quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I appreciate that it's a bit like shooting fish in a barrel with a .50cal, but fuck me, Bean, you can't even spell feminazi properly, let alone realise that you've manage to insult almost the entire church you belong to - almost every bishop and a vast majority of the clergy and a significant majority of the laity - with being card-carrying members of the Third Reich.

Well done. Can I guess that your New Year's Resolution was to be an even bigger wankstain than you were in 2012?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Ender's Shadow probably doesn't use the best term, but his term makes a valid point from where I sit - the actions and speech of a vocal/becoming rather influential minority of people in the vote resembled an uncaring and almost vaguely totalitarian position

---

Wait. What minority? The people in favour of female bishops?

Because they weren't. I learnt about the voting rules of the Church of England in painful detail on the Ship and elsewhere, precisely because those in favour of women bishops weren't a minority.
 

---

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Ender's Shadow probably doesn't use the best term, but his term makes a valid point from where I sit - the actions and speech of a vocal/becoming rather influential minority of people in the vote resembled an uncaring and almost vaguely totalitarian position

---

Wait. What minority? The people in favour of female bishops?

Because they weren't. I learnt about the voting rules of the Church of England in painful detail on the Ship and elsewhere, precisely because those in favour of women bishops weren't a minority.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Who the fuck complains about the vocal elements of a majority viewpoint?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Me, learn to read? How about you learn to use phrases such as "vocal minority" in ways that make sense instead of pulling new definitions out your arse? Half the point of a vocal minority is the contrast in opinion with the silent majority, not merely the contrast between 'vocal' and 'silent'. Who the fuck complains about the vocal elements of a majority viewpoint?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
Nothing petty about feeling so entitled you can label people `totalitarians` for asking for the same rights that people of your own sex take forgranted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
Nothing petty about feeling so entitled you can label people `totalitarians` for asking for the same rights that people of your own sex take forgranted.

---

Anyone who refers to being a bishop as a "right" is not only unsuitable for the role, but should probably be removed from the debate due to their woeful grasp of the theology.

... and I'm pro CoW.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Why, who's done that?

---

quote:

---

Given that all the antis on this issue hold some version of "God does not call women to be bishops", rights and equality don't come into it. Either he does or he doesn't.

---

quote:

---

I think he does, but I also think that the word of God trumps the doctrines of feminism, sexual equality etc; anyone trying to argue the case on the basis of those is onto a loser, hasn't thought the issues through and loses a lot of my respect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Why, who's done that?

---

You have.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
You have heard that some of us use our experience and understanding as parts of how we work out what God is telling us instead of just throwing darts on the wall, haven't you, DS?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
Turning God into the great Sexist in the Sky and choosing to believe that, doesn`t absolve all the little sexists.

---

quote:

---

There are few attempts to treat some human beings as being more equal than others which haven`t been baptised at some point. Projecting the sexism onto the deity and then pretending your hands are tied and you no longer have to consider the justice or injustice of what you do is a cop-out, and the same one that the Pharisees took. "Don't bother me with all that shit about justice and treating others the same as myself, I've read the law, if God wanted those people treated decently he wouldn't have ordained them to be poor or Samaritan or whatever, they`d be nice middle class Jewish blokes like us who uphold tradition and then we could treat them nicely like ourselves!`

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
He's been threatened with banning by RooK and apologised on the thread, but I guess that won't stop the usual dogpile...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
You have heard that some of us use our experience and understanding as parts of how we work out what God is telling us instead of just throwing darts on the wall, haven't you, DS?

---

Who cares about your experience when everyone else has their own, equally valid experiences to work from?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:

I think he does, but I also think that the word of God trumps the doctrines of feminism, sexual equality etc; anyone trying to argue the case on the basis of those is onto a loser, hasn't thought the issues through and loses a lot of my respect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
If you piss off a lot of people, you have to expect that a bunch of them will show up in Hell to tell you off. Ender's Shadow has it coming.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Who cares about your experience when everyone else has their own, equally valid experiences to work from?

---

If you don't care about someone else's experience, then yours isn't valid either.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Alright RuthW and Kelly Alves. This is Hell, shut up and be nice to each other.
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 


Oh, you want some, too?

But seriously back the the point I was trying to make-- isn't the backlash of ignoring stuff feminists have been saying coming to a head? It seems like it's going on everywhere.

[ 02. January 2013, 18:42: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
But can we not hurt the poor widdle misogynists feelings in the meanwhile?
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
This is my point-- feelings are the least of what misogynists should worry about getting hurt. The riots in new Delhi and Egypt are still going on.

My point was, "It's time to take a breath and look at what's going on before you just blithely spit out Limbaughisms." People ain't finding that shit tolerable anymore

(oh, I get it, did everyone miss that my apology to ES was sarcastic?)
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Kel--

I sure hope there's a backlash! Even feminine-inclusive language in the media is very nearly gone. Has been for maybe 10-12 years. ("CongressMEN" for a mixed group, etc.)

May seem like a small thing...but we had to fight hard to get inclusive language. And the loss shows a scary change in attitude.

Add to that things like the extreme objectification of women on TV, and...

 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Kel--

I sure hope there's a backlash! Even feminine-inclusive language in the media is very nearly gone. Has been for maybe 10-12 years. ("CongressMEN" for a mixed group, etc.)

May seem like a small thing...but we had to fight hard to get inclusive language. And the loss shows a scary change in attitude.

Add to that things like the extreme objectification of women on TV, and...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
DS - try not to be a condescending little turd. There's a good boy.

This is not about feminism. Or rather it is, but it's not about the feminism you and ES imagine in your half-developed, febrile minds. This is, as Louise's sig suggests, entry level human decency.

When men were busy asserting that women couldn't possibly be (insert profession here) because they lacked the emotional, physical or mental capacity to do so, it wasn't a case of arguing with the naysayers in their terms. It was with a hearty "fuck off" and showing them they were completely and utterly wrong.

We've done all the Bible bits a gazillion times. They are unconvinceable. Fine. Get out of the fucking way, misogynist shits and their enablers.

---

Oh so great, now you're turning on your own side. Just for suggesting that we should maybe show some basic human decency to the others, rather than automatically labelling them as bigots?

Way to get people on board, DT
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
"Why, back in the olden times; cunt, bitch and feminazi were polite as they were just translations from other languages..."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spiffy:
I'm rather enjoying watching men argue about whether I have the same rights they take for granted, and then whine when there's the possibility they may have to share.

And for some reason every time I see "vocal minority being persecuted" in regards to those protesting equal rights, what my brain translates it to is "thugs and bullies desperate to maintain a status quo that grants them all the power and privilege".

---

A while ago, a man of my acquaintance was describing a woman who was running for Speaker of the House I'm now serving in. He said she was "pushy" and "schoolmarmish" and I should vote for the guy running against her. I didn't realize until days later that I had automatically translated his comments into "She's assertive and knows what she's talking about."

I voted for her. She won. Handily.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Re Kelly's comment about aging actresses:

I think the movie "Calendar Girls" helped change that perception, a bit. Each was beautiful in her own way.


That was a British film, with British actresses. I suspect the Hollywood moguls wouldn't do something similar, even if the actresses would. Hollywood seems more hung up on youth.
 

---

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
Older people are still people. They are children of God, just like the rest of us.

There is a whole lot of ageism that goes on every day.

All people eventually age and die. It is our fate as human beings. The important thing is how you age and die, not whether you will age and die.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
All people die. Not all of them get to age very much.
 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Oh so great, now you're turning on your own side. Just for suggesting that we should maybe show some basic human decency to the others, rather than automatically labelling them as bigots?

---

• Actual Nazis: Engaged in a twelve year reign of terror, murdered their political opponents, waged wars of aggression, and brought the processes of industrialization to human extermination.
• Feminazis: Want women to be regarded as fully human and equal members of society.

Yeah, those two things so close they're basically the same.
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
A while ago, a man of my acquaintance was describing a woman who was running for Speaker of the House I'm now serving in. He said she was "pushy" and "schoolmarmish" and I should vote for the guy running against her. I didn't realize until days later that I had automatically translated his comments into "She's assertive and knows what she's talking about."

---

I'm gonna go for glass-half- full and love this story. Good subconcious recovery
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Oh so great, now you're turning on your own side. Just for suggesting that we should maybe show some basic human decency to the others, rather than automatically labelling them as bigots?

Way to get people on board, DT

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
If a male priesthood is a genuine part of the order of creation, sexism has got nothing to do with it.

---

Yep. And if blacks really are inferior to whites, then racism has got nothing to do with it.


 

---

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
Turning God into the great Sexist in the Sky and choosing to believe that, doesn`t absolve all the little sexists. There are few attempts to treat some human beings as being more equal than others which haven`t been baptised at some point. Projecting the sexism onto the deity and then pretending your hands are tied and you no longer have to consider the justice or injustice of what you do is a cop-out, and the same one that the Pharisees took. "Don't bother me with all that shit about justice and treating others the same as myself, I've read the law, if God wanted those people treated decently he wouldn't have ordained them to be poor or Samaritan or whatever, they`d be nice middle class Jewish blokes like us who uphold tradition and then we could treat them nicely like ourselves!`

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
A while ago, a man of my acquaintance was describing a woman who was running for Speaker of the House I'm now serving in. He said she was "pushy" and "schoolmarmish" and I should vote for the guy running against her. I didn't realize until days later that I had automatically translated his comments into "She's assertive and knows what she's talking about."

