Ship of Fools: Priestly genitalia [Ordination of Women]

Printer-friendly view

»	Ship of Fools » Special interest discussion » Dead Horses » Priestly genitalia [Ordination of Women] (Page 51)

Email this page to a friend or enemy.

Pages in this thread: 1 2 3 ... 48 49 50 51 52 53

Source: (consider it)

Thread: Priestly genitalia [Ordination of Women]

ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

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.

As a side comment, the weird sense of cross-examination is most unwelcome here.

In what sense do I believe I have a relationship with Christ? He said that He stands at the door and knocks; I have invited Him in. I have become a Christian. I have been baptized. I trust Him. I could add a million other things to try to quantify my relationship with Him.

"How exactly do you know that it is a relationship with Christ rather than something / someone else?" I'm tempted to ask you the same thing. Maybe Marduk or Amaterasu Omikami graciously accepts your devotion and you don't know! [Biased]

How do I know? I have certainly had experiences in which I can say "I know." For the most part, I trust. I have concluded, intellectually, that Christianity is true, and that this Jesus fellow is the incarnate Son of God, and loves me, but I focus on trusting Him. Sometimes if I have certain kinds of doubts (which are mainly emotional, honestly), I go over my reasoning again (Lewis has been very helpful in this regard), but at this point it's not really a beginning-Christian-sorting-out-intellectual-issues for me the way it was when I first started on the journey.

quote:
and hopefully exchange bodily fluids a lot

(Bugs Bunny voice) He don't know me vewy well, do he?

[Killing me]

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001 | IP: Logged

Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

Posted

I was going to post something else here, which I maybe will return to, about perceptions of the great divide between men and women (I read something by Carys, which truly spoke to my condition and which I wanted, still want to, back up.)

But reading up to date from when I was last here, I realise I do have some information about the Orthodox Church in Greece which reflects upon some ideas put forward here.

I went on an educational cruise, looking at Byzantine buildings, and our group had a lovely female Greek guide, who had opinions about the church. I couldn't quite work her out. She was clearly religious, within the Orthodox church, but her opinion of the priests was not - now what was it not? Respectful? Looking up to them as the deliverers of the central part of her faith practice? I didn't get the impression that she thought very highly of them at all.

The priests and monks we saw were obviously not all that happy about parties of middle-aged to elderly history tourists wandering about looking at mosaics and icons, as though the beliefs attached to them were irrelevant, and I can go along with that. But the attitude to women seemed even more extreme than the attitude of the Muslims at the Blue Mosque, for example. (I know it isn't Byzantine, but it was to compare it with Hagia Sophia.)

The Muslims asked us to dress modestly. The Orthodox laid down the way were to do so. No trousers. (You will have picked up enough of me to know that this sort of dogmatic approach does not have the desired effect on me. I took clothes which worked like shalwa kameez for both mosques and churches. Mid calf length frocks over trousers.)

Naturally we could only gawp at Mount Athos, and wonder just what the monks would do if the ship foundered and the women needed rescuing, since no woman but the Virgin had ever set foot there. (How do they know what happened BC, I wonder, or back as far as the Neanderthals?)

The sense that we women were viewed with distaste by the priests and the monks was not one which would make any woman want to join them. It was clear that our guide reciprocated the feeling.

And while it was monks, not priests involved, the idea that monasteries at Meteora, which could no longer sustain worshipping communities of men, were suffering sacrilege when made available to nuns, since once consecrated to the use of men, to demote them for the use of women was unacceptable was something very difficult to grasp. Obviously not all the monks felt that way, since it had happened.

Given those sort of attitudes, it would be very surprising if any idea about female priests were to raise its head among that community.

As I said about our guide, she was of the Orthodox, and in some sense religious. She was one woman, well educated. She is not enough to base a complete understanding of a church on. But if the way that the clergy behave has the effect on a woman that it had on her, there is something not right there. And I saw the distaste in some eyes - and I was not doing anything irreligious in those churches, but behaving with respect. (Apart, of course, from the disobedient garb. But it was my face which they were looking at, not my well covered legs.)

It was demanded that we respect them - they gave no respect to us. In that context, why on earth would a woman want to be part of them?

Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009 | IP: Logged

Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472

Posted

Penny S might have cottoned on to one of the curious aspects of Orthodoxy, that the clergy, as individuals, don't get a lot of respect and that it is a function to which any aspiration is deemed to be perplexing. In the diaspora, it tends to differ on account of the numbers of converts who esteem the clergy highly.

The Greek church, curiously enough, has begun to ordain women deacons, although there is argument on whether or not they are real clergy deacons or deaconesses, and some years ago I read an interesting essay in Sobornost on the icon of the Virgin of the Protecting Veil as being the only real argument in favour of OWP.

