|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Priestly genitalia [Ordination of Women]
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
After all, it is pretty hard to believe that the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church if she gets it wrong on a core issue for nearly two millennia.
So something like the Church (metaphorically) waking up one day and saying "Whoopsy-daisy! It turns out that 'helping' heretics to confess and repent by applying torture is wrong" would throw the whole enterprise into question? Good to know. Or is dealing with heresy not a "core issue"?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
To be blunt, I find it hard to believe that the ordination of women can be regarded as a "core issue". Really? Is this really why Jesus came? To tell us not to let people without willies anywhere near an altar? I must have missed that one. Is it in the Gospel of St. Misogynist?
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Obviously I don't buy those reasons for the simple reason that it doesn't make sense that he would hold back on that one issue. It would make our Lord a hypocrite.
He was as inclusive of women in His ministry as was possible within the culture at that time. What you believe is that our Lord intended to start a church that was radically inclusive, where the first are last and last first - and then entrench practices that would eventually lead to the exact opposite.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Poor Junia was turned into a man to hide any suggestion that a woman in the early church might have been an Apostle.
FWIW, this is entirely inaccurate. The confusion over gender arises because until the 9thC the relevant accent that would have distinguished a female from a male name in Greek was not written down in the manuscripts. Usage among the Church fathers actually points to a female name. Furthermore, the most likely translation - likely by a comparative search of Greek literature from that period - is not (as most bibles currently have it) that Junia/s was an apostle, but rather that Junia/s was known to the apostles. See here for an extensive discussion.
If you read my comment, I don't say she was an Apostle. I say her gender was changed to hide any suggestion that a woman might be an Apostle. Telling that you read it in the first way.
I am aware the Church Fathers knew she was a woman. They also knew Mary Magdalene wasn't a prostitute. I'm rather obviously suggesting that the Ancient Faith was inclusive of women in higher roles and that your beloved RCC has subverted and suppressed this.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
To be blunt, I find it hard to believe that the ordination of women can be regarded as a "core issue". Really?
Yes, because at the heart of it is the question of when something is or is not a sacrament.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
Precisely my point: your kind of unity isn't going to happen; but our ordaining women isn't the reason it isn't going to happen, and never has been. So talk of an "impairment to unity" is at best a red herring and at worst a fraud.
Like I said, you know nothing of what is talked about in the Anglican-Orthodox Joint Doctrinal Discussions, you know nothing about any official statements made, I don't think you are even interested. So you say this based on what? Oh yes, of course - you base it all on the pronouncements of other liberal-protestant shippies. Well, it must be true then....
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Do you actually think that the Logos, the Second Person of the Trinity as God wanders into the Trinitarian kitchen, sees the First Person and says "Morning, Dad"?
Well, apart from the "kitchen" existing beyond all space and time (and thus perhaps not permitting wandering into or out of, since that implies both, though the image of a kitchen does perhaps suggest the concept of creation (we're like gingerbread people, you see)), and the Son eternally beholds and communicates with the Father in an endless realm of light (would that count as "morning" in a sense if it never begins nor ends?)...
I'll get me coat. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Sorry. Had to: http://edrevets.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/gods-kitchen.jpg
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
That's not seeking unity, it's demanding acquiescence.
Er, how can any unity have any meaning if there is no unity of faith? Such is no unity at all.
But 'unity of faith' doesn't mean 'precise agreement on everything to do with Christian belief and practice', does it? I'm sure you (and your denomination) happily tolerate disagreement on many matters relating to our faith in Jesus as Lord.
Likewise, I'm not saying we don't have to agree on anything. I think I'd include fewer things than most people would in the 'things we must agree on' category but, still, all you and I are doing, Ad Orientem, is drawing the line in different places. I'm not saying 'no unity of faith is required at all'; you're not saying 'unity of faith is required on everything'.
The problem is that you seem to think of ecumenical discussion with your denomination as being all take and no give. That's just never going to work. (Mind you, it's interesting to see Mark Betts' claim that actually it doesn't happen like this.)
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I'm... baffled at this. And, I'm sorry, kind of horrified. And not about anything to do with women in the clergy or any of that, just... I find that really alien. Seriously, why would this... do this to your faith in Christ in the first place?
I know nothing about Christ but by the agency of the Church. That which I know as faith in Christ is de facto a construct of the Church. I trust that this Church has conserved sufficiently a deposit of faith that was once Divine, given by Jesus Christ. I trust that this Church has developed a faith out of this kernel which expounds and applies, grows organically but does not corrupt, this deposit of faith, thanks to the help of the Holy Spirit.
Take away this trust, and there is literally nothing left but some literature and well-meaning people in funny clothes.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So something like the Church (metaphorically) waking up one day and saying "Whoopsy-daisy! It turns out that 'helping' heretics to confess and repent by applying torture is wrong" would throw the whole enterprise into question? Good to know. Or is dealing with heresy not a "core issue"?
Indeed, it isn't. It's a matter of Church governance. And frankly, my capacity for anachronistic rage is rather limited.
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
To be blunt, I find it hard to believe that the ordination of women can be regarded as a "core issue". Really? Is this really why Jesus came? To tell us not to let people without willies anywhere near an altar? I must have missed that one. Is it in the Gospel of St. Misogynist?
Providing the sacraments is a core concern of the Church, indeed, arguably the concern. If women cannot be ordained, then attempting to ordain them will within a few generations stop all provision of priestly sacraments, because ordination is transmitted from person to person. The Church will then be dead, or at least profoundly disabled, in her spiritual function.
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
If you read my comment, I don't say she was an Apostle. I say her gender was changed to hide any suggestion that a woman might be an Apostle. Telling that you read it in the first way.
I read what you wrote, you didn't read what I wrote. The gender of this person was indeterminate, because the manuscripts that contained the name didn't have the markings that would have specified the gender. People hence were guessing the gender. Whatever their motivations, even if it was "an apostle could never be a woman", this hence cannot be considered as systematic campaign of falsification. If available evidence gives me a choice, then I have a choice. I'm not falsifying anything by making that choice.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Mark Betts
quote:
We can't be sure that knowingly receiving communion wrongly separates us from God - all we know is that we are being disobedient.