---

I'm gonna go for glass-half- full and love this story. Good subconcious recovery

---

 

---

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
Turning God into the great Sexist in the Sky and choosing to believe that, doesn`t absolve all the little sexists. There are few attempts to treat some human beings as being more equal than others which haven`t been baptised at some point. Projecting the sexism onto the deity and then pretending your hands are tied and you no longer have to consider the justice or injustice of what you do is a cop-out, and the same one that the Pharisees took. "Don't bother me with all that shit about justice and treating others the same as myself, I've read the law, if God wanted those people treated decently he wouldn't have ordained them to be poor or Samaritan or whatever, they`d be nice middle class Jewish blokes like us who uphold tradition and then we could treat them nicely like ourselves!`

---

God must surely stand convicted on that one because if he had wanted total equality one assumes he would not have created two sexes in the first place and then left one lot stuck with doing all the childbirth and the queue for the ladies' loo.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Oh so great, now you're turning on your own side.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
If a male priesthood is a genuine part of the order of creation, sexism has got nothing to do with it.

---

Yep. And if blacks really are inferior to whites, then racism has got nothing to do with it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:
God must surely stand convicted on that one because if he had wanted total equality one assumes he would not have created two sexes in the first place and then left one lot stuck with doing all the childbirth and the queue for the ladies' loo.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Oh so great, now you're turning on your own side.

---

What? Bloody hell, DS. Sides?

Are you genuinely expecting me to agree to your clearly deeply ingrained sexism, simply and solely on the basis that we're both men?

Fuck. Off.

I have two children. One is a boy. One is a girl. Basic human decency insists that I want the very best for both of them, that as an adult and a parent I encourage them both to fulfil their very different potentials, and that I work towards a society that will enable them to do exactly that and not have artificial barriers of class, race, sex, or wealth placed in front of them.

You, on the other hand, appear to be suggesting that I should be content with a situation where the opportunities for my daughter are restricted, where they are unrestricted for my son. I am most certainly not content with that.

The good news is is that it's not too late to join me. The bad news is that until you do, you are part of the problem.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Oh so great, now you're turning on your own side.

---

What? Bloody hell, DS. Sides?

Are you genuinely expecting me to agree to your clearly deeply ingrained sexism, simply and solely on the basis that we're both men?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
... and I'm pro CoW.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
... and if you meet someone who believes otherwise, show them why they're wrong, don't just chant 'racist' at them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:
God must surely stand convicted on that one because if he had wanted total equality one assumes he would not have created two sexes in the first place and then left one lot stuck with doing all the childbirth and the queue for the ladies' loo.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:
God must surely stand convicted on that one because if he had wanted total equality one assumes he would not have created two sexes in the first place and then left one lot stuck with doing all the childbirth and the queue for the ladies' loo.

---

Asexual reproduction does not lend itself to adaptability should the environment change. The need for sexual reproduction (and thus sexes) does not in itself mean either sex is superior or inferior to the other.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Ach, it's an old game. Say something silly, someone responds, respond with "ha ha you're so stupid you didn't spot I was joking" as if not being fucking psychic is some kind of character flaw..

Been there.

---

I would have thought the point about the queue for the ladies' loo would have flagged that this was not serious but clearly this was far too subtle.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Ach, it's an old game. Say something silly, someone responds, respond with "ha ha you're so stupid you didn't spot I was joking" as if not being fucking psychic is some kind of character flaw..

Been there.

---

I would have thought the point about the queue for the ladies' loo would have flagged that this was not serious but clearly this was far too subtle.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It was with a hearty "fuck off" and showing them they were completely and utterly wrong.

We've done all the Bible bits a gazillion times. They are unconvinceable. Fine. Get out of the fucking way, misogynist shits and their enablers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
... this is not some secular argument (something which has annoyed me completely about both the CoW and gays in the Church - arguments in the for camp have mainly revolved around secular points rather than theological)...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
That depends on your theology. If your theology is sola scriptura (or close to that) then you will be in one camp, but if it is not, then your interpretation of scripture will be different. It won't be secular (unless you want to use secular as a pejorative), but the outcome of your doctrine will be derived from a different theology and give different results.

Doh!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
to give one example (which I have heard out of the mouths of 'babes' so to say) runs along the lines of women can be doctors, judges, Prime Mininster's etc. etc. in society they must be allowed to be Bishops in the Church as the equivelant position

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Those against The CoW are not just people with some entrenched social prejudice, if it were I would be calling foul, they are people who in all good conscience cannot marry up their religious beliefs with the CoW... this is not some secular argument (something which has annoyed me completely about both the CoW and gays in the Church - arguments in the for camp have mainly revolved around secular points rather than theological)...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
Is that actually the argument, though? One would think that such an argument runs more like this:

Men get ordained for priesthood and women do too. Out of the ranks of this priesthood, some qualified individuals are raised to the position of bishops; therefore, an important qualification for becoming a bishop is first having been a priest. Why would an insititution which recognizes the gifts and callings of two sexes automatically exclude one set of these from the bishopric (is that the term?) Gifts remain gifts. Callings remain callings. Are these so plentiful that God's people (forgive me, but *cough*) can afford to toss roughly half of these overboard?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Being a sincere misogynist who truly believes women are the inferiors of men does not make you not a misogynist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pyx_e:
We are called to “side” with the little, the lost, the last and the least. Not to carry on the tradition of heaping improbable shit on them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
... and if you meet someone who believes otherwise, show them why they're wrong, don't just chant 'racist' at them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
All I am pointing out, and evidently it is a point ill-grasped in your tyranny of equality, is that those who cannot in all good faith and conscience accept the O/CoW and marry it to their theological beliefs do so from some theological point of view rather than some misogyny ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
How the lives of women are seriously disadvantaged by their lack of Consecration I am not entirely sure, it's not as if those in the against camp are arguing that women be stoned and faced by a fine if they dare open their mouths and mention anything on the topic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
... and if you meet someone who believes otherwise, show them why they're wrong, don't just chant 'racist' at them.

---

So what's the politically correct term for racist? "Racist" used to be a perfectly nice word, like faggot or pickaninny or feminazi, but now the uppity racists get all offended and hysterical when they are called racists. They would prefer to be called ... what would racists prefer to be called? Equality challenged? Empathically disordered? Can-dish-it-out-but-can't-take-it-ists? Privileged whiners?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
... Get some empathy and try to understand the other side instead of blanket-labeling them misogynists and effectively saying they are using some smoke-screen theology for their institutional and social misogyny...

---

Oh, fuck, and now the misogynists are also offended and hysterical because they've been called misogynists. What would they prefer to be called? MCPs? Dinosaurs? Dickheads? The-altar-is-a-no-girls-allowed-treehouse priesthood? Poor babies. They don't like being called misogynists.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

Just to remember:

• Actual Nazis: Engaged in a twelve year reign of terror, murdered their political opponents, waged wars of aggression, and brought the processes of industrialization to human extermination.
• Feminazis: Want women to be regarded as fully human and equal members of society.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
...something which has annoyed me completely about both the CoW and gays in the Church - arguments in the for camp have mainly revolved around secular points rather than theological...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pyx_e:
It is misogyny because it is taking a secondary and at best unclear issue and placing above the primary and clear tenets of our faith. It is a immature argument that wants everything to be about this issue. Its immaturity and single mindedness speak of a fear that has its roots in the same place that all bigotries do. A place that we as Christians are called to disavow. We are called to “side” with the little, the lost, the last and the least. Not to carry on the tradition of heaping improbable shit on them.

Fly Safe, Pyx_e

---

This.
If one is going to claim to follow a path, one should read the guidebook entire.
 

---

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
]How the lives of women are seriously disadvantaged by not being allowed into universities, become a doctor, lawyer, MP, sit in the House of Lords, own property, choose who they marry, vote, complain about marital rape, get paid the same as men for the same job, I am not entirely sure, it's not as if those in the against camp are arguing that women be stoned and faced by a fine if they dare open their mouths and mention anything on the topic.

Your prejudices are showing. You might want to cover up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
... my only interest in this argument is protecting those who have a theologically grounded belief that women cannot and should not be ordained or consecrated from the tyranny of the likes of you.

Your amazing ability to negatively link the ideas of the inferiority of women to those who cannot theologically accept that God has said it is ok for women to be Ordained and Consecrated is negative campaigining at it's finest, and I salute you for it... Do you work in politics?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Gosh, aren't you clever! Let me shake in my boots at the your over whelming intellectual ability to continue to miss the point and to continue to advance a secular argument...

---

Yes. I am clever. Clever enough not to have a completely tin ear when it comes to history.

Firstly, your argument as to why women cannot be bishops is exactly the same as to why women couldn't be doctors, MPs, go to university, own property etc etc - they were theologically incapable of handling the responsibility and had to be, at all times, subordinate to men. You see, back in the past, the sacred had a great deal more influence over the secular, and informed both law and practice. Sorry if you didn't realise, but I think you actually did, and you chose to be an arse about it instead.

Secondly, you see no reason why a woman would be disadvantaged in not becoming a bishop, and then compare it against being stoned? That there is exactly the reason why women are disadvantaged. "Didn't get the job? Don't worry, love, at least you're not being buried up to your neck and then battered by lumps of rock until you die."


 

---

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
... my only interest in this argument is protecting those who have a theologically grounded belief that women cannot and should not be ordained or consecrated from the tyranny of the likes of you.

Your amazing ability to negatively link the ideas of the inferiority of women to those who cannot theologically accept that God has said it is ok for women to be Ordained and Consecrated is negative campaigining at it's finest, and I salute you for it... Do you work in politics?

---

Still waiting for an explanation about how a theological position that women are inferior is all that different than holding that position for any other reason.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pyx_e:
We are called to “side” with the little, the lost, the last and the least. Not to carry on the tradition of heaping improbable shit on them.