Most of my Orthodox women friends (a bare majority of whom seem to be lesbian, although this perhaps is more of a comment on my social circle) tend to ignore the question. When I have addressed it, they either continue to ignore it, or say it's not important, or, if pressed, tell me that change is not something which the Orthodox do, so there's no point in worrying about it.

Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001 | IP: Logged

Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

Posted

Thank you. I was a bit worried about the effect of the comments, and didn't like to raise the possibility that converts would be different. The only time I met a Greek Orthodox priest in London was when a friend and I were trying to track down someone we knew who claimed to be a convert, and the priest was perfectly polite and helpful - though it was my male friend doing the talking. (I was almost certainly wearing trousers at the time, as they are my normal choice of clothes, which is why I resent being told not to.)

To return to what I was going to post. Carys, some time ago, made the point that she was not thinking, all the time, of being a woman. I have probably made this point less well than she did. She surprised people, as I recall. Not me. The issue has come up in secular spaces this week, and was commented on in the Guardian, Women in politics.

We women, once washed and dressed and out in the world, are not constantly thinking that we are women doing whatever we are doing out there. We are running the Home Office, acting as deputy leader of the Party, auditing someone's books, planning an experiment at CERN, teaching, posting on SOF, not being women doing those things. We only think of it that way of someone points it out. Or if something bodily gets in the way of doing whatever it was briefly.

I assume that men go about their daily doings in the same way, only thinking that they are men doing whatever they are doing when it is relevant. From my own point of view, when I see them doing whatever it is, I don't bother to register that they are men doing them, either, unless there is something remarkable about it. Like the man described as a seamster and dressmaker doing alterations on a TV programme. (That s in the middle of the word originally indicated a female doing a job, as in brewer/brewster, baker/baxter, so it is a linguistic oddity.) Or Grayson Perry.

This is not to say that I don't notice someone goodlooking, or friendly or in some other way attractive, but that is not relevant to most of life.

But is is very apparent that the other way round, it is different. When men see a woman doing something, that she is a woman is more important than what she is doing. There was a piece on the News Quiz about the new ministers' bags. One was too big and untidy (but the right size for papers), one was too small and girly for the job. Very little debate about their qualifications for the jobs they were picked for (though some commented that she who was picked for women and equality has to have a flying minister for equal marriage because as a Christian she doesn't hold with it - which casts doubt on her suitability across the whole gamut of responsibilities).

That tendency, which exaggerates the differences and diminishes the tremendous overlap of abilities shared by men and women is what makes it difficult for a lot of us women to understand what is going on with those who deny our claim to equality. We don't see it. They do.

Not sure what lies behind the women who are against equality though. Different sort of women, I suppose, who do spend all the time thinking of being women, like the one in Lewis's nasty little story of a view into a friend's girlfriend's mind.

[ 20. July 2014, 19:08: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009 | IP: Logged

Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

Posted

Yes, when I chat about my son's pilot friends I don't consider the fact that they are female. But (some) men always act surprised as if there is something odd about it.

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008 | IP: Logged

SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

Posted

Presumably there are some breakaway movements bearing the name 'Orthodox' that have installed female clergy? Are they accepted as Orthodox by the historical groups?

I think the reality is that many denominations aren't really designed to take the requirements of modern, independent-minded, outspoken woman into account. Women of that type tend to seek self-fulfilment and/or leadership roles elsewhere. The women who remain in the pews are often more traditional-minded, and aren't necessarily the best allies of the small numbers of prominent, well-educated women who want to reform/change/lead the church.

In previous times the response would be to start a new breakaway church, but ongoing secularisation in the West has made this a poor solution, IMO. Today's revolutions have to be televised, and there's no PR victory to be gained from becoming the female bishop of a brand-new tiny sect that won't enjoy much exposure or have much influence. (The Quakers are small, but they've been around a long time and built up a bank of goodwill. It's doubtful whether any denomination founded today will be able to generate the same degree of public recognition and approval in the future.)

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012 | IP: Logged

Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

Posted

Interesting point - and there were a rash of religious groups founded by women about a century ago. Some still around.

Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009 | IP: Logged

ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Not sure what lies behind the women who are against equality though. Different sort of women, I suppose, who do spend all the time thinking of being women, like the one in Lewis's nasty little story of a view into a friend's girlfriend's mind.

Or like this one! [Smile]

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001 | IP: Logged

Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472

Posted

SvitlanaV2 writes:

quote:
Presumably there are some breakaway movements bearing the name 'Orthodox' that have installed female clergy? Are they accepted as Orthodox by the historical groups?

I've never heard of any. It might place things into proportion if one observes that breakaways which consecrate married priests to the episcopate can expect to see themselves dismissed from every possible consideration on that ground alone.

Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001 | IP: Logged

ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Presumably there are some breakaway movements bearing the name 'Orthodox' that have installed female clergy?

