|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Priestly genitalia [Ordination of Women]
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
agingjb: I fear that, even now, being "anti-gay" is not held as actively immoral by a significant minority of the public. Sadly.
I had to wrestle myself through the quadruple negative here, but I agree with you.
[ 18. July 2014, 19:46: 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
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
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?
I don't think it would invalidate Christ--the context of this, remember, is that you said that (unless I totally misunderstood you) if you concluded that the RC church had been mistaken on something as major as whether or not women had been properly ordained, then you'd completely give up on Christianity and look into something else, like Sufism. Given that there are millions and millions of Christians who aren't RC, and have no problem with trusting Jesus without being RC, why would you give up entirely on Christianity?
Seriously, and forgive me for being angsty about this, but ... if there was such a thing as a "call to All Saints" where one could say, "Hey, I'm worried about you" (as opposed to "calling someone to Hell" where people express anger), I'd be calling you there.
My own backstory may help explain my bafflement and concern: I became a Christian without even believing that the Scriptures or Tradition were inspired at all--I just concluded that, like any other thing written down in history, the early writers wrote what they'd experienced and perceived as best they knew, and the early people in the church tried to sort it out as best they could, and, well, that was good enough for me. I wasn't convinced of every single doctrine to the Nth degree. I picked the RC church to join on the grounds (I didn't know about Eastern Orthodoxy at the time) that everything else broke away from it, so it was the first; I was indeed baptized, had Communion, etc. It was only later that I gradually accepted both the inspiration of Scripture and the guidance of Tradition, though it was after I'd become an Episcopalian. But--and this is my point--my trusting in Jesus as the Son of God to save me from sin and Who loves me isn't dependent at all on whether I accept that inspiration of Scripture or the fine points of Tradition or all the details of theology.
If (for instance) I came to the conclusion that Apostolic Succession was all rubbish, that wouldn't stop me from trusting in this Jesus whom all of these churches are, however imperfectly, trying to follow. And I trust that He's there loving all of us even with our wrongness, various types of often confused theology, and the like.
So... um... seriously, if you stopped believing the RC church had absolutely everything right... why wouldn't the notions of the rest of Christianity be at least something you might consider looking at before chucking it all?? ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:
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.
Um. What? The context of me asking this was that, if you gave up on the RCC being absolutely correct, why you wouldn't consider joining the other Christians, but this opens a new question: I'm afraid to ask this, but I might as well just do so: What do you mean by this?
(he asked, fretfully and with trepidation)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
...Unfortunately for the naysayers, society does change in the same time period. So the Church will become more irrelevant or else change..
Have you noticed something about your church which tries to be "relevant" and keep up with the times? Hardly anyone goes anymore.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Have you noticed something about your church which tries to be "relevant" and keep up with the times? Hardly anyone goes anymore.
And of course they've all been flocking to their local Orthodox Church instead. Oh wait, they haven't.
As it happens, I'm not interested in changing anything beyond the superficial for the sake of being "relevant". I am interested in ensuring the church recognises when society has spotted an injustice, and that it takes the opportunity to assess whether its current stance is grounded in the Gospel or merely the spirit of the previous age. Ideally, of course, the church should be out in front of society, highlighting injustice before society does. Unfortunately we're not very good at that, though there have been recent successes in economic justice that started in the church. The church ought to be taking a lead now on environmental stewardship.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Have you noticed something about your church which tries to be "relevant" and keep up with the times? Hardly anyone goes anymore.
And of course they've all been flocking to their local Orthodox Church instead. Oh wait, they haven't.
... I thought Mark Betts was RC?? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
I'm new to this discussion, so forgive me.
About "the Church can't have been wrong about women's ordination for 2000 years" --- has the Church been wrong? The funny thing about the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is that you never know what it says - even the Pope doesn't know for sure what it says (can you really prove that he does?). So maybe the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium appears to have consistently rejected the possibility of the priestly ordination of women, but in fact has not. It seems to me the RCC (intentionally or not) has left itself a very convenient loophole for the time when gender relations in the global south come to resemble those currently in the global north. It could very well be the Holy Spirit making sure that the "gates of Hell do not overcome" the Church!
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
... I thought Mark Betts was RC??
Apologies if my memory is faulty, though I rather think the point stands - outside of recent immigrants they're hardly flocking to their local RC church either.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Given that there are millions and millions of Christians who aren't RC, and have no problem with trusting Jesus without being RC, why would you give up entirely on Christianity?
There are millions and millions of Buddhists, Sikhs, Muslims, Jains, and whatever else. Why would I care any more about millions of millions of Christians of any denomination, if I was doubting the validity of Christianity? The popularity of a religion has very little influence on my estimate of its truthfulness.
One significant reason why I consider RC Christianity to be a viable religion is because it has a functional system of transmitting transcendent truth from generation to generation. How to do that is a serious problem, and religions that do not have such a system have no chance of being true in the long run. (Basically, whatever truth may have been in them will disperse.) Zen Buddhism, which I practiced before becoming RC, has a functional system (different from the RC one, but coherent). Protestant Christianity doesn't have a functional system. Hence they are simply not on my radar.
If I gave up on the RCC, then there would be the Orthodox. Or perhaps the Copts and other traditional Christian groups that are functionally structured. Anyhow, in our particular case the discovery of female ordination in the early Church and its subsequent suppression would invalidate these churches just as much as the RCC. So I expect that there would be nothing left in Christianity for me to turn to. Sorry if this offends, but you asked. I simply do not consider Protestants, Anglicans, etc. as viable Christian alternative for myself.
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Seriously, and forgive me for being angsty about this, but ... if there was such a thing as a "call to All Saints" where one could say, "Hey, I'm worried about you" (as opposed to "calling someone to Hell" where people express anger), I'd be calling you there.