---

How the lives of women are seriously disadvantaged by their lack of Consecration I am not entirely sure, it's not as if those in the against camp are arguing that women be stoned and faced by a fine if they dare open their mouths and mention anything on the topic.

People who hold beliefs with deep integrity and faith deserve the right to have their beliefs safeguarded, they are not holding some view that has been heretical for 2,000 years, and the safeguards were assured to them by the powers that be...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
... my only interest in this argument is protecting those who have a theologically grounded belief that women cannot and should not be ordained or consecrated from the tyranny of the likes of you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
The theological argumkent is not that they are inferior but that God has set a structure for Church governance and spiritual oversight in place...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
So what's the politically correct term for racist? "Racist" used to be a perfectly nice word, like faggot or pickaninny or feminazi, but now the uppity racists get all offended and hysterical when they are called racists. They would prefer to be called ... what would racists prefer to be called? Equality challenged? Empathically disordered? Can-dish-it-out-but-can't-take-it-ists? Privileged whiners?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Still waiting for an explanation about how a theological position that women are inferior is all that different than holding that position for any other reason.

---

The theological argumkent is not that they are inferior but that God has set a structure for Church governance and spiritual oversight in place...

---

Right. Not "inferior", just unfit to serve God or exercise power in the Church. Remind me again how that's not inferior?

It sounds kind of like the Mormon ban on black priesthood prior to 1978. Not really racist, because God!
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Firstly it is inherently unfair to have the leadership of the church all male and have it make decisions on the future direction of mission, deployment of stipendiary clergy and preferment without a female perspective. In the best of cases it will lead to blind spots and in the worst the old boys network will just keep those “poor little women” in their proper place.

---

quote:

---

Not to give aid and comfort to the enemy or anything, but who said life was fair?

---

quote:

---

Should we be lumping these downtrodden folk with Pyx_e's "little and least" people?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
All I am pointing out, and evidently it is a point ill-grasped in your tyranny of equality,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

Just try and imagine a situation where you could not in all good conscience accept something that was being done for equality (I don't know, dogs should be Consecrated because the majority of the Church has come to the revelation that human and non-human animals are equally created and have the God given calling to the Episcopate)
your opposition on theological grounds is not based in some broad bias against animals, and your opposition does not make you a dominianist nor an animal-abuser, you just happen to ahve a theological objection, would you not want some sort of safeguard for your theological integrity?

Get some empathy and try to understand the other side instead of blanket-labeling them misogynists and effectively saying they are using some smoke-screen theology for their institutional and social misogyny...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
... my only interest in this argument is protecting those who have a theologically grounded belief that women cannot and should not be ordained or consecrated from the tyranny of the likes of you.

Your amazing ability to negatively link the ideas of the inferiority of women to those who cannot theologically accept that God has said it is ok for women to be Ordained and Consecrated is negative campaigining at it's finest, and I salute you for it... Do you work in politics?

---

Still waiting for an explanation about how a theological position that women are inferior is all that different than holding that position for any other reason.

---

The theological argumkent is not that they are inferior but that God has set a structure for Church governance and spiritual oversight in place...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
You know, sometimes you just want to be able to get through life without all this bullshit, and without having an obligation to educate the bigots you come across. I want people to treat me as an equal to men, and if they don't want to do that, I want them to fuck off. I do not want to have to put in the effort of sitting them down and giving them a presentation on the flaws in their thinking - a presentation which will probably only result in abuse and condescension from them. Not being a racist sexist homophobic fuckwad is not some kind of elite educational achievement - it's a minimum standard for decent human being. The information on why they're wrong is out there for them to find. I'm not going to hold their grimy hands through it. ]

---

Oh, and Sergius-Melli, comparing women to dogs? Seriously, you really want to do this? Fucking hell.
 

---

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Not to give aid and comfort to the enemy or anything, but who said life was fair?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Not to give aid and comfort to the enemy or anything, but who said life was fair?

---

You're right. Life is not fair.

It's "life," not assholes, who abandon the women they impregnate.
It’s “life,” not assholes, who harass female employees and then fire them for being so attractive.
And it’s “life,” not assholes, who rule from the bench that this is perfectly okay.
It’s “life,” not assholes, who rape, beat, and murder a female bus passenger because they feel like it, figure they can get away with it, and what the hell, it's just another woman, so who cares?
It’s “life,” not assholes, who turn in the current wife for a newer model because the original “let herself go.”
It’s “life,” not assholes, who give jobs to less-qualified men because “women just get married or pregnant and leave.”
It’s “life,” not assholes, who hassle women on the street because “They’re asking for it” – even though said women are just trying to get from subway/bus stop to their jobs.
It’s “life,” not assholes, who label single-dad households as “needing support,” but single-mom households as “broken homes.”
It’s “life,” not assholes, who pay female breadwinners less than men because “men have to support families.”
It’s “life,” not assholes, who “protect” strong, sturdy, willing women from “heavy” (i.e. higher-paying) work, because they might hurt their widdoo selves (and they’re obviously too dumb to figure this out on their own).

And on and on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Firstly it is inherently unfair to have the leadership of the church all male and have it make decisions on the future direction of mission, deployment of stipendiary clergy and preferment without a female perspective. In the best of cases it will lead to blind spots and in the worst the old boys network will just keep those “poor little women” in their proper place.

---

Not to give aid and comfort to the enemy or anything, but who said [the Church] was fair?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Fixed your quote for you. And while fairness is certainly not anything I'd ever accuse the Church of, the Church itself usually tries to maintain at least a plausible veneer of fairness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
*Takes a deep breath"

If we weren't already in Hell, I'd call you there on the basis of this.

Are you seriously trying to claim that people willing to compare women hoping to participate in church governance with ambitious dogs should not be labeled "misogynist" because of the sincerity with which they make the comparison?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
So just sit back and contemplate that. Comparing another member of the human race to a dog Even Jesus didn't get away with that.

---

Hey, at least he only implied and didn't actually use the word "bitch."
 

---

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
@ Mousethief

I'm glad you have no disagreement.

From my PoV, though, there's not a lot of daylight between "Just accept X because God ordains it" and "Just accept X because life isn't fair." They're just two different ways of copping out of the simple fact that humans cause much of the misery humans experience.

"Life" (who or whatever s/he may be) is only intermittently responsible for the shit that gets handed around. Tsunamis or viruses, maybe (well, we didn't invent the latter, though we do hand them around). Earthquakes, epidemics, cancer and so on. Some miseries we can blame on "life."

There are plenty of other miseries, and misogyny is certainly among them, which we human assholes create, perpetuate, and then try to shrug off any responsibility for as "God's will," "bad luck," and "that's life."

You're free to disagree, but from where I sit, church governing structures look like human creations. I completely reject the notion that they're born out of some sort of sacred hooplah. Frankly, I read your "life isn't fair" comment (perhaps unfairly ) as suggesting that we can't do anything about them, so why bother trying?

I'm probably wrong. I've been wrong before. What else is new?

[ 03. January 2013, 19:35: Message edited by: Porridge ]
 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Fixed your quote for you. And while fairness is certainly not anything I'd ever accuse the Church of, the Church itself usually tries to maintain at least a plausible veneer of fairness.

---

Does it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Being a sincere misogynist who truly believes women are the inferiors of men does not make you not a misogynist.

---

And pray, show me where I have ever said such?

All I am pointing out, and evidently it is a point ill-grasped in your tyranny of equality, is that those who cannot in all good faith and conscience accept the O/CoW and marry it to their theological beliefs do so from some theological point of view rather than some misogyny,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
So just sit back and contemplate that. Comparing another member of the human race to a dog Even Jesus didn't get away with that.

---

Hey, at least he only implied and didn't actually use the word "bitch."

---

Whoa, whoa, whoa - nobody's talking about consecrating female dogs, are they?
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
.. because that really would be a bitch.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
IME, there are very few true bible inerrantists. Almost all have a fudge factor, so misogyny gets no pass either.

ETA: KA

[ 03. January 2013, 20:19: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
From my PoV, though, there's not a lot of daylight between "Just accept X because God ordains it" and "Just accept X because life isn't fair."

---

quote:

---

Frankly, I read your "life isn't fair" comment (perhaps unfairly ) as suggesting that we can't do anything about them, so why bother trying? I'm probably wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Judging by the reactions I usually get when I point out how people's religious organizations are unfair, unjust, corrupt, or tyrannical, I'd have to say 'yes', maintaining at least the appearance of fairness is important to both religious organizations and their adherents.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:
Whoa, whoa, whoa - nobody's talking about consecrating female dogs, are they?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
[
Secondly, you see no reason why a woman would be disadvantaged in not becoming a bishop, and then compare it against being stoned? That there is exactly the reason why women are disadvantaged. "Didn't get the job? Don't worry, love, at least you're not being buried up to your neck and then battered by lumps of rock until you die."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spiffy:
I'm rather enjoying watching men argue about whether I have the same rights they take for granted, and then whine when there's the possibility they may have to share.

And for some reason every time I see "vocal minority being persecuted" in regards to those protesting equal rights, what my brain translates it to is "thugs and bullies desperate to maintain a status quo that grants them all the power and privilege".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
... Get some empathy and try to understand the other side instead of blanket-labeling them misogynists and effectively saying they are using some smoke-screen theology for their institutional and social misogyny...