Yes.

quote:
Are they accepted as Orthodox by the historical groups?

No. Though I hasten to point out that neither are Anglo-Catholics and just as we consider ourselves Catholic (and, indeed, orthodox), at least some of those groups consider themselves to be validly Orthodox and/or Catholic.

--------------------
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

Here's a whole list, though you can kind of tell that they're aproaching it with a "these aren't real Orthodox churches" mindset. [Biased]

Whether or not they are in genuine tradition, have Apostolic Succession, etc. I have no idea, as I'm not planning to leave the Episcopal Church, so I'm not planning on trying to sort all that out for myself.

I mean, seriously, the headings (including pink text for the LGBT-friendly ones [brick wall]

) include things like this:

quote:

Sects Ordaining Women - No comment is necessary. You know enough already. Case closed!

"Churches" and Groups That Target Gays

... This is apparently a gay cult....

(What's a "gay cult"? Is it like a bar you're really, really devoted to? [Killing me]

)

[ 21. July 2014, 00:50: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001 | IP: Logged

mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

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,

How do you know that? Have you polled every single Orthodox woman in the world? If some Orthodox women did want to become priests, I suspect they would be very circumspect as to whom they told, and people who are adamantly sure that they don't exist probably wouldn't be on the top of their list of people to tell.

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Presumably there are some breakaway movements bearing the name 'Orthodox' that have installed female clergy? Are they accepted as Orthodox by the historical groups?

Yes and no (or they wouldn't be breakaway).

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
What's a "gay cult"?

I dunno but if we find one, maybe they'll have this so-called "gay agenda" that the haters bang on about, but never seem to find an authentic original copy of.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001 | IP: Logged

IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
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.

You are simply not thinking this through. What does child abuse even mean? Why is it child abuse, rather than child care? It is the former rather than the latter because God told us what to do with our children. He told is in various ways, but the key principle is that there is no eternal idea of how children have to be treated floating around in some Platonic concept space. That's nonsense.

The reason why indeed God could not decide that child abuse is moral is simply that what we mean by saying "child abuse" is that God has decided that this sort of treatment of children is wrong. That's all. So obviously if God said something different now, then He would contradict Himself. But that is something God cannot do. So you are right as far as the outcome is concerned, but you are subtly wrong about the reason for this outcome. God is not obeying rules against child abuse. God is decreeing how children need to be treated, and He is always true to His word.

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
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.

God is of course perfectly arbitrary, there is not the slightest trace of any constraint whatsoever on Him. That's what it means to be Creator. But we and this world are the outcome of this arbitrariness. We just are the entirely free choice of God how things should be. Hence in terms of how the world is now, God is not arbitrary. But that's because this world expresses His free choice, that's what it is. And God is not somehow working against His own choice. Hence there is some predictability to what He does now.

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
God's ways (which include God's morality) are not "other" than ours. They are certainly "higher" than ours.

That's a contradiction in terms. "Higher" is a form of "other".

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
If something seems immoral to sane, reasonable people, it cannot become moral for God.

And this is false. It may be true most of the time practically speaking, but it is the wrong principle. And in related news, Job is the most important book of the OT for modern people.

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
As a side comment, the weird sense of cross-examination is most unwelcome here.

Welcome to my world...

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
In what sense do I believe I have a relationship with Christ? He said that He stands at the door and knocks; I have invited Him in. I have become a Christian. I have been baptized. I trust Him. I could add a million other things to try to quantify my relationship with Him.

Nope, sorry. But possibly for your baptism, so far you haven't said anything real about your relationship with Christ.

If I tell you that I have a relationship with John, and you want to find out what kind of relationship that is, does "I trust John" help? Not really. It qualifies the relationship, but I need to know what kind of relationship it is before I know how. It could be that John is my plumber, and I trust him to do the job I paid him for. It could be that John is my father, and I trust him to be my affectionate parent. It could be that John is my slave and I trust him to do my bidding.

So once more, what do you mean when you say that you have a relationship to Christ, concretely, and how do you know that it is a relationship to Christ rather than to something or someone else?

--------------------
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

St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631

Posted

IngoB, you seem to have an understanding of morality that says:
1) The moral thing is to obey God.
2) God has told us to love each other.
3) Therefore, the moral thing is to love each other.

I find this odd. My general understanding of morality is:
1) The moral thing is to love each other.
2) God, being a supremely moral being, is also supremely loving.
3) Therefore, God commands us to be moral; ie, to love each other.

--------------------
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

Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

So once more, what do you mean when you say that you have a relationship to Christ, concretely, and how do you know that it is a relationship to Christ rather than to something or someone else?

Why this need for such unprovable detail IngoB? Why back ChastMastr into a corner? Your own answer to such a personal relationship would not stand up to such scrutiny either. We are all different.