But we don't know that, in the case of women priests, because nothing has been said, either way, to forbid or to allow women to consecrate the host.
When the women priest business first became argued, I read through the entire NT to see what was said about priests.
Bear in mind that I had arrived in the CofE because my mother had been expelled, wrongly, from the local Congregational Church, by a minister who had taken upon himself powers which in that church should not have been focussed in one man. We had all been brought up with the concept of the priesthood of all believers, and the foundation text about "wherever two or three of you are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of you". I was aware that our church had been more liberal in accepting women who felt their call had been rejected in their own church - Elsie Chamberlain's name comes to mind. The local vicar was welcoming, and not over-priestly, so we felt OK in that church.
When the women priests issue arose, I was no longer there, and found that my original beliefs were not happy to submit to the vision of priesthood being put forth. I found, in my reading, that there were only two uses of the idea of priest in the NT. Either all believers were priests (which is a heck of responsibility), or Jesus is the only priest.
Which is why I am now in the Quakers. Who hold that all of life is sacramental.
I found nothing to suggest that there is disobedience in involving a woman at an altar. "Do this in remembrance of me" was said. And He was sitting at a normal meal table with his friends at the time. (Unless it was a normal Passover meal table.) That is rather a strong word, when there is no mandate to say that no woman should ever do what is required to do the remembering. Only that it should be done.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
IngoB - please respond to my repeated point about Mary Magdalene. As I understand it the Eastern church never taught that she was a prostitute.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Precisely my point: your kind of unity isn't going to happen; but our ordaining women isn't the reason it isn't going to happen, and never has been. So talk of an "impairment to unity" is at best a red herring and at worst a fraud.
Like I said, you know nothing of what is talked about in the Anglican-Orthodox Joint Doctrinal Discussions, you know nothing about any official statements made, I don't think you are even interested. So you say this based on what? Oh yes, of course - you base it all on the pronouncements of other liberal-protestant shippies. Well, it must be true then....
Actually I'm reasonably familiar with the Dublin Statement, and have more or less kept up with the "postcards home" from the meetings that have happened since then. And I've also seen enough episodes of Yes Minister to recognise a stream of obfuscating diplomacy-speak when I see it.
We've had 900 years to fix the Great Schism. And are you really telling me that after all that time, the fact that in 2014 the CofE ordains women is suddenly a Really Big Deal?
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
IngoB - please respond to my repeated point about Mary Magdalene. As I understand it the Eastern church never taught that she was a prostitute.
I seriously have no idea why you consider this to be relevant here. In particular, I have no idea why you think that her case is evidence "that the Ancient Faith was inclusive of women in higher roles and that your beloved RCC has subverted and suppressed this." The fact that the Greek and Latin fathers are divided on her identity certainly appears to have made not the slightest difference at all to the structure of the priestly hierarchy. Or are you going to tell me now that the Eastern Orthodox are traditionally more inclusive of women in the hierarchy? If at all it is the other way around... (In the West I have heard of powerful abbesses governing both monks and nuns and directly answering only to the pope, for example. I know of nothing comparable from the East. Though admittedly I know little of the East.)
But anyway, the scriptural argument that connects the the "sinner" of Luke 7:36-50, the sister of Martha and Lazarus, and Mary Magdalen is repeated here. It has of course now fallen out of fashion, but I wouldn't exactly call it ludicrous. More useful information on the historical development and current status is collected here.
The idea that this (likely?) case of misidentification was particularly significant for the suppression of women is odd, since without any doubt the most significant event that popularised the notion in the West were the homilies of Pope Gregory the Great in about 591 AD. By then the ship of women in the hierarchy had well and truly sailed, if there ever was one.
It should also be noted that the honorific "apostle of the apostles" is Latin in origin, and indeed mostly found in the Latin medieval literature, e.g., in Bernard of Clairvaux (see the corresponding section in Wikipedia). That hence mostly happened after the "composite sinful Mary" had been accepted.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
@IngoB: I've thought about it, and I finally get it. Your god is the Aristotlean first mover. He just sits there, thinking the world into existence, unchangeable. He doesn't really do anything, because time doesn't move for him. He's bound by all kinds of things, especially by logic.
I can understand now that it doesn't make sense to apply morals to him.
I see the origin of our dispute. We believe in different gods.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Yeah, it probably won't and I'll be throwing in the towel again. I just couldn't resist.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Your god is the Aristotlean first mover.
He certainly subsumes the metaphysical God.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
He just sits there, thinking the world into existence, unchangeable.
He is unchangeable but not inactive, as should be clear from the label "First Mover" or indeed from "thinking the world into existence".
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
He doesn't really do anything, because time doesn't move for him.
Time doesn't move for Him because He is "actus purus" (pure act), with no potentiality, because all He does and Is is actualised in a single eternal "instant". It's more Big Bang than stone.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
He's bound by all kinds of things, especially by logic.
He is bound by nothing but Himself. We know that He cannot do certain things, but because what He has created has certain structures and our minds are capable of recognising and analysing them (for example with logic). For example, He cannot create a square (Euclidean) circle. But that's not because some external law dictates this to Him. It is because He created circles precisely with a nature that is not square, and our minds are capable of recognising this. The logical law of noncontradiction is simply a reflection in human minds of God's prefect creative act, which can have no "internal faults".
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I can understand now that it doesn't make sense to apply morals to him.
That's a welcome development.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I see the origin of our dispute. We believe in different gods.
I agree. You believe in a Christian kind of demiurge, I believe in a Christian kind of Uncaused Cause.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
IngoB: That's a welcome development.
Now we're getting somewhere. I guess I was inspired this morning
Let me just state again for the record that I reject your god. I also apologize for thinking what you believe in is an image of God. I was wrong. What you believe in isn't God at all.
quote:
IngoB: You believe in a Christian kind of demiurge
I'm a bit puzzled how you can conclude that, since I haven't said much about what I believe in.