Thanks, I guess. But I've have held pretty much unchanging opinions concerning this for a decade, and I do not see why they would suddenly worry you. I never worry about losing my religion at all. I was never looking for Plato. I was never looking for Buddha. I was never looking for Christ. I've always pushed forward in the search of higher truth. Currently I feel strongly that this path leads to Christ. If one day I find that the path turns elsewhere, then I will follow it without regret. And if it should lead me directly into the gaping jaws of Cthulhu, then before I get devoured I will have that one instant of satisfaction: "Ah, so that is true then." And it will have been worth it.
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
But--and this is my point--my trusting in Jesus as the Son of God to save me from sin and Who loves me isn't dependent at all on whether I accept that inspiration of Scripture or the fine points of Tradition or all the details of theology.
And now you want a cookie from me, or something? Look, I'm happy for you that whatever it is that gives you trust in whatever you trust is so reliably giving you trust. All the best, and steady on. But I'm afraid that really is the sum total of my interest in how well you are doing on that trust thing. I certainly don't find Christ more trustworthy just because you do. Unless perhaps there is some special reason why you could be a more reliable source of information than the many millions and millions of people that clearly must be wrong about religion (because they contradict each other). And that gets us right back to the question of how transcendental truth might be passed on.
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
If (for instance) I came to the conclusion that Apostolic Succession was all rubbish, that wouldn't stop me from trusting in this Jesus whom all of these churches are, however imperfectly, trying to follow.
And I'm sure your faith will be reckoned onto you. If, that is, you were right. If the Buddhist carry the day, then the karma of your dumb stubbornness might cause you to be reborn as a mule.
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
So... um... seriously, if you stopped believing the RC church had absolutely everything right... why wouldn't the notions of the rest of Christianity be at least something you might consider looking at before chucking it all??
I don't believe that the RCC has absolutely everything right, and that is not a claim the RCC makes. But anyway, in Christianity the only options I consider viable are the RCC, the Eastern Orthodox, and possibly some Oriental Churches (about whom, I have to admit, I know far too little). So if something knocks out these viable Churches, then it's game over Christianity as far as I am concerned.
And no, I'm not saying that there is no truth among the Protestants, or no works of charity, or no connection to God, or no salvation, etc. What I am saying is that the one and only reason I currently assume that those are present in these churches as well, is because of their similarity to the Churches I consider viable. Their worth is derived for me - so if the real thing falls, then the imperfect copies will fall, too.
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I'm afraid to ask this, but I might as well just do so: What do you mean by this? (he asked, fretfully and with trepidation)
If we think that Jesus speaks plainly in John 6, then all who have not partaken in a properly consecrated Eucharist will go to hell: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."
That would include a large number of Christians indeed, in my opinion. Hence let us hope that the Lord is using hyperbole here and will be merciful. But one should not put God to the test.
--------------------
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
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
There are millions and millions of Buddhists, Sikhs, Muslims, Jains, and whatever else. Why would I care any more about millions of millions of Christians of any denomination, if I was doubting the validity of Christianity?
Well, because we were talking not about the validity of all of Christianity but of the RCC.
quote:
One significant reason why I consider RC Christianity to be a viable religion is because it has a functional system of transmitting transcendent truth from generation to generation. How to do that is a serious problem, and religions that do not have such a system have no chance of being true in the long run. (Basically, whatever truth may have been in them will disperse.)
This seems to assume that transcendent truth must be old in order to be true--and also that God cannot continue to be active over time. That there has to be an Earthly system in place or He can't keep working with us to understand Him better.
This does explain some of the stuff above, though.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Seriously, and forgive me for being angsty about this, but ... if there was such a thing as a "call to All Saints" where one could say, "Hey, I'm worried about you" (as opposed to "calling someone to Hell" where people express anger), I'd be calling you there.
Thanks, I guess. But I've have held pretty much unchanging opinions concerning this for a decade, and I do not see why they would suddenly worry you.
Because I suddenly found out about it. ![[Smile]](smile.gif) The suddenness isn't related to the decade at all.
quote:
I never worry about losing my religion at all.
I'm not thinking so much about religion per se but... well, you know... as our mutual faith teaches, there's this Guy Who loves you and, um, you know, the whole "relationship with Jesus/God" thing, and so... I'm not thinking about it in terms of doctrine or philosophy but of relationship.
quote:
I was never looking for Plato. I was never looking for Buddha. I was never looking for Christ. I've always pushed forward in the search of higher truth. Currently I feel strongly that this path leads to Christ. If one day I find that the path turns elsewhere, then I will follow it without regret. And if it should lead me directly into the gaping jaws of Cthulhu, then before I get devoured I will have that one instant of satisfaction: "Ah, so that is true then." And it will have been worth it.
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
But--and this is my point--my trusting in Jesus as the Son of God to save me from sin and Who loves me isn't dependent at all on whether I accept that inspiration of Scripture or the fine points of Tradition or all the details of theology.
And now you want a cookie from me, or something? Look, I'm happy for you that whatever it is that gives you trust in whatever you trust is so reliably giving you trust. All the best, and steady on. But I'm afraid that really is the sum total of my interest in how well you are doing on that trust thing. I certainly don't find Christ more trustworthy just because you do. Unless perhaps there is some special reason why you could be a more reliable source of information than the many millions and millions of people that clearly must be wrong about religion (because they contradict each other). And that gets us right back to the question of how transcendental truth might be passed on.
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
If (for instance) I came to the conclusion that Apostolic Succession was all rubbish, that wouldn't stop me from trusting in this Jesus whom all of these churches are, however imperfectly, trying to follow.
And I'm sure your faith will be reckoned onto you. If, that is, you were right. If the Buddhist carry the day, then the karma of your dumb stubbornness might cause you to be reborn as a mule.
If that were true, and it was what the Divine Goodness desired for me and It knows best, then I would hope I would humbly accept it.
quote:
But anyway, in Christianity the only options I consider viable are the RCC, the Eastern Orthodox, and possibly some Oriental Churches (about whom, I have to admit, I know far too little). So if something knocks out these viable Churches, then it's game over Christianity as far as I am concerned.
I have trouble understanding why, but you've explained it above.
quote:
And no, I'm not saying that there is no truth among the Protestants, or no works of charity, or no connection to God, or no salvation, etc.