---

Oh, fuck, and now the misogynists are also offended and hysterical because they've been called misogynists. What would they prefer to be called? MCPs? Dinosaurs? Dickheads?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
If you like change the word dog for flower/rabbit/robot/in fact anything you want and see if you actually manage to get the point I was making rather than labelling me as some woman=dog proponent...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
I still do not get why those who can't bear equality need 'some safeguards'?

Nobody has explained this.

Think of any other inequality and you wouldn't give 'safeguards' to the perpetrators.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
If you like change the word dog for flower/rabbit/robot/in fact anything you want and see if you actually manage to get the point I was making rather than labelling me as some woman=dog proponent...

---

Which completely fails to solve the problem of comparing ONE gender of human with something non-human.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
If you like change the word dog for flower/rabbit/robot/in fact anything you want and see if you actually manage to get the point I was making rather than labelling me as some woman=dog proponent...

---

Which completely fails to solve the problem of comparing ONE gender of human with something non-human.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
But if you actually read what I have written have I anywhere compared women to non-human objects?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
I used an example to try and encourage you to think beyond your point of view, to consider empathy, to a time that a situation may arise where you cannot in all good conscience accept that it would safeguard the integrity of Catholicity or Sacrament and in that situation you would look to safeguard your theological beliefs in those integrities as you have no other option.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
But if you actually read what I have written have I anywhere compared women to non-human objects?

---

Yes! Yes you have! Several times! Dogs and rabbits and robots, for God's sake!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Maybe you should all go back and read what I actually wrote... in your intignity you actually missed the point...

If you like change the word dog for flower/rabbit/robot/in fact anything you want and see if you actually manage to get the point I was making rather than labelling me as some woman=dog proponent...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
I used an example to try and encourage you to think beyond your point of view, to consider empathy, to a time that a situation may arise where you cannot in all good conscience accept that it would safeguard the integrity of Catholicity or Sacrament and in that situation you would look to safeguard your theological beliefs in those integrities as you have no other option.

---

If I was in such a situation I would leave the church and go to one that I think does safeguard the integrity of the Sacrament.

Simples.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starbug:
As for the suggestion that you could just as easily use the word 'flower' etc, I don't get that all because the situation wouldn't arise in the first place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

I have asked you to consider a point where the majority of the church is proposing something but you have a theologically based objection to that action:

---

quote:

---

I'm just saying "it's not faaaaaair" isn't a very good argument here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

Sorry - crosspost. So YOU don't need to re-think - you just empathise with those who do?

---

quote:

---

Same question - did you empathise with those who 'believed' in slave owning and apartheid? Some beliefs deserve to be swept aside imo.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:


Same question - did you empathise with those who 'believed' in slave owning and apartheid? Some beliefs deserve to be swept aside imo.

---

No I don't empathise with those people, either past or present. They hold a belief (that may have had some sort of faux theological justification but was much more based on physical differences and eugenics - the fear of the outsider in comparison with the insider) that has very real and significantly negative physical and mental implications on other human beings. They are treating others as cattle/societaly inferior in a religion-devoid sense (ie. in a topic that is not so bound up with the theological concerns of Church governance and Sacramental integrity) and that I will not abide.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Many slave owners and proponents of apartheid used scripture to justify their practice and I'm sure they too were entirely sincere.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
They are treating others as cattle/societaly inferior in a religion-devoid sense (ie. in a topic that is not so bound up with the theological concerns of Church governance and Sacramental integrity) and that I will not abide.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Ever hear of a slave being allowed to celebrate the sacraments, or a black man during aparthied? I'm sure they got around it by suggesting (at least implicitly if not explicitly) that such people were somehow less than human even though they looked human. A neat and tidy way of excluding any religious reasoning or ever having to look at it as an issue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Ever hear of a slave being allowed to celebrate the sacraments, or a black man during aparthied? I'm sure they got around it by suggesting (at least implicitly if not explicitly) that such people were somehow less than human even though they looked human. A neat and tidy way of excluding any religious reasoning or ever having to look at it as an issue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Ever hear of a slave being allowed to celebrate the sacraments, or a black man during aparthied? I'm sure they got around it by suggesting (at least implicitly if not explicitly) that such people were somehow less than human even though they looked human. A neat and tidy way of excluding any religious reasoning or ever having to look at it as an issue.

---

The apartheid era government was distinctly cunning and statements that "blacks cannot do x" were comparatively rare.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
No I don't empathise with [those who 'believed' in slave owning and apartheid], either past or present. They hold a belief (that may have had some sort of faux theological justification but was much more based on physical differences and eugenics - the fear of the outsider in comparison with the insider) that has very real and significantly negative physical and mental implications on other human beings.

---

I just love how you say that as if it's not true of the subjugation of women, and the faux theological justifications thereof.
 

---

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Ditch your empathy - it is 100% misplaced.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Ditch your empathy - it is 100% misplaced.

---

The reasons for my empathy are myriad in number and reason - not so easy just to do away with my empathy.

---

Of course, you know I meant ditch your empathy for those who would exclude women.
 

---

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Of course, you know I meant ditch your empathy for those who would exclude women.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
It maybe hard to accept that people can have empathy for people they disagree with, but I do, for many reasons, and whilst I continue to support and work towards the CoW it does not mean I will stop having that empathy for others...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And yet you've already stated that you have no empathy for those who honestly believe in apartheid, regardless of their theological justifications for that belief.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And yet you've already stated that you have no empathy for those who honestly believe in apartheid, regardless of their theological justifications for that belief.

---

Because as I said above, the Church has never taught that slavery and apartheid are integral to the maintanance of Catholicity nor the safe-guarding of the validity of the Sacraments, yet (putting aside right and wrong) for almost two thousand years the Church believed that the O&CoW would have put said things in danger.

As I said further the two examples of slavery and apartheid resulted in a complete failure to love one another in a societal aspect doing real physical and mental harm to people who should have been treated with societal freedom and love.

---

quote:

---

Maybe it seems illogical to you, but to me with my circumstances and life story it does not...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
As I said further the two examples of slavery and apartheid resulted in a complete failure to love one another in a societal aspect doing real physical and mental harm to people who should have been treated with societal freedom and love.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Organ Builder:
And yet, somehow you do not see that the attitudes projected toward women by those who fail to see their ministries as valid do real physical and mental harm to people whose gifts and calling should be celebrated by the Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Organ Builder:
And yet, somehow you do not see that the attitudes projected toward women by those who fail to see their ministries as valid do real physical and mental harm to people whose gifts and calling should be celebrated by the Church.

---

Yes - and not just those women who are ministers. All women are lessened by his stance. His empathy for a few misguided people cuts out half the human race.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Organ Builder:
And yet, somehow you do not see that the attitudes projected toward women by those who fail to see their ministries as valid do real physical and mental harm to people whose gifts and calling should be celebrated by the Church.

---

Yes - and not just those women who are ministers. All women are lessened by his stance. His empathy for a few misguided people cuts out half the human race.

---

I wonder how you reconcile the fact of women of all flavours who are against the O&CoW...?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
To take an example that happened not too long ago to me, whilst being put forwards to Provincial Selection several members of the congregation were very unhappy and very vocal in their position to the point that they refused for a while to come to Church for Communion with one reason being I was serving - I then had to agonise whether for the sake of Christian Unity and to ensure that my presence at the altar was not in anyway detrimental, I should abstain from Communion until such time as the issue was resolved (if ever resolved) I spent a considerable amount of time anguishing over the issue from all points of view (especially should I participate in the Communion when Brothers and Sisters in Christ were not at peace with me) and reached a conclusion that I was perfectly justified in continuing to serve and partake... at no time did I stop trying to extend the hand of peace or reason with them sensibly and try and resolve the issue (which itself has been resolved now in the main) I could have got very vocal and nasty in response, but with respect to their theological integrity I approached it with empathy, sought to resolve the issue and take actions which were justifiable based on my time thinking about it and the advice of Priests and Bishops (my position being the justified, privately and publicly, by these people - if it had been the other way then I would have absented myself from the Sacraments till such time as was appropriate).

---

quote:

---

I wonder how you reconcile the fact of women of all flavours who are against the O&CoW...? Are they self-loathing, misogynists? Traitors to the cause?

---

quote:

---

Because as I said above, the Church has never taught that slavery and apartheid are integral to the maintanance of Catholicity nor the safe-guarding of the validity of the Sacraments...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Well aren't you special! No need for you to take a forced sabbatical from your religious calling until there's unambiguous and unanimous support for your position, but women need to sit down and shut up until there's 100% agreement that they don't have sacrament-defiling cooties.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fletcher christian:
The same ideas were used to justify not ever having a slave ... celebrate communion ...

---

quote:

---

Unless you can show me that this was done on a theological basis by the whole Church throughout history to safeguard Catholicity or Sacramental efficiency then you are hammering at a nail that is not actually part of the argument.

---

quote:

---

AS for the Jews, it would be a bit strange even now to invite a Jew to celebrate Mass... whilst understanding the hatred and bile against hte Jews throughout history by Christians and the myriad number of reasons behind such bile I'm not entirely sure that it is a relevant point here...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fletcher christian:
You homed in on one item you could attack and pretend you couldn't see the link to the point I was making.

---

quote:

---

All I asked for was some evidence that the Church had ever actually announced that slavery and apartheid were integral parts of maintaining the Catholicity of the Church and the efficiency of the Sacraments

---

quote:

---

there is nothing worse than forcing someone into a corner in a fight...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
I wonder how you reconcile the fact of women of all flavours who are against the O&CoW...?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
They are treating others as cattle/societaly inferior in a religion-devoid sense (ie. in a topic that is not so bound up with the theological concerns of Church governance and Sacramental integrity) and that I will not abide.

---

So why abide it as part of sacramental integrity?