But I looked up on Wikipedia what a demiurge is. I don't think I believe in a demiurge, God is bigger than that. I like some aspects of the demiurge though, especially the artisan part of it. Yes, I believe God can be a bit of an artisan at times.
quote:
IngoB: He is bound by nothing but Himself. We know that He cannot do certain things, but because what He has created has certain structures and our minds are capable of recognising and analysing them (for example with logic).
Just to be sure here. Could he have created a different structure?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
He is bound by nothing but Himself. We know that He cannot do certain things, but because what He has created has certain structures and our minds are capable of recognising and analysing them (for example with logic). For example, He cannot create a square (Euclidean) circle. But that's not because some external law dictates this to Him. It is because He created circles precisely with a nature that is not square, and our minds are capable of recognising this. The logical law of noncontradiction is simply a reflection in human minds of God's prefect creative act, which can have no "internal faults".
Nor can He create water that is not wet, because he has made the distribution of the electrons in hydrogen and oxygen in such a way that in the compound they are ready to cling to other substances. For another, logical, example.
So where is the logical, non-contradictory reason for that tiny bit of genetic material which women have and men lack making women incapable of consecrating the sacraments?
Is there some factor present on the X chromosome which, when present in duplicate, just shuts that capability off?
Because, apart from that little bit of extra material, women have identical inheritance to that in men. We even produce testosterone, as well, you know. Just not as much.
I really don't get the logic. The distinction simply is not of the same order as the square circle.
(Some time ago I gave up reading Andrew Lang and Rider Haggard, because of a passage in "The World's Desire" in which an Egyptian potter explained to his wife that no woman could understand what it was that drew men to hear Helen sing. This was expressed as if it were the philosophy she sang of, and not more obvious stuff which while not experienced by women could be deduced. After rereading several times, and considering that, measured against my IQ*, most of the male readers were functioning at a less effective level, I decided that L and H were writing without any understanding of what women could or could not understand, and that their writings were thus without value. (There are male behaviours which I can't understand, exhibited in only some men, but they were irrelevant in that case.) I keep coming up against the same sort of thing as that book in this argument. I just can't accept that it is logical. Traditional, yes, but logical, no.)
*I'd just tested it at the time - I'm not sure that the ability to do IQ tests is of any value in life at all. It's certainly not something I feel I am responsible for, it's like eye colour as far as I'm concerned. But back then, I did feel it was an indication of my ability to interpret the written word.
[ 17. July 2014, 13:58: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
...Actually I'm reasonably familiar with the Dublin Statement, and have more or less kept up with the "postcards home" from the meetings that have happened since then. And I've also seen enough episodes of Yes Minister to recognise a stream of obfuscating diplomacy-speak when I see it.
We've had 900 years to fix the Great Schism. And are you really telling me that after all that time, the fact that in 2014 the CofE ordains women is suddenly a Really Big Deal?
OK - I'll take your word for that (although I doubt it is without a great deal of liberal-protestant bias) - so why bother to go to all the trouble of having the discussions at all?
You mention "obfuscating diplomacy speak" - so how do you know what the real intention of the talks are (despite not actually being there) and more to the point what are they?
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I think they missed one with that - instead of save 50c, it could have said SAVE Ma.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Let me just state again for the record that I reject your god. I also apologize for thinking what you believe in is an image of God. I was wrong. What you believe in isn't God at all.
For what record? What are you trying to achieve with all these rejections?
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
ust to be sure here. Could he have created a different structure?
Yes, but whatever He would create would reflect the unity and perfection of the Divine. Hence an intellectual creature born in that universe would still find that some kind of law of noncontradiction holds. Indeed, we know that such a creature would find some laws of nature in that universe, rather than chaos, because such laws are nothing but the traces of a single creative mind making all. This other world would not make the slightest sense to us, if we were somehow transported to it through some inter-cosmic gate. Indeed, we would presumably instantly fall apart as there is no reason to believe that this other place would support the existence of anything like our atoms etc. Nevertheless, we can know that it will have its own harmony, its own beauty, its own elegance. Inaccessible to us, but created by the Creator.
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Nor can He create water that is not wet, because he has made the distribution of the electrons in hydrogen and oxygen in such a way that in the compound they are ready to cling to other substances. For another, logical, example. So where is the logical, non-contradictory reason for that tiny bit of genetic material which women have and men lack making women incapable of consecrating the sacraments?
It is strange that you would ask that. For to take your example, it is like asking for a compelling reason why a substance was created that had these atomic and electronic properties. To this you have, of course, no clear answer either. You can try to come up with some hypotheses, like that such a wet substance is needed for life and that God wished to create life. But such speculations are not as compelling and can be doubted. Schematically:
God -reason?-> atomic & electronic structure -reason!-> wetness
God -reason?-> lack of sacramental ability -reason!-> no priesthood
One can of course also speculate why God may not have granted women the ability to perform certain sacramental acts. For example, He may have intended sexuality to be an important embodied symbol for certain spiritual truths. And you may find these speculations less than convincing. Fine. But you cannot compare them to the ease with which the mind concludes from water structure to water function (wetness). We also easily conclude from the absence from sacramental ability to the impossibility of being a priest. Such direct consequences are comparatively easy, the "but why?" questions are much harder.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
One can of course also speculate why God may not have granted women the ability to perform certain sacramental acts.
Why do you assume that women don't have the ability to perform certain sacramental acts? There is nothing whatever to point to the idea that they can't. They have two hands to use and lips with which to speak. As the thread title suggests - genitals are not used during the sacrament.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
We also easily conclude from the absence from sacramental ability to the impossibility of being a priest.
Isn't that a bit circular? You've concluded women can't be priests because they lack sacramental ability* and concluded that women lack sacramental ability because otherwise they could be priests.
--------------------
*And dropped your earlier pretense of uncertainty on this subject.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Providing the sacraments is a core concern of the Church, indeed, arguably the concern.
You see, I utterly reject that statement and hence all that follows from it.