I appreciate that. <3 I think that some people get that impression from some of the things they read in your posts.
quote:
What I am saying is that the one and only reason I currently assume that those are present in these churches as well, is because of their similarity to the Churches I consider viable. Their worth is derived for me - so if the real thing falls, then the imperfect copies will fall, too.
I understand, though I don't agree.
quote:
[QUOTE]If we think that Jesus speaks plainly in John 6, then all who have not partaken in a properly consecrated Eucharist will go to hell...
That would include a large number of Christians indeed, in my opinion. Hence let us hope that the Lord is using hyperbole here and will be merciful. But one should not put God to the test.
I don't think He's using hyperbole here, but I don't think it means that. (And, um, didn't Pope Francis recently say that even atheists could go to Heaven?)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I'm afraid to ask this, but I might as well just do so: What do you mean by this? (he asked, fretfully and with trepidation)
If we think that Jesus speaks plainly in John 6, then all who have not partaken in a properly consecrated Eucharist will go to hell: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."
That would include a large number of Christians indeed, in my opinion. Hence let us hope that the Lord is using hyperbole here and will be merciful. But one should not put God to the test.
It is, of course, possible to believe that Jesus was speaking plainly in John 6, but also that he never intended a priesthood that alone has the power or authority to provide a "properly consecrated Eucharist."
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If we think that Jesus speaks plainly in John 6, then all who have not partaken in a properly consecrated Eucharist will go to hell: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."
That would include a large number of Christians indeed, in my opinion. Hence let us hope that the Lord is using hyperbole here and will be merciful. But one should not put God to the test.
It also includes everyone born in the New World prior to ~1500 CE and everyone born prior to the Crucifixion, including all the Biblical patriarchs. It certainly requires a new interpretation of certain Biblical parables, since the phrase "Abraham's side" (if you're newfangled) or "Abraham's bosom" (if you're more old fashioned) means something very different if we accept IngoB's suggestion that Abraham is in Hell.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Gender is a societal construct and unrelated to genitalia or other body parts.
"Unrelated"? This goes way beyond the available evidence, which seems to show that there is a considerable amount of overlap between the two. You appear to be overstating your case.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If we think that Jesus speaks plainly in John 6, then all who have not partaken in a properly consecrated Eucharist will go to hell: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."
That would include a large number of Christians indeed, in my opinion. Hence let us hope that the Lord is using hyperbole here and will be merciful. But one should not put God to the test.
Leaving the question, what constitutes putting God to the test? Not becoming a Catholic and receiving the RCC's sacraments? Or not becoming Orthodox and receiving the EOC's sacraments? Or not becoming Coptic and receiving the Coptic Church's sacraments? (Or, or, or...?) At which point you have a bit of a problem. Where's Pascal and his divine probability theory?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
[QUOTE]Unfortunately for the naysayers, society does change in the same time period. So the Church will become more irrelevant or else change..
The church doesn't have to change because society does.
In fact I thought that the intention was that the church was an agent of change for society.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
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.
A step too far towards personal attack, rather than criticism of post content. You crossed the Commandment 3 line.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
This seems to assume that transcendent truth must be old in order to be true--and also that God cannot continue to be active over time. That there has to be an Earthly system in place or He can't keep working with us to understand Him better.
It doesn't really say anything about things being ancient, just about things getting lost. If you were filled with Divine inspiration today, but found not functional means of passing on your inspiration tomorrow, then within a few generation your inspiration would be lost. And yes, I do not believe that God is active in the life of every believer in such a fashion as to keep transcendent truth intact no matter what they do. God is not micromanaging faith transmission. If He were, then the world would look entirely different.
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I'm not thinking so much about religion per se but... well, you know... as our mutual faith teaches, there's this Guy Who loves you and, um, you know, the whole "relationship with Jesus/God" thing, and so... I'm not thinking about it in terms of doctrine or philosophy but of relationship.
So, what does your relationship to Jesus actually consist of? Be precise. And then explain how you know that it is not actually a relationship to Ahura Mazda (of Zoroastrianism) that you are having, which you mistakenly attribute to Christ.
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
If that were true, and it was what the Divine Goodness desired for me and It knows best, then I would hope I would humbly accept it.
There is no Divine Goodness in Buddhism, and nothing would desire this or know that it is best. Karma is just a more generalised causality.
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I don't think He's using hyperbole here, but I don't think it means that. (And, um, didn't Pope Francis recently say that even atheists could go to Heaven?)
I do not disagree with that in principle. And the modern West probably offers more chances for atheists to go to heaven than any other time and place. But whether say a three times higher probability than ever before means a rise from 0.1% to 0.3% chance, or from 10% to 30%, or from 33.3% to 99.9%, on that even this pope is silent.
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
It is, of course, possible to believe that Jesus was speaking plainly in John 6, but also that he never intended a priesthood that alone has the power or authority to provide a "properly consecrated Eucharist."
It is possibile to believe all sorts of things, and eisegesis is the easiest game under the sun. Sure, I agree. However, note that even under your interpretation this remains a rather problematic statement for modern sensibilities. Your Muslim neighbour probably never has partaken even in a lay-led symbol-only Eucharist.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It also includes everyone born in the New World prior to ~1500 CE and everyone born prior to the Crucifixion, including all the Biblical patriarchs. It certainly requires a new interpretation of certain Biblical parables, since the phrase "Abraham's side" (if you're newfangled) or "Abraham's bosom" (if you're more old fashioned) means something very different if we accept IngoB's suggestion that Abraham is in Hell.
I did of course not suggest that at all, you are just concluding that from what I said. That may be fair enough, since I wasn't overly precise (as this was not necessary for the actual point I was making, which concerned Christians in our age). The usual interpretation give with regard to the OT faithful is of course that they would not go to hell, because in their time and place the Eucharist was not available yet. Jesus was to come in future, and consequently so was the Eucharist. Since God is just, He would not punish them for something they could not comply with. The traditional picture is that the ancient saints had to wait in the "Limbo of the Fathers" till Christ came to unlock the gates of heaven.