It would be like asking about your sex life then saying 'prove it'. Of course, as soon as we came into your bedroom to see the proof, your sex life would not be what you described anyway - due to being observed.

Relationship with God/Christ is not a thing to be dissected - it's a thing to be lived.

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008 | IP: Logged

IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
IngoB, you seem to have an understanding of morality that says:
1) The moral thing is to obey God.
2) God has told us to love each other.
3) Therefore, the moral thing is to love each other.

Sort of. However, there is an issue here with your phrasing this as a command rather than a creative action. In reality, things like the Ten Commandments are more a reminder... If I fold a paper plane, I'm not "commanding" it to fly through the air. It has been made so as to do that, its shape expresses my wish for it to fly. If someone now grabs my paper plane and squashes it into a ball of paper, then I will complain because my design, the purpose I had in mind for this piece of paper, has been thwarted. The only thing that "morals" add to this picture is that it is the paper plane itself, rather than an outside power, which can squash itself into a ball or rip itself apart, etc. Then it might make sense for me to talk to that paper plane, and tell it "Thou shalt not squash yourself into a ball. Thou shalt not tear yourself to shreds. Though shalt not soak yourself into water. Thou shalt not..." Or I might be more positive and inspirational in my approach and tell that paper plane "You are made to fly in the wind, it is your destiny to soar propelled by my throw." But none of this really changes the fact that I took a piece of paper and folded it into a paper plane. If I had used that same paper to fold a paper boat, or to write a poem on it, or to create confetti out of it, then what this paper has to do would be different.

quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
I find this odd. My general understanding of morality is:
1) The moral thing is to love each other.
2) God, being a supremely moral being, is also supremely loving.
3) Therefore, God commands us to be moral; ie, to love each other.

God is indeed the supremely moral being, yet not in the sense of being super-obedient, but in the sense of being the one who creates all morals. He is the super-eminent source of morals.

The problem with your approach is quite simply this: "The moral thing is to love each other." Says who? And what does that even mean? And whom does it apply to? If you are a spider, then the loving way to treat your mum may well be to eat her alive with your siblings so as to grow strong fast. If you are a human being, you probably shouldn't do that. Of course spiders are not moral agents, but it is not their eating of their mothers which stops them from being that, but rather their lack of size and brains (and intellectual soul).

You saying "the moral things is to love each other" already involves you thinking in terms of human good. It does not involve eating your mother alive, but perhaps baking her a cake for her birthday. And this is already given to you by God, just as it is given to spiders what spiders do. The only way to abstract from humans and spiders and whatever else to a common ground is precisely to say that loving means wishing good for another. That works whether you are human or spider.

But God in creating you is determining your goods. That you are human and not a spider, and hence prosper in human ways not spider ways, is from God. So God is precisely the fundamental wisher of goods onto you. What it even means for you to be loved is put into existence by God. In that sense we can say that God is Love, super-eminently. He is giving you all your goods, every single one of them, and indeed ultimately the Good, Himself, but not (or at least not principally) like I may give you cake. Rather by making cake something that can be given to you as a good.

So you see here that God being "supremely moral" and God being "supremely loving" are just two different ways of describing God being creative. There is nothing added there. It is exactly in making things be that God is Love, is Morals, namely as the source of all Good. I hope you can see how from this perspective what you say is awkward. It is taking a thing God does, analysing it in a specific way, projecting it back onto what God does, and declaring that God obeys that analysis. And then you ask the "tough" question whether God could disobey this analysis (here "morals"), and if not, then what forces Him to obey it. But looking at what God does in a specific way does not tie Him into that framework, it merely ties our mind into that framework.

--------------------
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

IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Why this need for such unprovable detail IngoB?

Unprovable detail? First, I'm not demanding any proof here. I'm quite happy to take ChastMastr's word for whatever he might say. As long as he says something concrete. And I have not asked for any great detail about anything. But if you say that you have a relationship with Christ, then this should mean something. I can say what relationship I have with you, without having to go into massive detail. I can simply say that we both post on SoF, and if I feel like adding some meaningful detail I could mention that we tend to disagree about this or that topic. A lengthy, commented log of all our interactions is neither required nor useful.

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Why back ChastMastr into a corner?

Because if he seriously tries to answer this, if he really takes a look at what he thinks, says and does that would establish a "relationship" to Christ specifically, then I hope that he will see something important about the role of Church and indeed doctrine without me having to tell him. Feel free to do the same, of course.

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Your own answer to such a personal relationship would not stand up to such scrutiny either. We are all different.

Stand up to what scrutiny? What do you imagine that I require here? I'm confident that I could answer my own question, but if I did you would just feed off whatever I might say instead of taking a moment to think about this yourself. And part of what this exercise is about is teasing out how different or similar our relationships to Christ are (or indeed, can be).