Jesus simply said "do this in remembrance of me". He didn't say "This is most important thing to get 100% right." On the contrary - when he was asked what was the most important thing, we all know what he said...
"Providing the sacraments" is not a core concern of the Church - it is simply something which arises out of what really IS the core concern - loving God and loving our neighbours.
(And I really detest the phrase "providing the sacraments". They are not ours to "provide" or control.)
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
IngoB: For what record? What are you trying to achieve with all these rejections?
Try your sense of humour.
quote:
IngoB: Yes
Okay. Let's start from the beginning.
You say that god created this universe according to certain laws which reflect his divine perfection. He will follow these laws because he's unchangeable. Within this universe, he does something important whenever we celebrate the Eucharist. We don't know exactly what it is but it's bad if he doesn't do this. It may be true that —according to these rules— he won't do this when the Eucharist is officiated by a woman. So, to be on the safe side, it should only be done by men. And we shouldn't give women leadership roles in the church, because there is a danger that they would change things (like instating that women can perform the Eucharist) which could be a bad thing. We cannot say that this is morally wrong, because moral laws don't apply to god.
Am I right so far?
Question. Would it be possible for god to create another universe, let's call it univ2. Univ2 is the same as our universe. Most rules are the same, the difference is that in univ2, women can perform the Eucharist. The other rules of univ2 are adapted in the necessary ways so that they still reflect god's perfection with this change.
While we're at it, can god create another universe, univ3. Univ3 is the same as our universe, the difference is that in univ3, the Eucharist will only work if the participants hit a child until it bleeds before they take the bread and wine. The other rules of univ3 are adapted in the necessary ways so that they still reflect god's perfection with this change.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
IngoB, you (as many others have done) compare being a priest to a woman bearing a child. However, the two are very different to me. Bearing a child requires a womb & ovaries whereas priesthood requires nothing biological that a man has which a woman doesn't. What is it that means Ordination doesn't take on a woman? My experience doesn't lead me to see a gulf between men and women that means that men can do things which women can't other than a few directly related to the differences in biology (and even then the experience of trans* people call those into question)*
I reckon that about 50% of the times I've received communion, it's been celebrated by a priest who happens to be female. I have had profound experiences of God in those situations as much as when the priest has happened to be male. Admittedly as these have on the whole been Anglican Communions, IngoB wouldn't recognise them anyway. But IME God is faithful and is calling women to the priesthood.
Carys
*But other threads lead me to know that IngoB does not accept the experience of trans* people.
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
*But other threads lead me to know that IngoB does not accept the experience of trans* people.
I don't think that's quite fair. From my recollection of those discussions, Ingo has been happy to accept descriptions of the way trans people feel as accurate descriptions of the way trans people feel.
He does not accept that an XY person with a normal male body is a woman because that person says that she feels like a woman.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Why do you assume that women don't have the ability to perform certain sacramental acts? There is nothing whatever to point to the idea that they can't. They have two hands to use and lips with which to speak. As the thread title suggests - genitals are not used during the sacrament.
This question has been answered by me in this thread, several times now. Briefly to recap then: Evidence is provided by Christ being male, by all apostles being male, and by about two millennia of unbroken Church tradition of ordaining only males. Speculative reasons range from the esoteric - embodied representation of the spiritual masculinity of God - to the practical - binding males into the "feminising" influence of the Church. Actual official policy is however not based on such speculations, as attractive as one might find them (or not...), but on the need to protect the sacramental system against disastrous failure. This would occur because ordination is passed on from person to person, and invalid ordination assumed to be valid would spread essentially like a disease. Since it not know whether women can be validly ordained, it cannot be risked.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Isn't that a bit circular? You've concluded women can't be priests because they lack sacramental ability* and concluded that women lack sacramental ability because otherwise they could be priests.
As was clearly explained in the post and even visualised by a flow diagram, the reason why God did not give women sacramental ability was considered speculative or even unknown there. There was no circular loop in the post.
In reality, the ability to provide the sacraments and being a priest are so intimately linked that I doubt that they were ever really considered apart by people. But that was sort of the point of the post, really. That particular link is easy, almost trivial. Likewise the link between atomic and electronic structure and functional properties is easy (in a philosophical sense, as a problem of chemistry and physics, not so much...). What is difficult is the "but why?" question. Why would there be something that is wet? Why would there be only male priests?
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
*And dropped your earlier pretense of uncertainty on this subject.
My position has not changed, it is not clear whether women can be ordained. Though I would consider it more probable that they cannot be ordained. However, it does get tedious to constantly add little "(likely)" or "(probable)" disclaimers, and cumbersome to write all arguments in the conditional case.
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
You see, I utterly reject that statement and hence all that follows from it.
Utterly rejecting things appears to be all the rage now. Anyhow, I couldn't care less about that. Now, I can see that if you consider the sacraments to be an entirely secondary concern, then you can be rather relaxed about female ordination. The question is whether you can see that those who consider the provision of sacraments as a sine qua non for the Church cannot possibly relax about this issue. If so, then we have made progress here.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Try your sense of humour.
I'm German.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Am I right so far?
Not quite. God does not follow any laws. Laws are a way of describing what God has in fact done. Just as one might describe the strokes of the brush in van Gogh's paintings as characteristic for his works of art. That does not mean that van Gogh was consulting a rule book on proper brush technique before making the next stroke. Also, the leadership issue ultimately can be considered like the sacramental issue, if one assumes that in proposing dogma to the faithful the person also must act in the person of Christ. It is not simply an annex to the sacramental question.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Question. Would it be possible for god to create another universe, let's call it univ2. Univ2 is the same as our universe. Most rules are the same, the difference is that in univ2, women can perform the Eucharist. The other rules of univ2 are adapted in the necessary ways so that they still reflect god's perfection with this change.
Sure, that is possible. The changes could be quite drastic though, for example, they may not include an Incarnation.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
While we're at it, can god create another universe, univ3. Univ3 is the same as our universe, the difference is that in univ3, the Eucharist will only work if the participants hit a child until it bleeds before they take the bread and wine. The other rules of univ3 are adapted in the necessary ways so that they still reflect god's perfection with this change.