This principle, incidentally, is easily extended to the large number of people that historically - and even now - never heard of Christianity and/or never had a real chance to participate in the Eucharist. It does not however protect those who could but didn't.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Leaving the question, what constitutes putting God to the test? Not becoming a Catholic and receiving the RCC's sacraments? Or not becoming Orthodox and receiving the EOC's sacraments? Or not becoming Coptic and receiving the Coptic Church's sacraments? (Or, or, or...?) At which point you have a bit of a problem. Where's Pascal and his divine probability theory?
Anything but becoming Catholic, receiving RC sacraments and generally living a holy life according to the RCC is putting God to the test, of course. The question is just how much of a test that is. For example, the Eastern Orthodox sacraments are considered basically valid by the RCC, the Anglican ones basically not. Consequently, an Eastern Orthodox has less to worry about than an Anglican.
--------------------
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
I think my point was skimmed over, but I didn't put it very well anyway, so trying again -
I believe a lot of prejudice is due to fear.
Do you think it's possible that fear is at the root of the RC's prejudice against women in leadership and women priests?
Fear that their carefully built structures will change.
Fear that women will 'take over'.
Fear of the unknown.
Fear that they have been wrong for a long, long time? It's hard to admit this in small things, never mind foundational principles.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Gender is a societal construct and unrelated to genitalia or other body parts.
"Unrelated"? This goes way beyond the available evidence, which seems to show that there is a considerable amount of overlap between the two. You appear to be overstating your case.
This likely deserves its own thread, but I have encountered a number of people holding Jade Constable's view. To a certain extent, it seems to be a received POV in current gender politics, but it is also an attempt -- a teasing out-- to try and understand the meaning of gender and sex. I remember being on the edge of a 2-hour (and sitting without coffee, it seemed to be a very long two hours) discussion with a seminarian who had transitioned from female to male where one person put this point of view with great strength (the seminarian, by the way, held that he was always ontologically male, and his transition was simply a legal and medical formality).
It's an interesting philosophical point and one which potentially could have an impact of the OWP discussion if more widely accepted. I've read a bit more on it but found that many RC writers in English get lost in red herrings around masculinity.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
[QUOTE]Unfortunately for the naysayers, society does change in the same time period. So the Church will become more irrelevant or else change..
The church doesn't have to change because society does.
In fact I thought that the intention was that the church was an agent of change for society.
Very well put ExclamationMark. The problem is that the C of E is Established - So it has to please people, secularists and MPs - otherwise there will be calls for it to be dis-established.
So forcing through the vote for women bishops was inevitable for a church that is more answerable to Secularists who hate it, than to God.
The same will happen with gay marriage in a few years - this will be fast-tracked and forced through, under the pretence that the Holy Spirit is guiding the church.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
So forcing through the vote for women bishops was inevitable for a church that is more answerable to Secularists who hate it, than to God.
The same will happen with gay marriage in a few years - this will be fast-tracked and forced through, under the pretence that the Holy Spirit is guiding the church.
Do you have any evidence for your assertion that those within the church who favour the ordination of women and equal marriage are doing so out of a fear of disestablishment and not genuine conviction? Surely if this were the case then the non-established Anglican churches in these islands would be standing firm? Yet it seems likely that the Church in Wales and the Scottish Episcopal Church (don't know about the Church of Ireland) will approve equal marriage long before the CofE does. I suggest you withdraw your accusations of "pretence".
[ 19. July 2014, 14:00: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
So forcing through the vote for women bishops was inevitable for a church that is more answerable to Secularists who hate it, than to God.
The same will happen with gay marriage in a few years - this will be fast-tracked and forced through, under the pretence that the Holy Spirit is guiding the church.
Do you have any evidence for your assertion that those within the church who favour the ordination of women and equal marriage are doing so out of a fear of disestablishment and not genuine conviction? Surely if this were the case then the non-established Anglican churches in these islands would be standing firm? Yet it seems likely that the Church in Wales and the Scottish Episcopal Church (don't know about the Church of Ireland) will approve equal marriage long before the CofE does. I suggest you withdraw your accusations of "pretence".
No, I don't believe everyone who is in favour of these things is in fear of disestablishment. But certainly this is what tipped the balance and explains the rush to have a second vote to ensure the Women Bishops measure got forced through - that is why it is a pretence, so I won't withdraw my remarks. Political Correctness has ensured that the only sermons allowed, which concerned the possibility of women Bishops, were positive, so the lay-people were suitably programmed to be supportive.
The C of E has always been more conservative and cautious than other western protestant churches, which is why it is rarely the first to try out new innovations - but once public pressure is on, it has no choice.
--------------------
"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
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I think my point was skimmed over, but I didn't put it very well anyway, so trying again -
I believe a lot of prejudice is due to fear.
Do you think it's possible that fear is at the root of the RC's prejudice against women in leadership and women priests?
Fear that their carefully built structures will change.
Fear that women will 'take over'.
Fear of the unknown.
Fear that they have been wrong for a long, long time? It's hard to admit this in small things, never mind foundational principles.
No. You are engaging in wishful thinking.
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
So forcing through the vote for women bishops was inevitable for a church that is more answerable to Secularists who hate it, than to God.
The same will happen with gay marriage in a few years - this will be fast-tracked and forced through, under the pretence that the Holy Spirit is guiding the church.
Do you have any evidence for your assertion that those within the church who favour the ordination of women and equal marriage are doing so out of a fear of disestablishment and not genuine conviction? Surely if this were the case then the non-established Anglican churches in these islands would be standing firm? Yet it seems likely that the Church in Wales and the Scottish Episcopal Church (don't know about the Church of Ireland) will approve equal marriage long before the CofE does. I suggest you withdraw your accusations of "pretence".
No, I don't believe everyone who is in favour of these things is in fear of disestablishment. But certainly this is what tipped the balance and explains the rush to have a second vote to ensure the Women Bishops measure got forced through - that is why it is a pretence, so I won't withdraw my remarks. Political Correctness has ensured that the only sermons allowed, which concerned the possibility of women Bishops, were positive, so the lay-people were suitably programmed to be supportive.
