The Pope Accuses Victims of Slander

Meh. Perhaps you find my reading unfair, but I'd say the biblical Jesus doesn't seem to have any appreciation for family life, as a cursory browse of the Bible would indicate:

There's another verse (I cant recall which at the moment) where he says he didn't come to bring peace, but a sword cleaving families apart. This verse - and the ones you quoted - are consistent with his message. Love others, not just family and friends. Embrace him, not family. Embrace his message even if it conflicts with family. His message brings strife even separating loved ones from each other. Thats why he kept downplaying family, they come second to his message and if family reject the word, reject the family.

And finally, the verses I think most clearly emphasises the celibacy ideal:

Let anyone accept this who can.

Yeah, that does sound like he's holding that up as the ideal
 
Well, any millenarist sect worth its salt is going to separate recruits from their potentially hostile families. Though they'd be happy to take in families wholesale, too.

Seems to be par for the course, imo.
 
Thats why he kept downplaying family, they come second to his message and if family reject the word, reject the family.
I guess that's why so many cults shun any family members who leave, or punish them when they try to leave.

How nice.

Still, I'm very relieved that my dad put his foot down when he did, when my aunt was insistent that I attend the Pentecostal church she went to at the time.
 
Meh. Perhaps you find my reading unfair, but I'd say the biblical Jesus doesn't seem to have any appreciation for family life, as a cursory browse of the Bible would indicate:
Luke 5:10-11 said:
and so also were James and John, sons of Zebedee, who were partners with Simon. Then Jesus said to Simon, “Do not be afraid; from now on you will be catching people.” When they had brought their boats to shore, they left everything and followed him.
Luke 9:59-62 said:
To another he said, “Follow me.” But he said, “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.” But Jesus said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead; but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God.” Another said, “I will follow you, Lord; but let me first say farewell to those at my home.” Jesus said to him, “No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.”
Luke 14:26 said:
“Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple.
Matthew 10:37 said:
Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;
Matthew 12:47-50 said:
Someone told him, “Look, your mother and your brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.” But to the one who had told him this, Jesus replied, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” And pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
Matthew 19:29 said:
And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life.

And finally, the verses I think most clearly emphasises the celibacy ideal:
Matthew 19:3-12 said:
Some Pharisees came to him, and to test him they asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?” He said to them, “It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.”

His disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” But he said to them, “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”

(Interestingly enough, these last verses also explicitly forbids Christians from remarrying after a divorce, but weirdly enough, Christians seem to have much less of a problem with ignoring an explicit commandment from their God, than with tolerating masturbation or homosexuality based on some hefty interpretations...)

There has been done a lot of research how much of the gospels is authentic (historical Jesus) and how much was edited in the first two-three centuries of Christinianity.
The best number I saw was that between 15-20% of the Gospels were authentic.
Especially the Sermon on the Mountain, and in general the most provoking statements in the Gospels are seen as authentic.
Typical the ones that indicate the immanent arrival of the kingdom of God, the John the Baptist story.
Also typical the ones that could be seen as Jesus accepting the inevitable uprising against the Romans to force the kingdom of God (after the crisis where He realised that the Kingdom of God was not coming on her own account)

In both phases Jesus did not care at all about peacefull family life... the end was nay anyway.

EDIT
to clarify that a bit on the statements in the Gospels that Cheetah listed up:
This is an example of where I believe is authentic Jesus. It is pure.
He said to them, “It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.”
 
Last edited:
There has been done a lot of research how much of the gospels is authentic (historical Jesus) and how much was edited in the first two-three centuries of Christinianity.
The best number I saw was that between 15-20% of the Gospels were authentic.
Especially the Sermon on the Mountain, and in general the most provoking statements in the Gospels are seen as authentic.
Typical the ones that indicate the immanent arrival of the kingdom of God, the John the Baptist story.
Also typical the ones that could be seen as Jesus accepting the inevitable uprising against the Romans to force the kingdom of God (after the crisis where He realised that the Kingdom of God was not coming on her own account)

In both phases Jesus did not care at all about peacefull family life... the end was nay anyway.

EDIT
to clarify that a bit on the statements in the Gospels that Cheetah listed up:
This is an example of where I believe is authentic Jesus. It is pure.
He said to them, “It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.”
By this point, it matters less which parts of the New Testament attributed to the original apostles are real and which were added later by people with their own agenda, than it matters that the whole of it has been used as an excuse to use and abuse women and deny them even the dignity of being legal persons, and to treat women and children as some man's property.