Sure, that is possible. In that universe then, hitting a child until it bleeds would not be an evil. That probably means that your description become pointless. Because you clearly wish to impose some evil on this ceremony, and if the beings involved change until there is no evil any longer, then you do not know any longer what the labels "child", "hit" and "bleed" mean.
Your rhetorical tactic is obvious, of course, but false. The Eucharist as it stands does not impose evil on anyone. There is no injustice, no lack of giving due, involved in it. The claim is precisely that women are not capable of providing the (priestly) sacraments. There is no right then to a job that one cannot possibly do, there is no issue of equality there at all. If you cannot do X, but Joe over there can, then you are not being discriminated against if Joe gets to do X, but you don't.
Beating a child till it bleeds is an injustice in this world, of course. But God granting supernatural powers to a person (or more precisely, honouring their natural performances with a supernatural response) is a gift. It is not a gift that anybody deserves. You might feel terribly annoyed that someone else got a gift, and you didn't. But if you didn't deserve to get anything, then you have no reason to complain. Even if there is a system to the gift giving, certain groups of undeserving people getting gifts while others do not, there still arises no claim. You simply have no right to a gift.
And why would God not require the beating of a child to perform the Eucharist? Because God has told people how it is good for them to behave, and beating children till they bleed is not part of that. He would hence be inconsistent, He would be sending mixed messages, if He suddenly required that as a regular performance of people. But God isn't inconsistent, in fact He cannot be, because all He does is one eternal act.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
Just been back and found my first post on this thread almost 13 year ago on 26th July 2001). My basic question is still the same. I recall back then there was a companion thread called 'Men and women merely different plumbing' which tackled the gender differences.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
IngoB quote:
God -reason?-> atomic & electronic structure -reason!-> wetness
God -reason?-> lack of sacramental ability -reason!-> no priesthood
But you cannot compare them to the ease with which the mind concludes from water structure to water function (wetness). We also easily conclude from the absence from sacramental ability to the impossibility of being a priest.
I don't know why I chose wetness as something other than the impossible square circle which is logical. It just arrived in my head. As an example of something where the properties can be understood by examining the substance through the techniques of science.
But the properties of the sacraments cannot be so understood. They are not susceptible to anything scientific at all. Even people's perceptions of what they receive through them cannot be trusted, since it is argued that some of those people are receiving non-sacraments. So the matters of study cannot be understood, and therefore, the properties of the persons expected to deliver them cannot be understood either. It is not logical. It is just words. Words sanctified by millenia, maybe, but words which cannot be related to anything which can be discovered in the differences between men and women.
Didn't you find it irritating when adults responded to the child you when you questioned with "because", "it just is" and so on? Your responses come over rather like that. Wrapped up in a lot more thought and consideration, but still unsatisfying.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
You see, I utterly reject that statement and hence all that follows from it.
Utterly rejecting things appears to be all the rage now. Anyhow, I couldn't care less about that. Now, I can see that if you consider the sacraments to be an entirely secondary concern, then you can be rather relaxed about female ordination. The question is whether you can see that those who consider the provision of sacraments as a sine qua non for the Church cannot possibly relax about this issue. If so, then we have made progress here.
Not really. But if it makes you happier to think so, OK.
Because you've not actually addressed the point I was making - which is that your statement about the centrality of "providing the sacraments" doesn't fit with anything you find in the gospels (or in the NT as a whole). This isn't about my personal "couldn't give a shit" attitude. It is about - to use YOUR term - what the core of being the Church really is. And hence attitudes about the appropriateness or otherwise of women priests are central - because your position, it seems to me, denies basic justice to 50% of the population and runs counter to what Jesus was all about.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
IngoB: I'm German.
That's a good one, actually.
quote:
IngoB: Not quite. God does not follow any laws. Laws are a way of describing what God has in fact done.
I'm still struggling to understand what "Yes, but whatever He would create would reflect the unity and perfection of the Divine. Hence an intellectual creature born in that universe would still find that some kind of law of noncontradiction holds" means then. What exactly makes it impossible for him to create a universe in which an intellectual creature would not find that some kind of law of noncontradiction holds?
quote:
IngoB: Sure, that is possible. The changes could be quite drastic though, for example, they may not include an Incarnation.
But in principle, they could be quite small too? In principle he could create a universe1b that's exactly like ours, with the only difference that women definitely can perform the Eucharist, and where this is even in the bible1b?
quote:
IngoB: Your rhetorical tactic is obvious, of course, but false. The Eucharist as it stands does not impose evil on anyone. There is no injustice, no lack of giving due, involved in it. The claim is precisely that women are not capable of providing the (priestly) sacraments. There is no right then to a job that one cannot possibly do, there is no issue of equality there at all. If you cannot do X, but Joe over there can, then you are not being discriminated against if Joe gets to do X, but you don't.
I got that part, don't worry.
quote:
IngoB: In that universe then, hitting a child until it bleeds would not be an evil.
Alright, let's restrict ourselves for a moment to the subset S of all hypothetically possible universes that is defined by: Each universe u in S is exactly like ours, except there may be a different rule r(u) about what makes the Eucharist valid. The rest of the rules in this universe are adapted such that it still reflects the unity and perfection of the Divine.
Does this make sense? All the universes I mentioned before are elements of S. I used the formulation "may be" to make sure that our universe is also an element. And from your previous answers I deduce that the cardinality of S is greater than 1.
What you're saying here is: "In each universe u in S, the morals will be such that r(u) won't be seen as immoral by its inhabitants. God has taught them or made them in such a way that r(u) is a good thing." Let's call this statement Ingo's Theorem.
My first question of course is: a Theorem needs a proof. Why does it have to be like this? Why can't god create a universe where you have to hit a child before the Eucharist and where this is a bad thing? But this is the equivalent of an earlier question I posed to you in this post, so I hope you already answered it.