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
It would be like asking about your sex life then saying 'prove it'. Of course, as soon as we came into your bedroom to see the proof, your sex life would not be what you described anyway - due to being observed.

If you are saying that you cannot discuss your relationship to Christ at all, because it would amount to written amateur porn, then you have a very interesting take on Christianity.

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Relationship with God/Christ is not a thing to be dissected - it's a thing to be lived.

I do live my marriage, rather than dissecting it. That does not mean that I cannot tell you that this person is my wife. And if you were unaware what "wife" means, then I could provide you with some general comments about marriage that do apply to mine as well, without having to invite you to our bedchamber.

--------------------
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

St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
I find this odd. My general understanding of morality is:
1) The moral thing is to love each other.
2) God, being a supremely moral being, is also supremely loving.
3) Therefore, God commands us to be moral; ie, to love each other.
God is indeed the supremely moral being, yet not in the sense of being super-obedient, but in the sense of being the one who creates all morals.

Again - this is only a problem if you primarily equate "moral" with "obedient".

--------------------
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

Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

Posted

Quoth Mark Betts: (a whole day ago!)

quote:
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.

Interesting.

Jesus actually had nothing to say about "inclusive" or "equality" when He met the Woman at the well, or when the Samaritan came back to give thanks? Paul had nothing to say re "inclusive" or "inequality" when he talked about free men and slaves, male an female...?

Your church doesn't really believe that all of us are made in the Image of God? or that God loves all of us?

Strange secular world you live in.

More to the point, why would anyone but a misogynist/homophobe/racist want to join a church that did not believe in inclusiveness or equality?

--------------------
It's Not That Simple

Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003 | IP: Logged

Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

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?

Sorry, gay teenagers getting tortured and murdered isn't real discrimination??? REALLY??

Just admit it, you don't care if those nasty gays die horribly as long as the people doing the murdering are Good Orthodox Christians.

And no, the world should not always follow the UK/US - not murdering people because they are gay is a rather basic aspect of being a decent person, not restricted to the UK and US.

--------------------
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

Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
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.

Did God ever explicitly promise the Old Testament patriarchs that He wouldn't torture them for the rest of eternity after they died? I can remember a lot of promises about becoming great nations and having many descendents and even a few promises about specific pieces of real estate, but I can't recall any particular promises about a non-punitive afterlife. Did I miss them?

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
As for all the others, we will have to work from other things God revealed, like that God desires that all be saved.

That seems irreconcilable with your other positions stated thus far. One of the Christian God's characteristics is that He's omnipotent. If He "desires that all be saved", then all will be saved. The position you've advocated thus far is that God desires all who participate in a specific, tightly-defined ritual presided over by one of God's fully-credentialed representatives, be saved. The only reason you give for concluding otherwise is that God roasting unbaptized infants on a spit for all eternity would not be "just", which is a human moral determination of the sort you don't think apply to God.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
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?

The point - the whole point - is that we can do very little about discrimination in Saudi Arabia. But we can do something about discrimination in the UK. This is where we live. To say that case A in a foreign country is worse than case B in ours, and therefore fixing B before A is a waste of time is an abrogation of your moral responsibility to fix B.

If your argument is that you don't have a moral responsibility to fix B, then there's no reason to bring A up, because you're not going to fix that one either.

I'm not trying to trap you in semantics. I'm happy to admit I discriminate against some people, because I'm an adult with strong views about various things. (I do try, however, not to discriminate against people because of inherited or innate characteristics.)

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005 | IP: Logged

lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

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,
How do you know that? Have you polled every single Orthodox woman in the world?

If they want to be a priest, they are not Orthodox. Simples.

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
It is the former rather than the latter because God told us what to do with our children. He told is in various ways,

Yeah.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008 | IP: Logged

LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

Posted

quote:
IngoB: 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 an almighty god could make the machine work, even if a cog catches an edge. He's the one who defines what 'to work' means. There are no restrictions he should adhere to in order to make the machine work.

quote:
IngoB: 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.

Yes, it may entail many additional changes. Perform those and put the resulting universe in S. It's not empty, you already admitted that in your earlier answers.

(What I'm interested in is: who or what determines if a change is inconsequential or not?)

quote:
IngoB: 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.

God can dump a can of paint on the canvas, and it will become a delicate picture. Heck, he's the one who defines what 'delicate' means, so he could just declare it to be delicate.

quote:
IngoB: 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.

Well, some people would say that excluding women from officating the Eucharist is contrary to uniting people, and even inappropriate.

You'll answer of course not we but god gets to decide what is approprate and what is not. But if he can decide what is appropriate, why wouldn't he declare officiating by women appropriate?

quote:
IngoB: 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.

You don't understand my argument. Earlier, you stated that in a universe where it would be necessary to hit a child before taking the Eucharist, god would make it so that hitting a child wouldn't be immoral there. People wouldn't think it's a bad thing.