This is why it took so long for women - all women - to get the right to vote in Canada (aboriginal women had to wait longer than non-aboriginal women). It's why I always vote, because nobody is going to give a damn about my interests being represented if I sit back and basically spit on the people who fought for my voting rights in the first place.

As for someone marrying after divorce being an adulterer, that's ridiculous. If you're going to cheat on your spouse or want to marry someone else, divorce is the first step you should take instead of cheating.
 
By this point, it matters less which parts of the New Testament attributed to the original apostles are real and which were added later by people with their own agenda, than it matters that the whole of it has been used as an excuse to use and abuse women and deny them even the dignity of being legal persons, and to treat women and children as some man's property.

This is why it took so long for women - all women - to get the right to vote in Canada (aboriginal women had to wait longer than non-aboriginal women). It's why I always vote, because nobody is going to give a damn about my interests being represented if I sit back and basically spit on the people who fought for my voting rights in the first place.

As for someone marrying after divorce being an adulterer, that's ridiculous. If you're going to cheat on your spouse or want to marry someone else, divorce is the first step you should take instead of cheating.

The context of that time is that women are either property to their husband (or father) or are completely a slave. There are only a very few exceptions.
And the dominating Roman-Greek philosophy of that moment does not even allow a woman to have a soul !
You can argue that that protection is no better than a whore gets from her pimp.

But it was better as long as you had as woman the guarantee that once married, you could not be dumped (divorced) by your husband and end up as a paria or worse.
 
the right to marry makes no difference . See , when ı was growing up at a time when [Christian] Missionaries were a bad thing daily vilified it was much in vogue . Christianity was "wrong" in banning marriage for the priests because they all became pedophiles . Guess what , "Muslims" have all the right to marry and stuff and pedophilia and the suppression of media reportage is a thing that doesn't go away . In a "repressive" situation the shame of being defiled is too much , keeps a leverage on the victim to do stuff as according to the demands of the perpetrator . Also requires perpetrator to get away scot free . A thousand years of such a system and victims of today are more likely to be perpetrators of tomorrow and it goes on and on . Its reportage in the Catholics also much relevant to competitors of Catholics . Hopefully will not last another thousand years .
 
But it was better as long as you had as woman the guarantee that once married, you could not be dumped (divorced) by your husband and end up as a paria or worse.
And if the husband was abusive?

That's the excuse far too many women have now - they'd be seen as a failure if they left the marriage, an abusive marriage is better than no marriage - even my own mother took this attitude when her second marriage went south. I asked her why she didn't just leave her husband (I will not give that <unmentionable> the title of "stepfather") and she said, "I don't want to be alone." I pointed out to her that she was already alone.

It still came as a surprise to her when he finally admitted that he'd been seeing a much younger woman and wanted a divorce. Nice of him to wait until their 24th anniversary and that his parents had known all about this and hadn't said a word.
 
And if the husband was abusive?

That's the excuse far too many women have now - they'd be seen as a failure if they left the marriage, an abusive marriage is better than no marriage - even my own mother took this attitude when her second marriage went south. I asked her why she didn't just leave her husband (I will not give that <unmentionable> the title of "stepfather") and she said, "I don't want to be alone." I pointed out to her that she was already alone.

It still came as a surprise to her when he finally admitted that he'd been seeing a much younger woman and wanted a divorce. Nice of him to wait until their 24th anniversary and that his parents had known all about this and hadn't said a word.

What you describe is the typical situation in my country for the generation of my parents (I am 62, my parents were from 1917 and 1925)
Also a sitution where divorce did lead to practical poverty for both parties.

I think it is only very recently that "we" as a (western !!!) culture can afford (money and female jobs) some more principles of personal freedom and female emancipation.
This much stronger position of economical independence of (western, 1st world) women, makes abuse by the church much more difficult because people will not keep silent anymore (that much)

However...

In my opinion children are still very much a surpressed group, also in the 1st world
Ok.... child labor has been abolished and most countries guarantee education up to 16 years....
but in practice under the protection of the sovereignity of the private family house, much abuse and violence of children is still happening. Poorly recorded, often poorly handled.
Children are after all physically very weak and psychological not far developed. Their defense is low, especially against people that should protect them !!!!
Against that background pedophilia has still wide opportunities
Abuse by any person of importance or authority is still happening at a grand scale.
The physical, sexual ones getting the press coverage if they get public.
But that is only the tip of the iceberg.........
the ordinary daily traumatising, violating normal human values (and on topic Christian, Jesusian values), just is not adressed.
 
Top Bottom