The C of E has always been more conservative and cautious than other western protestant churches, which is why it is rarely the first to try out new innovations - but once public pressure is on, it has no choice.
The CofE is a creature of parliament. The 1928 BCP debacle removed all doubt in that regard. The fact that Canterbury and York were trying to convince General Synod members to vote in favour of female bishops lest the decision be taken out of their hands is as illustrative as it is pathetic.
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Anything but becoming Catholic, receiving RC sacraments and generally living a holy life according to the RCC is putting God to the test, of course.
Of course it is, according to a Catholic. But that misses what my question was getting at. Your man-on-the-street is bombarded with people telling him that if he doesn't do their XYZ, he's putting God to the test. How does he decide which of these thousand voices has voiced the real putting-God-to-the-test threat? In your own mind your dichotomy is the only dichotomy in the world. Well and good. To the undecided worldview shopper, you're just another soapbox in the park.
The whole "you'd best not put God to the test" as you've framed it here can be viewed as an expression of Pascal's Wager. But Pascal's Wager really only works where it's only a choice between two things. Even in Pascal's day it wasn't the case that the person deciding how to hedge his bets about eternity had only two choices. The vast multitude of choices in today's market place of ideas makes the whole trope pretty much moot.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It also includes everyone born in the New World prior to ~1500 CE and everyone [who died (ed.)] prior to the Crucifixion, including all the Biblical patriarchs. It certainly requires a new interpretation of certain Biblical parables, since the phrase "Abraham's side" (if you're newfangled) or "Abraham's bosom" (if you're more old fashioned) means something very different if we accept IngoB's suggestion that Abraham is in Hell.
I did of course not suggest that at all, you are just concluding that from what I said. That may be fair enough, since I wasn't overly precise (as this was not necessary for the actual point I was making, which concerned Christians in our age).
Yeah, you did suggest it. You didn't explicitly state it, but it's the fairly obvious conclusion to be drawn from your "no eucharist = damned" position.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Since God is just, He would not punish them for something they could not comply with.
Why not? You've argued extensively that human morality does not apply to God, so judging actions like punishing someone for something they can't comply with isn't "unjust" if God does it.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Leaving the question, what constitutes putting God to the test? Not becoming a Catholic and receiving the RCC's sacraments? Or not becoming Orthodox and receiving the EOC's sacraments? Or not becoming Coptic and receiving the Coptic Church's sacraments? (Or, or, or...?) At which point you have a bit of a problem. Where's Pascal and his divine probability theory?
Anything but becoming Catholic, . . .
That was mousethief, not me.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
One significant reason why I consider RC Christianity to be a viable religion is because it has a functional system of transmitting transcendent truth from generation to generation. How to do that is a serious problem, and religions that do not have such a system have no chance of being true in the long run. (Basically, whatever truth may have been in them will disperse.) Zen Buddhism, which I practiced before becoming RC, has a functional system (different from the RC one, but coherent). Protestant Christianity doesn't have a functional system. Hence they are simply not on my radar.
I thought that's what the Holy Spirit was for.
--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.
Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Political Correctness has ensured that the only sermons allowed, which concerned the possibility of women Bishops, were positive, so the lay-people were suitably programmed to be supportive.
So the fact that the vote in Synod was proceeded by every single diocese voting, by an overwhelming majority, for women bishops, had nothing to do with persuading the House of Laity that the average pew-sitter had had enough of the anti-democratic stalling?
The will of the church was finally acceded to. The politicking (in this instance) was all on the anti side. And if you think the House of Laity were 'programmed', then why did the motion just about squeak through with the required 2/3rds majority there?
I don't think you know what you're talking about. Certainly, not in terms of the governance of the CofE.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Political Correctness has ensured that the only sermons allowed, which concerned the possibility of women Bishops, were positive, so the lay-people were suitably programmed to be supportive.
So the fact that the vote in Synod was proceeded by every single diocese voting, by an overwhelming majority, for women bishops, had nothing to do with persuading the House of Laity that the average pew-sitter had had enough of the anti-democratic stalling?
The will of the church was finally acceded to. The politicking (in this instance) was all on the anti side. And if you think the House of Laity were 'programmed', then why did the motion just about squeak through with the required 2/3rds majority there?
I don't think you know what you're talking about. Certainly, not in terms of the governance of the CofE.
Are you seriously suggesting that there was no pressure from Parliament to force the measure through after it failed first time? You have a short memory - don't you remember the savage threats in the media and the House of Commons? I do.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
So forcing through the vote for women bishops was inevitable for a church that is more answerable to Secularists who hate it, than to God.
Synod decided in 1975 that there was no fundamental problem with the ordination of women. To my knowledge, there wasn't a great secular pressure from parliament to make that determination.
That is the actual decision - that a woman is capable of being a priest. Once that decision is made, everything else - actual ordination of women, women bishops and so on - is a natural consequence, and the fact that the implementation of the decision is staged over a generation is a sop to people's conservatism.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Are you seriously suggesting that there was no pressure from Parliament to force the measure through after it failed first time? You have a short memory - don't you remember the savage threats in the media and the House of Commons? I do.
My memory is fine. Yours, on the other seems to have forgotten the dire warnings preceding the first vote that went ignored. The nays seemed immune to the threats then and, seemingly now.
That nearly 30% of the House of Laity voted against the motion this time around was entirely unrepresentative of the wishes of the laity.
The pressure to get this vote through came from the ground up. Every single diocese in their diocesan synod voted this motion through, but diocesan synods don't send the same delegates to General synod - hence the threat from above to dissolve the GS and have a fresh vote for new delegates.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Synod decided in 1975 that there was no fundamental problem with the ordination of women.
Canada began ordaining women in 1976. This means that Anglicans here nearing 40 years of age have never]/i] lived with offical discrimination according to gender, with the largest protestant denomination in Canada, the United Church of Canada (Presbyterians, Methodists, Congregationalists) probably having no members alive who would recall discrimination since their date is 1936.