Analogously, you believe that (maybe) in this universe the exclusion of women into the priesthood is necessary for the Eucharist. Yet, many people do think it's a bad thing.

What it all comes down to, is that there is something that limits your god. You have a lot of different names for it: divine perfection, consistency, appropriateness... (I wish you would stick to one term.) You believe that whatever god does must be along these terms.

I believe in a God who is Almighty. He defines what divine perfection consistency, appropriateness means.

The way I see it, there are two ways of looking at your belief:

Divine perfection, consistency, appropriateness... is a standard that comes from outside of god.
Divine perfection, consistency, appropriateness... is a standard that is dictated by god

In case 1, where the heck does this standard come from? And we wouldn't be talking about an almighty god here.

In case 2, then he could choose to impose a different standard of dpca (mind if I abbreviate it like this?), one that has as an end result that women definitely can officiate the Eucharist. In this case, he has a choice. And a choice implies morals.

--------------------
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 Crœsos:
Did God ever explicitly promise the Old Testament patriarchs that He wouldn't torture them for the rest of eternity after they died? I can remember a lot of promises about becoming great nations and having many descendents and even a few promises about specific pieces of real estate, but I can't recall any particular promises about a non-punitive afterlife. Did I miss them?

There is indeed not much explicitly said along those lines in the OT itself. There are a few hints in song and prophecy though:

quote:
Psalm 16:9-11
Therefore my heart is glad, and my soul rejoices; my body also dwells secure. For thou dost not give me up to Sheol, or let thy godly one see the Pit. Thou dost show me the path of life; in thy presence there is fulness of joy, in thy right hand are pleasures for evermore.

Psalm 71:20
Thou who hast made me see many sore troubles wilt revive me again; from the depths of the earth thou wilt bring me up again.

Psalm 73:24-26
Thou dost guide me with thy counsel, and afterward thou wilt receive me to glory. Whom have I in heaven but thee? And there is nothing upon earth that I desire besides thee. My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion for ever.

Isaiah 26:19
Thy dead shall live, their bodies shall rise. O dwellers in the dust, awake and sing for joy! For thy dew is a dew of light, and on the land of the shades thou wilt let it fall.

Ezekiel 37:11-14
Then he said to me, "Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel. Behold, they say, 'Our bones are dried up, and our hope is lost; we are clean cut off.' Therefore prophesy, and say to them, Thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I will open your graves, and raise you from your graves, O my people; and I will bring you home into the land of Israel. And you shall know that I am the LORD, when I open your graves, and raise you from your graves, O my people. And I will put my Spirit within you, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land; then you shall know that I, the LORD, have spoken, and I have done it, says the LORD."

Daniel 12:2-3
And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever.

The we have of course also the cases of Enoch and Elijah being taken up to heaven:

quote:
Genesis 5:24
Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him.

Sirach 44:16,49:14
Enoch pleased the Lord, and was taken up; he was an example of repentance to all generations. ... No one like Enoch has been created on earth, for he was taken up from the earth.

2 Kings 2:11
And as they still went on and talked, behold, a chariot of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

1 Maccabees 2:58
Elijah because of great zeal for the law was taken up into heaven.

But largely there is a Christian re-interpretation of the OT going on, where basically promises for this world are understood as spiritual promises for the next. A Jew may of course shrug at this as Christian foolishness, but for a Christian this re-interpretation is just as revealed as the additional details about heaven and hell themselves. We have for example:

quote:
Matt 8:10-12
When Jesus heard him, he marveled, and said to those who followed him, "Truly, I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith. I tell you, many will come from east and west and sit at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth."

Matthew 22:29-32
But Jesus answered them, "You are wrong, because you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God, 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?' He is not God of the dead, but of the living."

Luke 9:29-31
And as he was praying, the appearance of his countenance was altered, and his raiment became dazzling white. And behold, two men talked with him, Moses and Elijah, who appeared in glory and spoke of his departure, which he was to accomplish at Jerusalem.

Luke 16:22-23,26,31
The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried; and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus in his bosom. [But Abraham said,] ... '... And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.' ... He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead.'"

Galatians 3:6-9,14,29
Thus Abraham "believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." So you see that it is men of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed." So then, those who are men of faith are blessed with Abraham who had faith. ... that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. ... And if you are Christs, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

Ephesians 4:8-10
Therefore it is said, "When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men." (In saying, "He ascended," what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is he who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.)

1 Peter 3:18-20
For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water.

It is of course an interesting question why God did not reveal the afterlife more clearly to the OT Jews. But for my limited purposes here it does not matter when their salvation was revealed, just that it was revealed - if only fully through Christ and His apostles.

