Please point me to an organization of any sort that's been around for 2,000 years -- heck, even 1,000 or 500-- that has used power and money particularly well. I certainly can't think of one.

The thing is, though, that it is reasonable to hold an organization to a higher standard when it claims to speak for God. The Hudson Bay Company, not so much.

How many other organizations have been around for 1000 years?

Mostly just countries -- England, China, Japan. Greece and Italy, both with major changes between then and now. Ethiopia, IIRC. Also the Jewish and Muslim religions, only Judaism hasn't had power (which , okay, the fault of Catholics) most of that time.

My point is, most of history is bloody and fairly shameful.

it is reasonable to hold an organization to a higher standard when it claims to speak for God.

How many countries have had kings who clamed to be the direct descendents of some god or other, or in personal communication with him?

My point is, most of history is bloody and fairly shameful.

See Rick's point, re: claiming moral authority.

I'm sorry you're feeling that way, JZ, and that we may be adding to it. FWIW, I'd be very interested in hearing more from you and Teppy on Paul at some point in the future.

{{{JZ}}}

Liberation theology and liberal Catholicism rock. It's great that you have such a religious community. I have liberal Catholic friends here, who go to a pretty conservative church. I think it's probably a little tough for them, but they work towards change as lovingly as they can. And they visit me at the Episcopalian church down the hill occasionally. I had given up on God altogether until I found my church, where I can focus on the example of Jesus's life, where I can follow a belief that works for me without denigrating other roads, where the journey is the reason, not fear of the end. I'll stop my rant now, in time to go become ash-besmirched.

Italy wasn't a country for the period between the fall of Rome and the rise of Garibaldi. It was a whole bunch of little tiny city-states.

See Rick's point, re: claiming moral authority.

And see my response, re: the propensity of kings, emperors, et. al. to claim that God spoke through them. How is that moral authority different from that of the church?

Italy wasn't a country for the period between the fall of Rome and the rise of Garibaldi. It was a whole bunch of little tiny city-states.

And modern Greeks aren't descended from Athenians. This is why I said what I said about "major changes."

I'm not explaining myself very well, and this whole conversation is making me somewhat irrationally defensive, so I really am logging off now. See you in the morning.

How is that moral authority different from that of the church?

Because one of them is talking about the state of your immortal soul. C'mon, you're being completely disingenous to imply there's no distinction between the abuse of power by a state and that of a religious institution.

I'm not explaining myself very well, and this whole conversation is making me somewhat irrationally defensive, so I really am logging off now. See you in the morning.

Sorry, I don't meant to badger.

Because one of them is talking about the state of your immortal soul.

The minute God starts talking through any king, they're talking about the state of your immortal soul. How is that disingenuous?

FWIW, I'd be very interested in hearing more from you and Teppy on Paul at some point in the future.

I can go on and on about Paul, but I need a starting point. People who think Paul is anti-woman need to give me chapter and verse so I can address specifics.

In generalities, Paul refers to women -- by name -- as his "co-workers" in the early Christian movement. That's significant in light of the time and place in which he lived and worked. Women were not considered co-workers in any other sphere at that time.

t edit That's not the sum total of my defense of Paul; it's just one point.