is slight Biblical justifcation for it's very existence.

Protestants tried to go back to the original texts, which in the case of Christianity is a bit hard because there aren't any. But they tried quite hard to be fundamentalists, reading the Bible directly, which in some cases (like Henry VIII's England) meant that gits like St. Thomas More would have you tortured then burned.

Message withdrawn

yes agree Caligula. i think the established church as an institution is always going to be inherently corrupt. Christianity works better in small 'fringe' communities I think. But then you lose the benefits of Christian charities and altruistic projects internationally. It's a problematic one. I'm very disappointed with the archbishop of Canterbury for example. He had a real opportunity to take up the slack and say some important things, instead he waffles on about 'unity'. i think the Anglican church might be on its way out. No chance of the RC church going the same way though....
[hello Bloss! [smile ]

No ruty, ds is going to be the first British Pope, I can feel it in my bones!

oh gosh ruty, me too. i was so hopefilled when the archbish of cant was elected....feel he has pandered to a very very destructive rightwing, evangelist nightmare minority.

yes he has sophable.

i love you ruty.

wa-hey! Someone likes me on MN! [i love you too.]

Read the first thread & am absolutely disgusted. How could I have had my children baptised Catholic? As if priests taking advantage of children isn't bad enough. sorry but it's outrageous. How can anyone say that loving gay parents are not just as good at parenting as loving hetero ones?

this is the part of the Anglican church that I love

I couldn't agree more with the statement in that link.

Ruty is your Dad part of Inclusive Church?

Aloha, I think even you will like this lot.

only just seen this Sophable. Don't know if my dad knows about it, but will let him know. It certainly seems to be something he would be interested in!

Shame on churches that don't belong tbh.....I'm so happy if I've introduced your dad to this Ruty...they are fantastic people.

Where do you live btw?