The wave of the future will wash over this none to soon. Just like it did with racism and as it is today with partner gender choice. The odd thing for a North American reader of the debate is how old 'old world' the debate about women seems. We are so past that. Eventually every one with ordain qualified people.
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 Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
...Unfortunately for the naysayers, society does change in the same time period. So the Church will become more irrelevant or else change..
Have you noticed something about your church which tries to be "relevant" and keep up with the times? Hardly anyone goes anymore.
Sorry to be so slow in replying, one does have a life after all. I just attended a wedding in our apparently (according to you) empty church (how do you know what you say?)
Yes our church, as a whole is declining slowly, as are just about all the churches. Parenthetically, I can't say that of the Orthies, because I don't know of an Orthodox church in my province, so I guess it can't decline from zero.
But my local church still serves purpose, and is growing very slowly. It does meet a need.
But it would not meet that need if it trumpeted anti-gayness or anti-womanness. It is growing because it accepts all people as being made in the Image of God and therefore worthy. We are all sinners, but doctrinal purity does not make us any less sinners.
I suppose it is laughable to function at the level of the Two Great Commandments, when one could be liturgically-obsessed, but that is not the way to be heard or seen in our community. As Anglicans, we work teamwise with the Baptists, the UCCs, the RCs, those who are available in the community, and we are polite about each others' forms of liturgy.
And we all have arguments similar to the ones you see on the Ship.
Doesn't mean we have to be rude about it.
"Relevant" isn't just a word to use in casting people aside. What we do seems to be relevant to our field of work. Shouting pointless slogans and casting aside rather more than half of the population would guarantee our disappearance.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Synod decided in 1975 that there was no fundamental problem with the ordination of women.
Canada began ordaining women in 1976. This means that Anglicans here nearing 40 years of age have never]/i] lived with offical discrimination according to gender, with the largest protestant denomination in Canada, the United Church of Canada (Presbyterians, Methodists, Congregationalists) probably having no members alive who would recall discrimination since their date is 1936.
The wave of the future will wash over this none to soon. Just like it did with racism and as it is today with partner gender choice. The odd thing for a North American reader of the debate is how old 'old world' the debate about women seems. We are so past that. Eventually every one with ordain qualified people.
We in the Eastern Orthodox Church simply don't view it as discrimination. No woman is interested in becoming a Priest, and nobody is interested in having them - so for us it is not discrimination since it is the last thing on anyone's mind. We'd much rather talk about the things of God.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
We in the Eastern Orthodox Church simply don't view it as discrimination. No woman is interested in becoming a Priest, and nobody is interested in having them - so for us it is not discrimination since it is the last thing on anyone's mind. We'd much rather talk about the things of God.
Justice is one of the things of God. So is calling the unexpected and those rejected by the religious authorities. So is the teaching that gender is an irrelevance to Christ. And I really very much doubt that there are no Orthodox who have felt that it should be possible to ordain women, and indeed Orthodox women who have felt called to the priesthood.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
...Unfortunately for the naysayers, society does change in the same time period. So the Church will become more irrelevant or else change..
Have you noticed something about your church which tries to be "relevant" and keep up with the times? Hardly anyone goes anymore.
Sorry to be so slow in replying, one does have a life after all. I just attended a wedding in our apparently (according to you) empty church (how do you know what you say?)
Yes our church, as a whole is declining slowly, as are just about all the churches. Parenthetically, I can't say that of the Orthies, because I don't know of an Orthodox church in my province, so I guess it can't decline from zero.
But my local church still serves purpose, and is growing very slowly. It does meet a need.
But it would not meet that need if it trumpeted anti-gayness or anti-womanness. It is growing because it accepts all people as being made in the Image of God and therefore worthy. We are all sinners, but doctrinal purity does not make us any less sinners.
I suppose it is laughable to function at the level of the Two Great Commandments, when one could be liturgically-obsessed, but that is not the way to be heard or seen in our community. As Anglicans, we work teamwise with the Baptists, the UCCs, the RCs, those who are available in the community, and we are polite about each others' forms of liturgy.
And we all have arguments similar to the ones you see on the Ship.
Doesn't mean we have to be rude about it.
"Relevant" isn't just a word to use in casting people aside. What we do seems to be relevant to our field of work. Shouting pointless slogans and casting aside rather more than half of the population would guarantee our disappearance.
OK - maybe we're not really 1000 miles apart after all. I think it all boils down to having different views of what the Church is. But (in my church) we certainly don't spend any time trumpeting anti-womanness or anti-gayness, we hardly ever talk about such things at all.
But we do have a High view of the Church. It is my belief that being consistent and not changing anything (just sticking to the liturgy) that the Orthodox Church survived the Soviet era in the East. If it had been "do your own thing" the Church would have either found itself in trouble very quickly, or lost it's way so that little remained of the Faith once delivered to the Saints. So, having said that, how is the Church in the West faring against the onslaught of Secularism? Perhaps it could learn something from the East here.
In Protestant churches, especially in the USA, you often find that they are so far removed from what we understand about the Faith, that they are barely recognisable as christian at all. Think Prosperity gospel.
All this talk of being "inclusive" and "equality" - is that the most important thing Jesus Christ wanted us to communicate about the Gospel? Are these not secular values? Besides, these two ideologies can mean different things to different people.
I don't have issues with what you said about sin - we are indeed all sinners, regardless of what Church we go to.
We are not completely removed from other churches - if that were so we would not be able to use Anglican churches for some of our services, or High Leigh for our annual Diocesan Conference.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Mark Betts - how can you speak for all Eastern Orthodox women? How can you know that no EO woman wants to be a priest? Women's ordination isn't important to you because you're a man and it will never affect you negatively. Of course a church run by and for men isn't going to concern itself with such silly little things as viewing women as equal.
As for equality and inclusion, are you saying that inequality and exclusion are somehow values of the Kingdom of God? Why are equality and inclusion 'secular values'? Secular people valuing them doesn't make them secular values, lots of non-Christians display the fruits of the Spirit but that doesn't make them 'secular values'. God has always been a God of inclusion and equality.