My second question: Ingo's Theorem doesn't seem to work very well in our universe, does it? There are plenty of people who find it immoral that women can't officiate the Eucharist. The Ship is testimony to that. Their opinion is false in your view, but it is there. Yet, Ingo's Theorem says it wouldn't be.
So, what exactly causes Ingo's Theorem to fail in our universe?
And if it fails in our universe, I guess it can fail in universe3 too. So, it is possible that in that universe it is necessary to hit a child before Eucharist, but not all people think it's a good thing. For example the child.
[ 18. July 2014, 00:23: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
I could easily imagine a universe where it would be OK to hit a child before the Eucharist--say if they were intelligent insect people and you had to break the shell of the too-small exoskeleton to let the hatchling out so they could grow to the next level or something. It would be like First Communion and quincenera and breaking a pinata all at once!
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I'm... baffled at this. And, I'm sorry, kind of horrified. And not about anything to do with women in the clergy or any of that, just... I find that really alien. Seriously, why would this... do this to your faith in Christ in the first place?
I know nothing about Christ but by the agency of the Church. That which I know as faith in Christ is de facto a construct of the Church. I trust that this Church has conserved sufficiently a deposit of faith that was once Divine, given by Jesus Christ. I trust that this Church has developed a faith out of this kernel which expounds and applies, grows organically but does not corrupt, this deposit of faith, thanks to the help of the Holy Spirit.
Take away this trust, and there is literally nothing left but some literature and well-meaning people in funny clothes.
Then, in all seriousness, what do you do about the fact of millions and millions of other Christians who aren't RC all over the world who don't require the kind of absolute certainty it sounds like you need? Why wouldn't you just say, "Well, this particular approach to Christ isn't as perfect as I thought, but that doesn't invalidate Christ Himself?"
No offense meant but I'm worried about you if this is your approach. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
This is one of the oddest threads and oddest set of arguments ever! Is it not obvious that whatever was the foundation of the Roman church, at various times it has departed due to sin and folly from the path in which God ordained? We might all be unified if we hadn't had popes meddle in secular affairs, father bastard children, sell indulgences, and otherwise show their obvious venality.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Take away this trust, and there is literally nothing left but some literature and well-meaning people in funny clothes.
Tripe and nonsense.
This statement is born out of fear, not trust imo.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I seriously have no idea why you consider this to be relevant here. In particular, I have no idea why you think that her case is evidence "that the Ancient Faith was inclusive of women in higher roles and that your beloved RCC has subverted and suppressed this."
Christian scholars have now universally rejected the conflation of Mary Magdalene with the sinful woman. (Also - you might not constantly assume that if someone makes a reference, you have to educate the person who made it about the background. I know about what happened with MM and how a Pope confused her with someone else. You are not the only person on the Ship who knows about Christian history).
I see a lot of female names in the New Testament - Junia, Lydia, Phoebe, Priscilla, etc. I see that Jesus revealed Himself as risen first to women, the only disciples who actually remained faithful while the male Apostles had run off and/or betrayed Him. I see a Jesus who was asked by his Apostles "why are you talking to a woman?" when he spoke to the Samaritan at the well. I see a Jesus who constantly turned social norms on their heads, to highlight that God lives inside of each of us and that we all have the ability to overcome our human natures to achieve true greatness, which is Godliness.
The RCC has erred in matters of gender, in racism, in slavery, in the closeness between political and religious power. It has been run by men who were philanderers and abusers. It is an institution founded by God but run by men, and its mistakes - ALL of them - are from man and not God. God is not changing His mind about things. He is revealing them to us over time as we are capable of understanding them. In 1st century Palestine it was not possible to imagine women being leaders in much of anything - and yet they were leaders of house churches and patrons of the Apostles. Slave girls were prophesying in front of wealthy Romans. It was radical and shattered all man-made barriers between human beings because the Spirit allowed them to do so.
And yet today, the RCC is now more backwards than society on the role of women, even when the men who lead it have betrayed the trust of billons with their sinful actions. When the world is more inclusive and more loving than the church, it means the church has done something wrong. It means the church has on those issues lost sight of God.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Preach it, seekingsister!
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I'm not sure that the RC church holds quite as stridently to the views advanced by IngoB.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
What is it that means Ordination doesn't take on a woman?
I've discussed this quite a lot already. Ultimately, I think nobody has a definitive answer to that. However, whatever the final answer to that will be, we can be reasonably sure that two facts will feature prominently: mankind was created man and woman, but the Logos was incarnated as man.
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
I reckon that about 50% of the times I've received communion, it's been celebrated by a priest who happens to be female. I have had profound experiences of God in those situations as much as when the priest has happened to be male. Admittedly as these have on the whole been Anglican Communions, IngoB wouldn't recognise them anyway. But IME God is faithful and is calling women to the priesthood.
Actually, I have nothing to say on your experiences of God. Other than perhaps that I'm happy for you that you had them. It is a complete misunderstanding of my position to assume that I think God can be only encountered in the RCC, or even more specifically, in the Holy Eucharist. Personally, I believe I encountered God first in a Zen dojo during zazen practice. Furthermore, for all the many breathless descriptions of the Holy Eucharist one encounters in the RC literature, I often find the proceedings more something that I invest faith into, rather than receive inspiration out of.
But what I may experience or feel does not change facts. I have experiences of and feelings about reality, but my experiences and feelings do not make reality. I have for various reasons faith that Jesus Christ can be really present in the Holy Eucharist, that He generally won't be unless a a priest consecrates, and that His real presence will make a spiritual difference to my partaking. All this I consider true whatever my own experiences and feelings about it all may be. I just do not consider those as a particularly reliable guides.
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
But the properties of the sacraments cannot be so understood. They are not susceptible to anything scientific at all. Even people's perceptions of what they receive through them cannot be trusted, since it is argued that some of those people are receiving non-sacraments. So the matters of study cannot be understood, and therefore, the properties of the persons expected to deliver them cannot be understood either. It is not logical. It is just words. Words sanctified by millenia, maybe, but words which cannot be related to anything which can be discovered in the differences between men and women.