Ditch your empathy - it is 100% misplaced.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicolemr:
Who was the right wing spokeswoman who said women should never have been given the vote? I do not feel compelled to respect men who feel this way on the basis that there is at least one woman who agrees.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starbug:
From someone who wouldn't let her husband near the dispatch boxes in the early years of marriage, it's a bit rich!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:
It's quite possible that God would make bread from rice or corn to be his body, and wine from raspberries to be his blood -- wheat is not superior to rice or corn, and grapes are not superior to raspberries. But we use only wheat bread and grape wine, because that is the practice that has been handed down to us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:
It's quite possible that God would make bread from rice or corn to be his body, and wine from raspberries to be his blood -- wheat is not superior to rice or corn, and grapes are not superior to raspberries. But we use only wheat bread and grape wine, because that is the practice that has been handed down to us.

---

This seems a bit ingenuous. Assessments of superiority or inferiority are always in a particular context. For example, Stephen Hawking is superior to Usain Bolt as a physicist. Usain Bolt is superior to Stephen Hawking as a sprinter. Similarly, wheat is superior to rice or corn in the context of sacraments. Likewise raspberries are inferior to grapes in the same context.

---

quote:

---

In the context of church leadership, the assumption of male-only hierarchies is that someone like Fred Phelps is a superior choice over any possible female candidate, by virtue of the fact that he's got a penis. If you're a woman, that's got to sting just a little bit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
This seems a bit ingenuous. Assessments of superiority or inferiority are always in a particular context. For example, Stephen Hawking is superior to Usain Bolt as a physicist. Usain Bolt is superior to Stephen Hawking as a sprinter. Similarly, wheat is superior to rice or corn in the context of sacraments. Likewise raspberries are inferior to grapes in the same context.

---

But why? Other than "they are what we use," I don't see a reason. If you read the symbolic and metaphorical explanations, corn or rice or raspberries would work just as well. There is no reason, other than Tradition, that these are what we use. It's arbitrary.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:

---

In the context of church leadership, the assumption of male-only hierarchies is that someone like Fred Phelps is a superior choice over any possible female candidate, by virtue of the fact that he's got a penis. If you're a woman, that's got to sting just a little bit.

---

It doesn't sting, because it isn't true. It is possible, within the Orthodox Church, to have a dicussion of whether a woman could be ordained. But there would never be any discussion over whether Mr. Phelps could be ordained, because he is not an Orthodox Christian. That is the first and most important criterion. If you can't pass that bar, there's nothing to discuss.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:
And even if he were to join the Church, the final canonical requirement is that the people say "Axios!" to the ordination or consecration. There are Orthodox women for whom one might say "Axios!" . . .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
This seems a bit ingenuous. Assessments of superiority or inferiority are always in a particular context. For example, Stephen Hawking is superior to Usain Bolt as a physicist. Usain Bolt is superior to Stephen Hawking as a sprinter. Similarly, wheat is superior to rice or corn in the context of sacraments. Likewise raspberries are inferior to grapes in the same context.

---

But why? Other than "they are what we use," I don't see a reason. If you read the symbolic and metaphorical explanations, corn or rice or raspberries would work just as well. There is no reason, other than Tradition, that these are what we use. It's arbitrary.

---

I guess that depends on what you mean by a sacrament "work[ing]". How is that assessed? From my outsider's perspective, such things would work just as well. You claim that they wouldn't, based on the criterion of tradition.

---

quote:

---

I suppose it might have been more accurate to say that, definitionally, there's an assumption that no female candidate can possibly exist who is superior to Mr. Phelps for the role of Orthodox bishop. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:
And even if he were to join the Church, the final canonical requirement is that the people say "Axios!" to the ordination or consecration. There are Orthodox women for whom one might say "Axios!" . . .

---

Are there? Just out of curiosity, how many Orthodox women have received such an acclamation, or is is that one of those theoretical possibilities that's never actually happened?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Ditch your empathy - it is 100% misplaced.

---

The reasons for my empathy are myriad in number and reason - not so easy just to do away with my empathy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
maintaining the Catholicity of the Church and the efficiency of the Sacraments

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:
We know that the Twelve were men. Jesus could have chosen women to be among the Twelve, but he didn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Stances on slavery and apartheid were still based on the same fundamental assertion: that this is the order of things as God has ordained it. It was every bit as theological as the current kerfuffle over the ordination of women.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:
So while it's true that there have been people who created theological justifications for slavery, it's not the case that there was ever a consensus in the Church that slavery was ordained by God. That assertion fails the tests of antiquity, universality, and consensus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:
We know that the Twelve were men. Jesus could have chosen women to be among the Twelve, but he didn't.

---

Given the cultural situation at the time, I'm not that convinced that "he could have chosen women to be among the Twelve".

---

quote:

---

He also could have chosen non-Jews to be among the Twelve. But didn't. One wonders how the church managed to get past the notion that it was okay for Gentiles to sit in the pews, but they weren't allowed in positions of power.

---

quote:

---

And it's that kind of thing that makes, for me personally, arguments by tradition so incredibly troublesome. ... I really don't respond well to "we've always done it this way" as an explanation. I want to know the reasons, to find out if the reasons still apply.

---

quote:

---

I'm very fond of a quote from Cyprian that I trot out occasionally. It gets translated in various ways but here's one version: "antiquity without truth is merely ancient error". I simply can't think in terms of 'they must have got it right the first time, so let's keep doing it'.

---

quote:

---

To the best of my knowledge, there was never an Ecumenical Council that said that slavery was meet and right. The Didache stipulates that one of the permissible uses of Church funds is the emancipation of slaves. St. Patrick's letter to Condroticus is about as fiery a piece of abolitionist literature as you're ever likely to see.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:
We know that there were women among his followers. What is it that makes it impossible tht there would be women in his inner circle?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
And since Christ's resurrection is alleged to have been revealed initially solely to women from his inner circle, it could be argued that, as the ultimate Christian revelation of Easter morning was entrusted to women alone, only women can be priests.

---

quote:

---

[/qb]It seems as sound a rationale as "only males were disciples" or "this is how we've always done it." [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fletcher christian:
But I think thats part of the rub too - they haven't had that same history, nor have they had the same debates and issues, nor the same social history or church history. I remember talking long and hard with a Russian priest on the issue and trying to get to the bottom of it all. he kept saying that there was no problem at all, we've just never done it. At the time, in my youth, I railed against that, but I think he was actually being very genuine and open about it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:
I expect that he was. With the different experiences of East and West, you get a different framework, so different questions get asked and answered. "That's not one of our issues" is as honest as it can be, even if it's not very satisfying.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:
And, to the best of my knowledge, none of the Holy Myrrhbearers were ever priests or bishops, although they have always been greatly honored, and are given the titles "Equal to the Apostles" (and, for Mary Magdalene, "Apostle to the Apostles").

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:
It's because that's what we do, what we've always done, what has been handed down to us. We might or might not agree with it. We might or might not like it. But it's what we do. Could it ever change? Yes, I think it could. The rules around the sacrament of marriage have changed over the centuries. This could as well. But it hasn't. Not yet. And I don't think it's likely to. But I'm sure there were people who would have said that about second marriages, and second marriages are now allowed. So who knows?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Nice DH thread you people have running here...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Nice bit of junior hosting you're not going to carry on with.

---

quote:

---

I would say that the feminazi thread has turned all DH latest from page 2. I would like to see some clarification to what extent DH topics will be allowed to run their course in Hell.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:
I expect that he was. With the different experiences of East and West, you get a different framework, so different questions get asked and answered. "That's not one of our issues" is as honest as it can be, even if it's not very satisfying.

---

It might be honest, but I do not see it as accurate.
I think it everyone's issue. I respect your contributions to this board beyond most participants. However, I cannot agree in this instance. It sounds to my ears as separate but equal and carries no more accuracy than that statement ever has.

---

That's fair enough. And I think that, while it has not been one of our issues in the past, the Eastern Church has entered the West, and we now have to take on and deal with Western cultural issues. It's happened before; when the Church moved to Russia (or Georgia or Japan or wherever), it encountered cultural issues that it hadn't dealt with before, and it's had to figure out how to deal with them. Can we and should we do services and prayers in a language other than Greek or Hebrew? What do we do if the local leaders tells all his people to convert or else; can we allow that because it's the way things work here, and if not, how do we change it? The locals invoked various deities and deity-like spirits for various needs; how do we deal with those needs while making it clear that those deities are idols? It's against the law here to bury the dead, but it's against our canons to cremate them, so what do we do?

We sometimes give the impression (even to ourselves) that these cultural issues were resolved smoothly and easily, although that really wasn't the case. It's genuinely difficult. It took time and prayer and work; it took humility and holiness; sometimes people were exiled or killed during the working-out process.

The Orthodox Church is beginning to address the issue, but as fletcher christian noted, the wheels turn slowly. The first step for us, I think, is the restoration of the permanent diaconate, including women. There are places here and there where that's never gone away, and places where it has already returned. And then, we'll have to see where the Holy Spirit leads us next.
 

---

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
[x-post ]
Aw, Pxy_e. You're just sore because in the Ship "Big Bang Theory" panto Ingo got cast as Sheldon and you had to settle for Howard.

I'm perfectly content playing Howard's mother, by the way: if the face fits... Needing any polo-necks laundered?