--------------------
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
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
We in the Eastern Orthodox Church simply don't view it as discrimination. No woman is interested in becoming a Priest, and nobody is interested in having them - so for us it is not discrimination since it is the last thing on anyone's mind. We'd much rather talk about the things of God.
Have you asked any women about this? I assume by your shipname you're male. I've heard ideas like your's suggested before. Call it or don't call it discrimination as you will. Meh.
--------------------
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
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I'm not thinking so much about religion per se but... well, you know... as our mutual faith teaches, there's this Guy Who loves you and, um, you know, the whole "relationship with Jesus/God" thing, and so... I'm not thinking about it in terms of doctrine or philosophy but of relationship.
So, what does your relationship to Jesus actually consist of? Be precise.
Marzipan. I don't understand it either, but there you go!
. . .
Sorry, I had to. ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
I'm not at all sure how to answer this; indeed, I don't know how to answer this when applied to any other relationship I have with anyone, or anything, else, in an "actual" and especially a "precise" way. As I did say above, our mutual faith talks about it. I would say that God knows better than I do about our relationship, and I trust Him to take care of me.
quote:
And then explain how you know that it is not actually a relationship to Ahura Mazda (of Zoroastrianism) that you are having, which you mistakenly attribute to Christ.
If it turned out that, when I died, I found out that somehow some other religion (or something humans have no idea of on Earth) was right, and that all these years I'd been confused, but that my love and trust in Jesus was accepted by the Highest Being(s), then I'd be grateful.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
So, having said that, how is the Church in the West faring against the onslaught of Secularism? Perhaps it could learn something from the East here.
I'm sorry, but some of the behavior of the church in Russia frankly saddens and terrifies me.
It is interesting that the "new" laws in Russia are EXACTLY the same as our laws, only a few years ago! Suddenly, we bring a whole barrage of new laws and ideologies, experimental and untested, and we expect every other country to immediately follow suit - otherwise they are bigoted and homophobic.
Why should other countries always follow the UK/USA? Why can't they decide for themselves? Are we the world's Policeman?
EDIT TO ADD: Maybe you should spend some time in Saudi Arabia if you want to know what REAL discrimination looks like - what are you and your brethren going to do about that?
[ 20. July 2014, 08:34: Message edited by: Mark Betts ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
In Protestant churches, especially in the USA, you often find that they are so far removed from what we understand about the Faith, that they are barely recognisable as christian at all. Think Prosperity gospel.
Two things:
1. Prosperity gospel is not a particularly American phenomenon, in fact to my mind the two biggest sources of it are Australia (Hillsong Church) and sub-Saharan Africa (many to name here, including Winners Chapel, Redeemed Christian Church of God, etc.)
2. While I have very strong objections to the prosperity gospel, calling it "barely recognizable as Christian" smacks me as coming from someone with absolutely no experience with it or its adherents. It's not a large detour from the idea that nobility and royals in Europe were blessed by God and thus deserving of power and riches, or from the idea that Europeans were blessed by God and therefore entitled to colonize and enslave "heathens." Prosperity being bestowed to those in God's favor is not a new idea.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
It is interesting that the "new" laws in Russia
No need for scare quotes--they are new laws. They were passed recently.
quote:
Suddenly, we bring a whole barrage of new laws and ideologies, experimental and untested, and we expect every other country to immediately follow suit - otherwise they are bigoted and homophobic.
... but... the laws in Russia ARE bigoted and homophobic. They single out gay people and people who want to talk about gay issues. Surely you don't think this is a good thing?
quote:
Why should other countries always follow the UK/USA? Why can't they decide for themselves? Are we the world's Policeman?
The US having been the world's policeman has often been a terrible thing. But "Why can't they decide for themselves" seems to miss the point that real people are being hurt in those countries. I'm perfectly happy for other countries to point out very serious problems in the US--as, indeed, many have, and rightly so.
quote:
EDIT TO ADD: Maybe you should spend some time in Saudi Arabia if you want to know what REAL discrimination looks like - what are you and your brethren going to do about that?
(1) Just because discrimination--or, rather, in these cases, active persecution--is worse in one place, doesn't mean it's not bad in another place. US racial bigotry is still an issue, and just because apartheid in South Africa was worse doesn't mean we should ignore it here or elsewhere.
(2) In theory, you're one of my brethren, as a Christian, right? So what are you going to do about it?
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
It is interesting that the "new" laws in Russia are EXACTLY the same as our laws, only a few years ago! Suddenly, we bring a whole barrage of new laws and ideologies, experimental and untested, and we expect every other country to immediately follow suit - otherwise they are bigoted and homophobic.
I read an article on the US Supreme Court's position on anti-gay laws, and the test they are using is whether the law is motivated by animus against gay people. That is, was it introduced specifically to prevent gay people from having specific rights? If so then the courts have been tending to overturn such laws.
There is no way in which the new laws in Russia (or Uganda for that matter) can pass this test.
Whether or not Christians support gay marriage, I am not sure that it is Christian to support legislation that is specifically introduced just to prevent a minority group from gaining rights that within existing laws they are capable of achieving through judicial review. That is prejudice and seems counter to Christian values.
[ 20. July 2014, 08:52: Message edited by: seekingsister ]
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
They are usually more than capable of speaking for themselves but I'm sure I've heard Orthodoxen on the Ship muse about women's role in the church. I seem to recall a thread about reviving the historic female diaconate. Now I realise that's not the same thing as support of women priests per se (I get that it's a different order) but I don't think it's the cut-and-dried non-issue you'd like to suppose. There are Orthodox voices out there that are questioning this stuff.
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Your man-on-the-street is bombarded with people telling him that if he doesn't do their XYZ, he's putting God to the test. How does he decide which of these thousand voices has voiced the real putting-God-to-the-test threat? In your own mind your dichotomy is the only dichotomy in the world. Well and good. To the undecided worldview shopper, you're just another soapbox in the park.