"Words sanctified by millennia" can of course be used to describe the entirety of the Christian faith. There is no "scientific" proof for any of it, if you mean by science modern empirical natural science. It is false to say that the Christian faith is not "logical", since "logical" is a question of correct reasoning and intellectual coherence, not of facts. My faith at least is very logical indeed. We can also say that there are other things than "empirical facts" that may convince us that certain matters of faith are true. I for example am convinced that certain metaphysical arguments about God are compelling, and hence find it important that the God of my faith fits with them. I also have had spiritual experiences that fit well in the Christian framework. Etc. But if you demand that I argue the matter at hand from biology, then I will just shrug my shoulders. I doubt that that is the right level of discussion, but anyhow, my position is not founded on such arguments.
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Not really. But if it makes you happier to think so, OK.
If you are either unwilling or incapable to comprehend where I am coming from, then why should I talk to you? There's a difference between understanding my position and considering it correct. If you cannot do the former, then there is no basis for discussion between us.
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Because you've not actually addressed the point I was making - which is that your statement about the centrality of "providing the sacraments" doesn't fit with anything you find in the gospels (or in the NT as a whole).
You cannot seriously expect me to argue the importance of the sacramental system from scripture now. If you really have never heard of any of it, then perhaps start with John 6 and what Jesus says there about the necessity of the Eucharist for eternal life. Furthermore, you may be aware that my Church, like the Orthodox and indeed basically all Christianity till the Reformation, does not consider the bible to be the only source of Christian faith. It may be required for your faith that all doctrine is proof-texted from the bible, it is not so for mine. At any rate, I have no real intention here to convince you of this. I am simply telling you that this is where I am coming from. For all I care you can consider this to be devil worship. But my actual point is that given where I am coming from, my reluctance about ordaining women is an entirely reasonable consequence.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I'm still struggling to understand what "Yes, but whatever He would create would reflect the unity and perfection of the Divine. Hence an intellectual creature born in that universe would still find that some kind of law of noncontradiction holds" means then. What exactly makes it impossible for him to create a universe in which an intellectual creature would not find that some kind of law of noncontradiction holds?
There are two different parts to this. First, the less certain one. We have to assume that the intellectual creature is able to grasp the world sufficiently. Otherwise they may see contradictions where in reality there are none. This is indeed a concern, but I hope you will agree that it is more a practical than a principle concern. It may well be that this actual alien sees contradictions in the world, but we can imagine a theoretical alien with an upgraded mind who can see that there is no contradiction. I have reasons to believe that the human mind is made so as to be capable to grasp all truth about this universe, at least collectively and ultimately by Divine grace in the beatific vision. That's pretty much what I consider being made in the image and likeness of God means. But even if it were not so and we would one day stumble into a situation where our mind cannot but find contradiction in the world, then this would not necessarily mean that there is a contradiction in the world. A much smarter angel, for example, may be able to understand the coherence of what puzzles us.
Second, the more certain part. Consider a machine that you construct with a certain purpose in mind, or a picture that you paint in order to capture a certain place and feeling. If these "do not work", what does that entail? Invariably it entails some failure on your part, a cog is catching an edge it shouldn't, some colour scheme is not providing the right sort of contrast, etc. One part of what you have created is "at odds" with another one, contrary to your intentions. A master engineer or a genius painter would be expected to make less errors like that. A perfect engineer or a perfect painter, none. A perfectly made machine and a perfectly painted picture entail rather different things. But the point is that what we mean with perfection in a creative process is precisely the removal of all obstacles that prevent the realisation of what the creative agent had in mind. Obviously, we consider God here as the most perfect Creator, so in His case there can be no remaining catch or fault whatsoever, creation just is a perfect realisation of intention. Perhaps our universe is the machine, and their universe is the painting, and what we would understand as the underlying harmony of operation has nothing to do with their underlying harmony of colour. But if the Creator is perfect, then some such harmony will be everywhere, simply because the realisation of an intention imposes some kind of co-ordination of things, and if it is perfect, then so is that co-ordination. This coordination furnishes some law of non-contradiction.
Or to put it on a more experiential basis: You might see a statue of Michelangelo and see its (near) perfection. You might listen to a fugue of Bach and hear its (near) perfection. But for this to happen, the structure of who Michelangelo and Bach were has to be somehow impressed into these works of art. And what we mean by great art is just that this is through and through, the entire thing is somehow infused with the artist's power, nothing is out of place for what the artists wanted to do. This world is the creation of God, whose perfection as artist is infinitely beyond the human scale. And while we may have wrecked part of his creation (the fall and all that), this is like puking on a statue of Michelangelo or switching on the vacuum cleaner when listening to Bach. This cannot remove the maker's mark, just obscure it. That is why there are natural laws. That is why logic works. That is why math can capture reality. For that matter, that is why there is a sense of beauty, of aesthetics. We are catching glimpses of the mind of the Artist, we are detecting in the realisation the intention, we are feeling the vibes of that one perfect creative act. It is a glorious thing. And if you now tell me that this Artist made something else, something really different, something I wouldn't and couldn't understand, then that may be so. But I know that somehow He will be in every part of that too, somehow there will be a coherence there that shows Him forth. For He is perfect.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Alright, let's restrict ourselves for a moment to the subset S of all hypothetically possible universes that is defined by: Each universe u in S is exactly like ours, except there may be a different rule r(u) about what makes the Eucharist valid. The rest of the rules in this universe are adapted such that it still reflects the unity and perfection of the Divine.
You description contains a self-contradiction. You say that each universe is exactly the same as ours but for one thing. And then you say that the universe will be adapted to safeguard another thing. But the latter will generally entail many additional changes. So your set of universes is most likely empty, or at least entirely uninteresting. For if the change to the Eucharist is inconsequential to the unity and perfection of the Divine, then it most likely is a trivial change that we do not need to discuss.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Why can't god create a universe where you have to hit a child before the Eucharist and where this is a bad thing?