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
One of the Christian God's characteristics is that He's omnipotent. If He "desires that all be saved", then all will be saved.

That's the classic non sequitur of the universalists. But God's desire is not unconditional. I can for example truly and honestly desire that you will confess Christ. But only under the condition that you have had a genuine change of heart, rather than that you lie through your teeth. The consequence of such a desire is that I will do my part in helping you to receive the faith. Yet even if I were given free reign over you, then in spite of my desire I would not extract a confession out of you by force. Basically, what would be the point of that? The condition that you mean what you say is not fulfilled, and I cannot force you to genuinely believe in Christ. Likewise, God does not desire the salvation of people no matter what.

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The position you've advocated thus far is that God desires all who participate in a specific, tightly-defined ritual presided over by one of God's fully-credentialed representatives, be saved.

No, I have not advocated that position anywhere. What I have done is to discuss the contrast of John 6 to "easy going" attitudes concerning the Eucharist.

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The only reason you give for concluding otherwise is that God roasting unbaptized infants on a spit for all eternity would not be "just", which is a human moral determination of the sort you don't think apply to God.

Questions about the afterlife are more involved than regular moral questions, because they do not merely involve our natural ends, but also supernatural ones. In other words, to know what is appropriate to human beings supernaturally requires (some) revelation. Christianity reveals a system by which nobody deserves heaven, but where heaven can be reached through the grace of God, whereas one can deserve going to hell by one's sins. That is the system God designed for our supernatural fate. We can now ask how God would consistently and coherently treat a human being who is assumed to not have received the needed grace from him to go to heaven, but who also has not committed any sins that would send them to hell. The answer is actually an old one:

quote:
"The Oration on Holy Baptism" by St. Gregory of Nazianzus
[Unbaptised infants and the like] will be neither glorified nor punished by the righteous Judge, as unsealed and yet not wicked, but persons who have suffered rather than done wrong. For not every one who is not bad enough to be punished is good enough to be honoured; just as not every one who is not good enough to be honoured is bad enough to be punished.

In the West, there was a lengthy interlude concerning this traditional position, because St Augustine went overboard in his war against the Pelagians. But in the end the Church returned to this position around the time of Aquinas. Basically, these children will be naturally happy in eternity, but will not be in heaven. (Modern attempts to abandon this "Limbo of Infants" basically assume that the necessary graces are always given, though not through baptism.)

Anyway, it should be quite clear that this answer follows the same "design principle" as the regular supernatural judgement of people. It is consistent. Once more, God's justice can be understood as God's "creative coherence".

--------------------
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:

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
As a side comment, the weird sense of cross-examination is most unwelcome here.
Welcome to my world...

Just passing through, thanks. [Smile]

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
In what sense do I believe I have a relationship with Christ? He said that He stands at the door and knocks; I have invited Him in. I have become a Christian. I have been baptized. I trust Him. I could add a million other things to try to quantify my relationship with Him.
Nope, sorry. But possibly for your baptism, so far you haven't said anything real about your relationship with Christ.

Of course I have. Sorry, you don't get to decide that.

quote:
So once more, what do you mean when you say that you have a relationship to Christ, concretely, and how do you know that it is a relationship to Christ rather than to something or someone else?

I've given you my answer; it's your problem if you don't like it very much. [Yipee]

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001 | IP: Logged

IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
It is the former rather than the latter because God told us what to do with our children. He told is in various ways,
Yeah.

I was mostly thinking of the law written by God on our hearts, as it happens. But yes, the bible is not a simple text, and interpreting it is difficult business. In short, I would answer that 1. Children honouring their parents is a Divine principle, killing them if they don't was a human measure for patrolling it. (And one that is rather understandable given the absence of an external judicial system protecting the elderly and guaranteeing their care...) 2. Poetic expressions should not be read as literal commands. 3. There are indeed some Divine exceptions to the regular run of morals, just as there are some Divine exceptions to the regular run of physics (called miracles). These can be distinguished (at least in hindsight) from arbitrary violations or indeed human misunderstandings. Because they always point to something beyond the immediate situation, a higher concern. They are hence a kind of "override". For example, the deeper point of Abraham and Isaac is not "child sacrifice is great", but rather that faith in God must extend beyond the scope of one's own expectations and rational calculus, even those encouraged by faith. (Because Abraham was about to destroy the very means for becoming the father of a numerous nation which God had given him miraculously.)

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
But an almighty god could make the machine work, even if a cog catches an edge. He's the one who defines what 'to work' means. There are no restrictions he should adhere to in order to make the machine work.