As Crœsos, you are extending my comment beyond the point I was actually making. The answer is along similar lines, just now considering that Christ is perhaps not sufficiently audible in the spiritual marketplace rather than that He has not arrived yet. But that is a tangent. The question I was actually addressing is whether for a Christian a "laissez faire" attitude to the Eucharist is possible. Can one just "live and let live" there, and assume that God will nod understandingly if one got it wrong? The quoted verse suggests to me that that is a dangerous assumption.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The whole "you'd best not put God to the test" as you've framed it here can be viewed as an expression of Pascal's Wager. But Pascal's Wager really only works where it's only a choice between two things. Even in Pascal's day it wasn't the case that the person deciding how to hedge his bets about eternity had only two choices. The vast multitude of choices in today's market place of ideas makes the whole trope pretty much moot.
Pascal was of course well aware of Protestants, orthodox RCs (he was part of a heretic RC sect), Muslims, pre-Christian pagans, and as educated man presumably would have heard of various Far Eastern, African and New World religions. You are misunderstanding the wager. Its point is that infinite pay-outs justify the risk of finite loss. If you now say "but there are a million things to bet on", then the answer of the wager would be that it is still better to bet on something than on nothing. As such, the wager is quiet on whether say becoming a Protestant or a Hindu is enough to enter heaven. It does however tell you that you should "bet" on something, because if you do nothing, then your infinite loss (i.e., hell) is already guaranteed.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Yeah, you did suggest it. You didn't explicitly state it, but it's the fairly obvious conclusion to be drawn from your "no eucharist = damned" position.
I did not suggest that Abraham is in hell, and I do not have a simple "no Eucharist = damned" position. The latter was explicit in what I wrote (the bit about hyperbole). The former could be falsely concluded from what I said. But I have now corrected that false impression.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Why not? You've argued extensively that human morality does not apply to God, so judging actions like punishing someone for something they can't comply with isn't "unjust" if God does it.
That is partly correct. We cannot simply say "if He were a human, this would be evil, therefore He cannot do that." The question is however whether God would become incoherent if He did this. God is eternally unchanging, and all creation is one perfect act of His. There is hence no room for God contradicting Himself. Often this means that effectively God is bound to act within human moral parameters. Not because He has to obey such rules as such, but because otherwise He would contradict Himself in the moral instructions He gives to mankind. There is a difference though, the latter is "looser" since what God wishes to communicate to mankind might go beyond ordinary morals.
In this particular case however we are not really talking about morality in this world (and hence some potential contradiction). In the case of the Jewish faithful, I nevertheless think we can be sure that they will be saved somehow. Simply because there is plenty of positive interaction about this with God in the bible, and then once again the rule of "no incoherence" applies. God will be true to His promises. As for all the others, we will have to work from other things God revealed, like that God desires that all be saved.
Anyway, you are correct in pointing out a bit of simplistic "God by human standards" moral reasoning on my part there. I think the result is correct, but by my own demands I would have to argue that a lot more carefully.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
That was mousethief, not me.
Sorry, that was a UBB code copy & paste fail.
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
I thought that's what the Holy Spirit was for.
If the Holy Spirit is supposed to reveal to every individual all necessary religious truth directly, and then to keep them aligned with it, then Holy Spirit is doing a really shit job. So I assume that God has delegated a big chunk of that workload to us as His instruments. That explains the observable SNAFU much more readily...
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I'm not at all sure how to answer this; indeed, I don't know how to answer this when applied to any other relationship I have with anyone, or anything, else, in an "actual" and especially a "precise" way. As I did say above, our mutual faith talks about it. I would say that God knows better than I do about our relationship, and I trust Him to take care of me.
Let me try again. You have a relationship with me because we both write on SoF. You have a relationship with your boss because you meet at work. You see him or her regularly and talk about things, mostly work-related. (Or perhaps you have a relationship with a job advisor because you are unemployed.) If you are lucky enough to live with an intimate partner, then you have a relationship with them because you see each other a lot, talk a lot, and hopefully exchange bodily fluids a lot. Etc. Now again, in what sense precisely do you think that you have a "relationship with Christ", and how exactly do you know that it is a relationship with Christ rather than something / someone else? I'm not being facetious here, I'm actually trying to make a deep point about doctrine.
--------------------
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
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
They are usually more than capable of speaking for themselves but I'm sure I've heard Orthodoxen on the Ship muse about women's role in the church. I seem to recall a thread about reviving the historic female diaconate. Now I realise that's not the same thing as support of women priests per se (I get that it's a different order) but I don't think it's the cut-and-dried non-issue you'd like to suppose. There are Orthodox voices out there that are questioning this stuff.
A deaconess is NOT a female deacon.
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
I'd query CL's statement that "A deaconess is not a female deacon"
As I understand it, a deaconess is very precisely a female deacon, at least in terms of the NT, when the 'job' of deacons was in fact distinct from the presbyterate/episcopate (which in turn are the same thing in NT terms). Later the diaconate developed into a kind of junior grade presbyter and was thought of as part of 'holy orders' and a distinction was made whereby deaconesses continued to be merely church servants, while male deacons were part of the 'clergy'
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The question I was actually addressing is whether for a Christian a "laissez faire" attitude to the Eucharist is possible.
With the underlying assumption that a thing other than the Roman Catholic understanding of the Eucharist and the priesthood is a laissez faire attitude.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
We cannot simply say "if He were a human, this would be evil, therefore He cannot do that." The question is however whether God would become incoherent if He did this.
I disagree. "If he were human, this would be evil" is exactly what we can and should say. Morality (even God's) is not made up out of thin air. I do not believe it true that God could, if he so chose, have decided child abuse (as one example) to be moral. Nor is God constrained in this by not being incoherent. The morality of God must connect with our morality for the word to have any meaning. Otherwise we end up with God as an arbitrary ogre.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. God's ways (which include God's morality) are not "other" than ours. They are certainly "higher" than ours. If something seems immoral to sane, reasonable people, it cannot become moral for God.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
With the underlying assumption that a thing . . . .
Sorry, that should have been "anything."
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