If you want to paint a delicate picture of a flower, why can't you just dump a can of paint on the canvas? The problem here is not that you cannot dump a can of pain on canvas, or even that that cannot be art. The problem is that if you want to paint a delicate picture, then this is an inappropriate means. If you want people to unite in the ultimate loving sacrifice of God, then doing an evil thing is an inappropriate means. It's incoherent.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Ingo's Theorem doesn't seem to work very well in our universe, does it? There are plenty of people who find it immoral that women can't officiate the Eucharist. The Ship is testimony to that. Their opinion is false in your view, but it is there. Yet, Ingo's Theorem says it wouldn't be.
I have not actually stated any theorem here. And I certainly have not stated any theorem that claims that a lot of people cannot be wrong about something. Finally, I hang out on SoF to a large extent because so many people here manage to be wrong about Christianity in so many different ways.
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Then, in all seriousness, what do you do about the fact of millions and millions of other Christians who aren't RC all over the world who don't require the kind of absolute certainty it sounds like you need? Why wouldn't you just say, "Well, this particular approach to Christ isn't as perfect as I thought, but that doesn't invalidate Christ Himself?"
Why would that "invalidate Christ"?! What does that even mean? As far as all those other Christians go, I hope for their sake that John 6 was hyperbole and that the Lord will be merciful.
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Take away this trust, and there is literally nothing left but some literature and well-meaning people in funny clothes.
Tripe and nonsense.
Fair enough, the "well-meaning" was a bit of wishful thinking.
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
In 1st century Palestine it was not possible to imagine women being leaders in much of anything - and yet they were leaders of house churches and patrons of the Apostles. Slave girls were prophesying in front of wealthy Romans. It was radical and shattered all man-made barriers between human beings because the Spirit allowed them to do so.
If only Jesus Christ had been so radically inspired. But no, He remained a misogynist (*) and established a patriarchal inner circle of power composed only of men. He basically spat into the faces of all those women who were desperately trying to help His cause. Luckily the early Church ignored His horrible example and went all out female power, as you say. Too bad that in the end that male circle of power took over, and managed to redirect the Church to the original misogyny of Christ. But have no fear, now all will become better.
(*) I misspelled that "misgoynist" at first. LOL.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
*But other threads lead me to know that IngoB does not accept the experience of trans* people.
I don't think that's quite fair. From my recollection of those discussions, Ingo has been happy to accept descriptions of the way trans people feel as accurate descriptions of the way trans people feel.
He does not accept that an XY person with a normal male body is a woman because that person says that she feels like a woman.
Er, therefore he doesn't accept the experiences of trans people. Such a stance is transphobic bullshit.
Gender is a societal construct and unrelated to genitalia or other body parts.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Or tha's just what the spirit of the age wants us to think, turning boys into girls and girls into boys.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
(*) I misspelled that "misgoynist" at first. LOL.
I'm amazed, given that it's so fundamental to your world view.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
What is it that means Ordination doesn't take on a woman?
I've discussed this quite a lot already. Ultimately, I think nobody has a definitive answer to that. However, whatever the final answer to that will be, we can be reasonably sure that two facts will feature prominently: mankind was created man and woman, but the Logos was incarnated as man./quote]
But to be incarnate the Logos had to be one or the other or be incarnate twice. Male and Female are both created in God's image suggesting that the Godhead is actually beyond gender, but all to often Christian Tradition has acted as though God is male.
quote:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carys:
I reckon that about 50% of the times I've received communion, it's been celebrated by a priest who happens to be female. I have had profound experiences of God in those situations as much as when the priest has happened to be male. Admittedly as these have on the whole been Anglican Communions, IngoB wouldn't recognise them anyway. But IME God is faithful and is calling women to the priesthood.
Actually, I have nothing to say on your experiences of God. Other than perhaps that I'm happy for you that you had them. It is a complete misunderstanding of my position to assume that I think God can be only encountered in the RCC, or even more specifically, in the Holy Eucharist. Personally, I believe I encountered God first in a Zen dojo during zazen practice. Furthermore, for all the many breathless descriptions of the Holy Eucharist one encounters in the RC literature, I often find the proceedings more something that I invest faith into, rather than receive inspiration out of.
But what I may experience or feel does not change facts. I have experiences of and feelings about reality, but my experiences and feelings do not make reality. I have for various reasons faith that Jesus Christ can be really present in the Holy Eucharist, that He generally won't be unless a a priest consecrates, and that His real presence will make a spiritual difference to my partaking. All this I consider true whatever my own experiences and feelings about it all may be. I just do not consider those as a particularly reliable guides.
What I meant is that you wouldn't regard those Eucharists as being true Eucharists because the Spirit apparently gave up on us after we fell out with Rome for reasons as much political as religious in the 16th century. Yes, tradition is important but the church is made up of fallible humans and we get stuff wrong and sometimes the spirit convinces us to change things to get stuff better and that's what I believe is happening with the calling of women to priestly ministry.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
We have an excessive reliance on history sometimes, such that cultural ideas from ancient days are put forth as necessary. While it perhaps comforts those who are drawn to authority and appeals to tradition, it doesn't work specifically when it actually harms. The misogyny isn't Christian, though it is traditional. Annoyingly and sadly.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Just been back and found my first post on this thread almost 13 year ago on 26th July 2001). My basic question is still the same. I recall back then there was a companion thread called 'Men and women merely different plumbing' which tackled the gender differences.
Carys
At least, we now know why "Dead Horses" exists! Just as on the "Homosexuality and Christianity" thread, nothing in the argument changes much over the decades.
Unfortunately for the naysayers, society does change in the same time period. So the Church will become more irrelevant or else change..
I doubt that anyone thought, in 2001, that taking the position of "anti-gay" or "no OoW" would be seen as actively immoral, in the manner that is now held as a general view in public.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
... taking the position of "anti-gay" or "no OoW" would be seen as actively immoral, in the manner that is now held as a general view in public. [/QB]
I fear that, even now, being "anti-gay" is not held as actively immoral by a significant minority of the public. Sadly.
--------------------
Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