[ 05. January 2013, 14:12: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
 

---

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
tru dat
 

---

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
It seems to me that you have to argue that the sacrament of marriage has not been changed, but clarified in its applications, by the Eastern Orthodox. Or you have to engage with the claims that ordinating men only is an injustice. Or you could become RC...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pyx_e:
From the Styx thread:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Aw, Pxy_e. You're just sore because in the Ship "Big Bang Theory" panto Ingo got cast as Sheldon and you had to settle for Howard.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:
I said that the rules around the sacrament of marriage had been changed, not that the sacrament itself had been changed. You can call those clarifications in the applications of the sacrament if you like, and deny that they are changes. You might consider that being precise; I might consider it disingenuous.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:
The Orthodox Church is beginning to address the issue, but as fletcher christian noted, the wheels turn slowly. The first step for us, I think, is the restoration of the permanent diaconate, including women. There are places here and there where that's never gone away, and places where it has already returned. And then, we'll have to see where the Holy Spirit leads us next.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Note that you cannot answer anymore that this is determined by tradition. For tradition did not make your distinction concerning marriage, it did not consider the question of second marriages as merely part of some current rules around marriage. That was a distinction made later on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:
I said that the rules around the sacrament of marriage had been changed, not that the sacrament itself had been changed. You can call those clarifications in the applications of the sacrament if you like, and deny that they are changes. You might consider that being precise; I might consider it disingenuous.

---

So, you believe that there are matters truly part of the sacrament, and mere rules around it.

---

quote:

---

Very well then, what forms the essential part of the sacrament of Holy Orders, and what doesn't - and why?

---

quote:

---

Note that you cannot answer anymore that this is determined by tradition.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AberVicar:
This is according to your take on 'tradition'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:
Except that I can. You might not be able to, given the way you understand Tradition. But I don't have any problem with saying that the answer to this or any other question will be found in and through Holy Tradition, which is the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by AberVicar:
This is according to your take on 'tradition'.

---

Nope, I'm dealing with Josephine's own comments

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
And here I thought this thread was about misogyny, not the Great Schism. Silly me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Have you revised your position on that, or are you now going to divorce "tradition" from any actual "handing on" that has happened in time?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Have you revised your position on that, or are you now going to divorce "tradition" from any actual "handing on" that has happened in time?

---

I think it would be more worthwhile to revise my position on engaging in pedantic semantic games with you, and to divorce pugilism from any actual discussion that may happen here. I know that this is Hell, and verbal fisticuffs are part of what has been handed on to us here. But I'm going to abstain from that particular expression of the nautical tradition, at least for now.

---

 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:
But I'm going to abstain from that particular expression of the nautical tradition, at least for now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
[x-post ]
Aw, Pxy_e. You're just sore because in the Ship "Big Bang Theory" panto Ingo got cast as Sheldon and you had to settle for Howard.

I'm perfectly content playing Howard's mother, by the way: if the face fits... Needing any polo-necks laundered?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Returning however to the actual question that was asked by me: Have the Orthodox clarified what the Holy Spirit really meant when teaching the ancients about marriage, by virtue of being inspired again by the Holy Spirit, or did the Holy Spirit come up with something new there and inspire a more recent crop of Orthodox overrule the older one? What is the modus operandi of the Holy Spirit in the Orthodox Church, in your opinion? What kind of change has happened there, in your opinion?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
Of course, YMMV.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
[x-post ]
Aw, Pxy_e. You're just sore because in the Ship "Big Bang Theory" panto Ingo got cast as Sheldon and you had to settle for Howard.

I'm perfectly content playing Howard's mother, by the way: if the face fits... Needing any polo-necks laundered?

---

Ingo is Sheldon? Oh, you mean the arrogance? The lack of ability to concede even when absolutely wrong? The lack of social skills?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Also-- The fact that this thread is n Hell allows me to observe that the current as de deux between Josephine and IngoB has a certain Godzilla V Mothra quality...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
Of course, YMMV.

---

Indeed. I'm interested in Josephine's attitude to tradition as such, whereas you should be interested because it delivers a result that you reject. Be that as it may, she made her tradition on-topic here, and so it remains for now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Once we have clarified how Orthodoxy can change, because it has in the case of marriage, we can discuss whether and how it should change, in case of ordination.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
With IngoB, EVERY discussion with the Orthodox is about the Great Schism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
With IngoB, EVERY discussion with the Orthodox is about the Great Schism.

---

Some people just can't bring themselves to say sorry. They have to drag it out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Once we have clarified how Orthodoxy can change, because it has in the case of marriage, we can discuss whether and how it should change, in case of ordination.

---

When I want to appoint a spokesperson for the position in favour of the ordination of women, Ingo, I'm pretty bloody sure it won't be you I'm calling on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
MT, I double-dare you to walk into your local ecumenical gathering wearing a t-shirt with that on it.

---

 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:
Whether my understanding of Tradition is on topic here is immaterial. I won't be engaging in a discussion of the subject with you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
IngoB probably wants a ban on married Orthodox priests, for a start.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Obviously. Starting with a grand heresy rarely works. Inject a small falsehood in a crucial place, and then let it grow. That has always been the most successful tactic.

---

I know I'm about a page late, but...there's a Filioque joke to be made in here somewhere.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Kelly--

Are you saying that Josephine is playing Mothra?

I always liked Mothra's little priestesses.

 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Oh, I am totally gonna let them duke it out as to who's playing who. My job is to stay out of the way and avoid huge, crashing feet.
 

---

Posted by Keromaru (# 15757) on :
 
One thing to bear in mind:

In the movies, when Godzilla fights Mothra, he usually loses.

[ 06. January 2013, 04:38: Message edited by: Keromaru ]
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
With IngoB, EVERY discussion with the Orthodox is about the Great Schism.

---

Some people just can't bring themselves to say sorry. They have to drag it out.

---

Psshht. What's 950 years between friends?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Oh, I am totally gonna let them duke it out as to who's playing who. My job is to stay out of the way and avoid huge, crashing feet.

---

Have you not seen the trailer for Pacific Rim? Suit up!
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Oh, that's a big old hoot to someone who actually LIVES along the Pacific Rim.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Does that mean you have a big robot suit?
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
I was going to audition for the part of Amy Farrah Fowler, but given that IngoB has been cast as Sheldon and Pyx_e as Howard, I'm working on perfecting Bernadette's voice.

[ 06. January 2013, 19:49: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 

---

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
But who plays Leonard? (I notice absolutely nobody has been put forward as Penny. Maybe Sergius-Melli would oblige?)
 

---

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :
 
Dammit, now you've got me picturing Ender's.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Okay, so has anyone got anything left to say that's at least vaguely connected to the original topic at hand?

Start saying it, or the thread gets thrown away as a useless piece of junk.

Frankly, right now I'd settle for something that would look good in Dead Horses, rather than this... Circus/Heaven "which Japanese monster or Big Bang Theory character are you" kind of thing you've got going.

orfeo
Hellhost
 

---

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And yet you've already stated that you have no empathy for those who honestly believe in apartheid, regardless of their theological justifications for that belief.

---

Because as I said above, the Church has never taught that slavery and apartheid are integral to the maintanance of Catholicity nor the safe-guarding of the validity of the Sacraments, yet (putting aside right and wrong) for almost two thousand years the Church believed that the O&CoW would have put said things in danger.

As I said further the two examples of slavery and apartheid resulted in a complete failure to love one another in a societal aspect doing real physical and mental harm to people who should have been treated with societal freedom and love.

Maybe it seems illogical to you, but to me with my circumstances and life story it does not...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
But who plays Leonard? (I notice absolutely nobody has been put forward as Penny. Maybe Sergius-Melli would oblige?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
How's your empathy for anti-semites who are thelogicaly inspired?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
ISTM, the "theological basis" is picking which bits one thinks is important and interpreting them to fit ones intent or bias. Much like the sons of Ham nonsense.


Pedantic note: Empathy is feeling what another feels. Perhaps you mean sympathy?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
These extremists were so intent on NOT providing space for those who cannot in good conscience accept the ministry of women bishops that they were prepared to shoot down the whole thing over that issue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
To compare feminists to Nazis is also absurd, and in fact, stupid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
you keep repeating the big lie in the hope that people will believe it. Remind me who else used that tactic?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
I, for one, think "feminazi" is quite an appropriate term for the most extreme of the advocates of Women Bishops in the CofE. These extremists were so intent on NOT providing space for those who cannot in good conscience accept the ministry of women bishops that they were prepared to shoot down the whole thing over that issue. They not only wanted women bishops; they also wanted traditionalists to be made to kiss their rings, or else.

It's sad that the ship has become such an echo chamber that someone appropriately labeling such behavior is beaten up and threatened with banning.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
These extremists were so intent on NOT providing space for those who cannot in good conscience accept the ministry of women bishops that they were prepared to shoot down the whole thing over that issue.

---

Did they, though? Did they actually do that, or did they pragmatically vote for what was on offer?

Alternatively, you keep repeating the big lie in the hope that people will believe it. Remind me who else used that tactic?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Caissa:
"Feminazi" is acompletely offensive term whenever it is used.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Caissa:
"Feminazi" is acompletely offensive term whenever it is used.

---

Those who want open season on unborn children and on traditional orthodox Christians are offensive to me. The term fits such all too well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anoesis:

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Caissa:
"Feminazi" is acompletely offensive term whenever it is used.

---

Those who want open season on unborn children and on traditional orthodox Christians are offensive to me. The term fits such all too well.

---

I have no dog in this fight, really, but I'm struggling to see what the relationship is supposed to be between those who want to wage war on the unborn and those who want to move forward with the consecration of women. Or are you just wildly flinging shit in the hope that some of it will stick?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
To compare feminists to Nazis is also absurd, and in fact, stupid.

---

But apparently it's just fine to compare individual fellow posters to Nazis:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
you keep repeating the big lie in the hope that people will believe it. Remind me who else used that tactic?

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anoesis:
Or are you just wildly flinging shit in the hope that some of it will stick?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:

---

Originally posted by anoesis:

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Caissa:
"Feminazi" is acompletely offensive term whenever it is used.

---

Those who want open season on unborn children and on traditional orthodox Christians are offensive to me. The term fits such all too well.

---

I have no dog in this fight, really, but I'm struggling to see what the relationship is supposed to be between those who want to wage war on the unborn and those who want to move forward with the consecration of women. Or are you just wildly flinging shit in the hope that some of it will stick?

---

That's the crux of the problem of using a term like Feminazi. It's not clear eg, to use Punk The Pious's own example what it is he actually thinks a 'feminazi' is. Is she - or he - a feminazi because they want women bishops, or because they want women bishops at any price, or because they want women bishops at any price including abortion-on-demand and the full-scale humiliation of 'traditional' Christians (however 'traditional' is to be defined)? Sounds pretty mixed up and vague to me.

Surely for a word to be useful, doesn't it have to have a real meaning?

Now, used self-deprecatingly in a humourous context, I can see it used as a jest. As an insult, I don't see why it's any worse or better than any other insult. I'm kind of with Chesterbelloc on that. But as an actual reference for a debate, surely valueless.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by anoesis:
Or are you just wildly flinging shit in the hope that some of it will stick?

---

bing bing bing We have a Winner!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
To compare feminists to Nazis is also absurd, and in fact, stupid.

---

But apparently it's just fine to compare individual fellow posters to Nazis:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
you keep repeating the big lie in the hope that people will believe it. Remind me who else used that tactic?

---

---

When you say, it's just fine, I'm assuming and hoping that you are not referring to my opinion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
To compare feminists to Nazis is also absurd, and in fact, stupid.

---

But apparently it's just fine to compare individual fellow posters to Nazis:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
you keep repeating the big lie in the hope that people will believe it. Remind me who else used that tactic?

---

---

When you say, it's just fine, I'm assuming and hoping that you are not referring to my opinion.

---

Rest assured, quetzalcoatl - I am not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Did they, though? Did they actually do that, or did they pragmatically vote for what was on offer?

Alternatively, you keep repeating the big lie in the hope that people will believe it. Remind me who else used that tactic?

---

It is well known and was widely reported that the reason the Women Bishops legislation was pulled back in the Spring was that the feminazis were prepared to vote it down due to the provisions for traditionalists proposed at that time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Caissa:
"Feminazi" is acompletely offensive term whenever it is used.

---

Those who want open season on unborn children and on traditional orthodox Christians are offensive to me. The term fits such all too well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Aww. Diddums. Anyone'd think from this that comparing one group of people wholesale to Nazis was somehow, you know, really offensive.

I have another word for you: hypocrite.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
I, for one, think "feminazi" is quite an appropriate term for the most extreme of the advocates of Women Bishops in the CofE.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
To compare feminists to Nazis is also absurd, and in fact, stupid.

---

But apparently it's just fine to compare individual fellow posters to Nazis:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
you keep repeating the big lie in the hope that people will believe it. Remind me who else used that tactic?

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Aww. Diddums. Anyone'd think from this that comparing one group of people wholesale to Nazis was somehow, you know, really offensive.

---

Last time I checked, nobody got put on a fucking train to rural Poland because they argued against woman bishops.

I guess for some people, hearing another's opinion stated publicly is exactly that harrowing.


[ 09. January 2013, 06:23: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Caissa:
"Feminazi" is acompletely offensive term whenever it is used.

---

Those who want open season on unborn children and on traditional orthodox Christians are offensive to me. The term fits such all too well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
To compare feminists to Nazis is also absurd, and in fact, stupid.

---

But apparently it's just fine to compare individual fellow posters to Nazis:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
you keep repeating the big lie in the hope that people will believe it. Remind me who else used that tactic?

---

---

In Hell, it's perfectly fine. We don't require commonsense around here.
orfeo
Hellhost

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
PS Nor do we require quetzalcoatl to answer for the posts of Doc Tor.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
That's good to know, but I wasn't actually questioning whether it broke Hell guidelines.

---

The POINT, Sir, is that it broke the guidelines of elsewhere.

When people create a Hell call, it's because someone said something bad somewhere other than Hell. And in this particular case, the wielder of the term 'Feminazi' was even told by an admin that he had overstepped.

I would have thought that this part of the exchange made it pretty clear that saying the same thing in Hell would not have created the same issues.

I was trying to convey to you that whining about nasty insults in Hell was about as sensible as complaining that you didn't expect to get wet at the swimming pool.
 

---

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
And it's so traditionally Christian to use ugly and offensive names to refer to one's opponents, just as our Lord Jesus taught us to do. "Call them 'raca,'" He said. "They fucking deserve it, don't they?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Ooh look. Six pages later and he shows up.

---

Seeing that the arguments that I would want to make were being presented perfectly well, I had the sense to keep my mouth shut, not feeling the need to talk for the sake of talking.
 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Ooh look. Six pages later and he shows up.

---

Seeing that the arguments that I would want to make were being presented perfectly well, I had the sense to keep my mouth shut, not feeling the need to talk for the sake of talking.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
... I actually agree that it's none-too-clever to label feminists Nazis. ...

---

Boy, that's real big of you.
 

---

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
I note that all the proof-texts ES uses to justify his name calling are actually characterizations of the sins various groups have committed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
I note that all the proof-texts ES uses to justify his name calling are actually characterizations of the sins various groups have committed. None of them make pleasant reading, true, but none of them involve obviously exaggerated comparisons with some great evil committed elsewhere. So I can't get a precedent for the term feminazi out of them.

But I'm taking it all too seriously, aren't I.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl:
Christians tread dangerously when they . . . try to justify anything by proof texting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Ooh look. Six pages later and he shows up.

---

Seeing that the arguments that I would want to make were being presented perfectly well, I had the sense to keep my mouth shut, not feeling the need to talk for the sake of talking.

---

Nope. Not good enough. You used the word. You justify it. Coward.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl:
Christians tread dangerously when they . . . try to justify anything by proof texting.

---

Fixed that for you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Why waste my time duplicating someone else's efforts? For the record noone actually bothered to tell me the thread had been posted in Hell, and by the time I wandered by - I do have other things to do with my life - it was humming along happily. Hell threads are best when one person does the fighting, so it seemed best to leave it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Luke 13:31, 32
31 At that time some Pharisees came to Jesus and said to him, “Leave this place and go somewhere else. Herod wants to kill you.” He replied, “Go tell that fox, ‘I will keep on driving out demons and healing people today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will reach my goal.’

doesn't provide that wriggle room.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Why waste my time duplicating someone else's efforts? For the record noone actually bothered to tell me the thread had been posted in Hell, and by the time I wandered by - I do have other things to do with my life - it was humming along happily. Hell threads are best when one person does the fighting, so it seemed best to leave it.

---

Yes, because a thread in Hell with 'feminazi' in the title was hidden away on the third page. The one person who needed to be here was you. You chose not to be, which shows the content of your character.

You can, of course, redeem your earlier act of cowardice, and explain yourself now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl:
Christians tread dangerously when they . . . try to justify anything by proof texting.

---

Fixed that for you.

---

There's a role for proof texting, and there's a time when it's a bad idea. It's totally legitimate where someone offers a hypothesis about how God is revealed in the bible that is demonstrably torpedoed by a clear counter example; this is what Mousethief seemed to be doing in HIS prooftexting by referring to 'raca'. I was seeking to put his comment up against how Jesus and the early church were willing to use insults. Whilst the usage by Jesus in that case may be a simile,

Luke 13:31, 32
31 At that time some Pharisees came to Jesus and said to him, “Leave this place and go somewhere else. Herod wants to kill you.” He replied, “Go tell that fox, ‘I will keep on driving out demons and healing people today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will reach my goal.’

doesn't provide that wriggle room.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
I stand by my earlier comments; the defence offered especially by Sergius-M has made the points I would want to make. You go and find them. And I repeat - for at least 24 hours I was unaware of the existence of the thread, since I wasn't looking in Hell for threads - by which time it was going fine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
As the author of Luke makes clear in his very first verse, this is not an eyewitness account. Most scholars agree that the earliest Luke could have been recorded is about 90 CE. (Mark, the earliest gospel, was apparently written probably around 70 CE.)

---

Um, no we (scholars) don't. (For clarification, I'm an MA Theology student who amongst other things has a paper provisionally accepted for publication on the dating of the Gospel of Luke, thus on this tiny area, I am a tiny bit of an expert) I would be rather hesitant to say that 'Most scholars agree' anything on the dating of the authorship of the Gospels. My paper suggests one thing, however I can give you half a dozen others (and three or four books) that give wildly (well, thirty years?) differences just for the authorship of Luke. And, since this is hell, it's worth pointing out that anyone that uses the phrase 'Most scholars agree' to describe anything that theologians and biblical scholars student is a prize idiot who has never met any serious theologians, because we don't agree on anything.

[ 09. January 2013, 21:32: Message edited by: MarsmanTJ ]
 

---

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
That's good to know, but I wasn't actually questioning whether it broke Hell guidelines.

---

The POINT, Sir, is that it broke the guidelines of elsewhere.

When people create a Hell call, it's because someone said something bad somewhere other than Hell. And in this particular case, the wielder of the term 'Feminazi' was even told by an admin that he had overstepped.

I would have thought that this part of the exchange made it pretty clear that saying the same thing in Hell would not have created the same issues.

I was trying to convey to you that whining about nasty insults in Hell was about as sensible as complaining that you didn't expect to get wet at the swimming pool.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
* If it was irony, it was rusty.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
* If it was irony, it was rusty.

---

Sarcasm. As evidenced by my subsequent posts. But if you felt just a little bit affronted by someone else having one of their rhetorical devices tangentially compared to something Hitler once said, imagine how folk feel being called, you know, actual Nazis.

That this point escapes you is irony. All clear now?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Organ Builder:
Perhaps when Shipmates think you live up to the same standard as Jesus, they will allow you the same opportunity to make judgmental insults without calling you to Hell for them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
No.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
No.

---

And that's about all I understood from your post.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
Um, no we (scholars) don't. (For clarification, I'm an MA Theology student who amongst other things has a paper provisionally accepted for publication on the dating of the Gospel of Luke, thus on this tiny area, I am a tiny bit of an expert)I would be rather hesitant to say that 'Most scholars agree' anything on the dating of the authorship of the Gospels.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
<<TANGENT ALERT>>

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
Um, no we (scholars) don't. (For clarification, I'm an MA Theology student who amongst other things has a paper provisionally accepted for publication on the dating of the Gospel of Luke, thus on this tiny area, I am a tiny bit of an expert)I would be rather hesitant to say that 'Most scholars agree' anything on the dating of the authorship of the Gospels.

---

Oh, well, then. An as-yet-unpublished student theologian with an opinion is among us, claiming to speak for other "scholars." Let us all bow down to your superior wisdom.

Did you comprehend the source material for your paper the way you comprehended my post? Way to miss points.

Let me make this simple: ES used an alleged exact quote from the Luke as "proof" that Jesus called people names.

Regardless of dating, Luke's author makes clear his gospel is not an eyewitness account. Rather, it was set down in writing long after the events it purports to relate.

The likelihood of any gospel faithfully replicating Jesus's exact words throughout is at best negligible. Actual eyewitness accounts of modern events differ wildly. Memories morph and fade over time. Perceptions of events are influenced by emotions. And on and on. Therefore, using an alleged "exact quote" from a gospel written long after the events allegedly being recorded to support the idea that Jesus called people names is nonsense.

<<END TANGENT>>

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
No.

---

And that's about all I understood from your post.

---

Then I'll try to keep this one really simple. Who were you calling a hypocrite?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Calling people Nazis is dumb unless they're actually behaving like Nazis.

---

Exactly!
 

---

Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
"Feminazi" – "someone who would herd you onto a train to go to an Indigo Girls concert."

John Stewart
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 


Except that would only bring you closer to fine, so it still doesn't apply.
 

---

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by art dunce:
"Feminazi" – "someone who would herd you onto a train to go to an Indigo Girls concert."

John Stewart

---

 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Also, I am convinced Stewart is a lurker. He just covers too many of our pet topics.
 

---

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
Maybe Stewart is a poster.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Seems to me that you are calling St. Luke a liar who invented things to fill out his account of the Gospel...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
. . . Jesus probably said something pretty damn close to it...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I totally believe Jesus called Herod a fox.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I was calling anyone who insults someone and gets offended by that same insult a hypocrite. If you think that might apply to you, knock yourself out.

---

quote:

---

Aww. Diddums. Anyone'd think from this that comparing one group of people wholesale to Nazis was somehow, you know, really offensive.

I have another word for you: hypocrite.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
And before we get into the inevitable "you did it too", there is such a thing as using an example as a rhetorical advice. Calling people Nazis is dumb unless they're actually behaving like Nazis.

---

quote:

---

These extremists were so intent on NOT providing space for those who cannot in good conscience accept the ministry of women bishops that they were prepared to shoot down the whole thing over that issue. They not only wanted women bishops; they also wanted traditionalists to be made to kiss their rings, or else.

---

quote:

---

It is well known and was widely reported that the reason the Women Bishops legislation was pulled back in the Spring was that the feminazis were prepared to vote it down due to the provisions for traditionalists proposed at that time.

---

quote:

---

I'll take that as a "no" then.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
You think the second way of putting it, using "feminazi," was less inflammatory?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
You think the second way of putting it, using "feminazi," was less inflammatory?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:

ES, however, was claiming that a quotation attributed to Jesus in the gospel of Luke proved that Jesus called people nasty names.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
...

---

Even though this is Hell, the notion that staunch proponents of women bishops voted against the measure in synod still needs citations, or it's just a loudly repeated assertion. Neither you or St Punk have enough credit in the bank to make me take you at your word.

Also, I know how Hell works, you bumptious buffoon. It's a damn sight easier to understand than why you've got your panties jammed tight into your buttcrack.
 

---

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
You think the second way of putting it, using "feminazi," was less inflammatory?

---

What A.R. said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
...

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Even though this is Hell, the notion that staunch proponents of women bishops voted against the measure in synod still needs citations, or it's just a loudly repeated assertion. Neither you or St Punk have enough credit in the bank to make me take you at your word.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Also, I know how Hell works, you bumptious buffoon. It's a damn sight easier to understand than why you've got your panties jammed tight into your buttcrack.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
You think the second way of putting it, using "feminazi," was less inflammatory?

---

What A.R. said.

---

That word aside (obviously) yes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
You think the second way of putting it, using "feminazi," was less inflammatory?

---

What A.R. said.

---

That word aside (obviously) yes.

---

But that word is not aside.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
...

---

---

Devastating.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Even though this is Hell, the notion that staunch proponents of women bishops voted against the measure in synod still needs citations, or it's just a loudly repeated assertion. Neither you or St Punk have enough credit in the bank to make me take you at your word.

---

Come off it, Doc - the evidence is all over the net! You could start here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Come off it, Doc - the evidence is all over the net! You could start here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
You think the second way of putting it, using "feminazi," was less inflammatory?

---

What A.R. said.

---

That word aside (obviously) yes.

---

But that word is not aside.

---

Well, it's not an aside - I never said it was. But maybe it wasn't less inflammatory. Oh well. Since it was never my intention to fly in to defend anyone's use of that term in the first place, I'm happy to leave that there.

---

quote:

---

The BBC news item linked there doesn't talk about that at all.

---

quote:

---

It is well known and was widely reported that the reason the Women Bishops legislation was pulled back in the Spring was that the feminazis were prepared to vote it down due to the provisions for traditionalists proposed at that time.

---

quote:

---

Legislation as it stands would allow traditionalist parishes to have the right of access to an alternative male bishop - one who would intervene in the diocese of a woman bishop only at her discretion.

The amendment aimed to define the alternative bishops' authority in such a way that it did not derive from that of the woman diocesan bishop.

A number of speakers at the General Synod including Rt Rev Michael Perham, the Bishop of Gloucester, said they were opposed to such changes.

He warned that the Church could face the prospect of campaigners in favour of women bishops unable to vote for final approval of the legislation in July if it were amended in the way proposed by the Manchester Diocesan Synod.
"The worst possible outcome would be for the legislation to go down at final approval and that would be a disaster," he said.

---

quote:

---

if the amendment to clause 5 is not withdrawn, the amended measure is in very serious danger of being voted down by those who support women bishops

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Find me a quote from one of the synod proponents that says they'd vote against the motion as was extant in the spring.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Looking at the WATCH website (probably your very definition of feminazis)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
they were entirely in favour of the motion up to May 22, when the House of Bishops unilaterally amended the motion. Which incidentally satisfied no one, including Reform et al.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
After consulting with their members, which isn't a very national socialist thing to do,[ ] they issued a release on 11th June saying that

quote:

---

if the amendment to clause 5 is not withdrawn, the amended measure is in very serious danger of being voted down by those who support women bishops

---

.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So, to conclude. In the spring of 2012, the chief and most vocal proponents of women bishops, WATCH, were entirely for the motion as tabled, the motion that had been passed by the vast majority of diocesan synods in the CofE.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
The issue here is what St Punk actually said and whether, as you claimed, it was worthy of comparison to Hitler.

---

quote:

---

Remind me who else used that tactic?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
I, for one, think "feminazi" is quite an appropriate term for the most extreme of the advocates of Women Bishops in the CofE.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
These extremists were so intent on NOT providing space for those who cannot in good conscience accept the ministry of women bishops that they were prepared to shoot down the whole thing over that issue. They not only wanted women bishops; they also wanted traditionalists to be made to kiss their rings, or else.

---

quote:

---

These extremists were so intent on NOT providing space for those who cannot in good conscience accept the ministry of women bishops that they were prepared to shoot down the whole thing over that issue.

---

quote:

---

It is well known and was widely reported that the reason the Women Bishops legislation was pulled back in the Spring was that the feminazis were prepared to vote it down due to the provisions for traditionalists proposed at that time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I'm not going all over this again, Doc Tor. The actual evidence to settle the question is a matter of public record. I've put my case for Punk's statement being at least arguable and I stick to that.

I'm going right back to why I posted - and how I now wish I hadn't - in the first place. The entirety of my original point was to point out your laughable inconsistency in calling some one Hitlerian (because of their take on the women bishops debate) on the very thread you started to complain about someone else comparing feminists to Nazis (because of their take on the women bishops debate). That you're prepared to wheedle and cavill and avoid the straight questions put to you about it shows that if anyone is a "hypocrite" on this thread, you're a pretty strong contender yourself.

Please feel free to have the last word.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Please feel free to have the last word.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
The entirety of my original point was to point out your laughable inconsistency in calling some one Hitlerian (because of their take on the women bishops debate) on the very thread you started to complain about someone else comparing feminists to Nazis (because of their take on the women bishops debate).

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0