Indeed. You are now basically just repeating my explanations back to me. However, the essential point here is that God does not change His mind, ever. If "working" means that the cog catches, then the cog will catch. If "working" means that the cog doesn't catch, then the cog won't catch. The creative act is one and eternal. God cannot both do and not do in eternity. And that's not a logical statement at first, it is simply descriptive. There is no first this and then that, where that possibly contradicts this, in eternity. Eternity is like an infinite instant. So there is this, and only this, whatever this may be.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Yes, it may entail many additional changes. Perform those and put the resulting universe in S. It's not empty, you already admitted that in your earlier answers.

I have done no such thing. As mentioned, your description now is self-contradictory. There cannot be "many additional changes" and "just one change" at the same time. I'm not going to engage in a discussion explicitly relying on a blatant error of logic.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
(What I'm interested in is: who or what determines if a change is inconsequential or not?)

If you add one thing that requires no other changes whatsoever to the Eucharist, then clearly it was inconsequential to the Eucharist. That's just what "inconsequential" means.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
God can dump a can of paint on the canvas, and it will become a delicate picture. Heck, he's the one who defines what 'delicate' means, so he could just declare it to be delicate.

Once more, I'm delighted that you are now simply repeating my argument back to me. However, if God has already declared that "delicate" means fine brushwork, then he cannot dump a can of point on the canvas any longer. Because God is unchanging, He does not first go this way and then the opposite way. In fact, this description itself is still too time-based. Rather, the "declaration" what is delicate and the act (of either putting some fine brushstrokes or dumping paint) are one and the same thing. There is no temporal sequence here, there is not room for change. It is all one eternal unity of action.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
You'll answer of course not we but god gets to decide what is approprate and what is not. But if he can decide what is appropriate, why wouldn't he declare officiating by women appropriate?

I have speculated about that briefly on this thread. Read my posts. Yet ultimately I do not have an undeniable answer. Read your favourite book in the OT.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
What it all comes down to, is that there is something that limits your god.

You could say that being eternal limits my God, if you wish.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I believe in a God who is Almighty. He defines what divine perfection consistency, appropriateness means.

In the sense that He defines for His creation what it is to be perfect, consistent and appropriate. Not in the sense that He Himself could somehow be imperfect, inconsistent or inappropriate.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
In case 1, where the heck does this standard come from? And we wouldn't be talking about an almighty god here.

Once more, you are now just telling me what I first told you. This is precisely my point about morals as standard to which God can be held.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
n case 2, then he could choose to impose a different standard of dpca (mind if I abbreviate it like this?), one that has as an end result that women definitely can officiate the Eucharist. In this case, he has a choice. And a choice implies morals.

No, choice does not imply morals. Voluntary and understanding choice implies morals if one has specified ends and goods as a being, and the choice is about them. You can decide to starve yourself to death. Generally that is evil, a morally bad choice, because it stands against the good of your body being alive and well. You did not choose this good though, it is simply given to you (by God), it is part of what you are. Since you have it, and since you have a choice, you can now be for or against this good.

However, God does not have any specified ends and goods. If you wish you can say that God's end is God again. That end is obviously fulfilled simply by His existence. Therefore no moral evaluation arises in God choosing to create like this or that. Whatever God may create (if He creates), God still exists and therefore fulfils His end.

--------------------
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 St Deird:
IngoB, you seem to have an understanding of morality that says:
1) The moral thing is to obey God.
2) God has told us to love each other.
3) Therefore, the moral thing is to love each other.

I find this odd. My general understanding of morality is:
1) The moral thing is to love each other.
2) God, being a supremely moral being, is also supremely loving.
3) Therefore, God commands us to be moral; ie, to love each other.

My own understanding of morality is this:
1) God is a Being such that what we call "morality," "goodness," and especially "Love" describe Who He Is, within Himself.
2) Therefore, it is neither than God obeys a law outside himself, nor that He has made "goodness" in some sort of arbitrary way in which He could just have easily made "evil" or "badness" the standard of things.
3) We, and all Creation, were and are meant to be a part of His Love, to reflect His Love, to live in and be joyfully a part of that Love and goodness.
4) As a side note about the spiders, however God's Love plays out in their lives (and I do believe it does), I believe we live in a fallen world--whatever the myth of Eden means in our physical universe, the story says that God gave all of us, and all animals, green plants for food--and we are told in prophecies, again whatever this means, that in the New Creation, the lion shall lie down with the lamb. So the fact of spiders eating one another (and of pretty much every bad thing in the world) does not need to mean that God makes moral laws arbitrarily. (Of course, if we find out in Heaven that the spiders were perfectly happy about that--nay, that for the spiders, to be eaten by their young is considered a badge of honor, and as their reward they get to be eaten over and over again, well, that will certainly be interesting. Like a sort of cannibalistic spider Valhalla... I'm sorry, where was I? Oh yes.)
5) So, anyway, what we call "love" and "morality" and "righteousness" and "goodness" here on Earth is at least a dim reflection of Who God Is. His Love and Goodness is perfect, but not something so totally alien that words like "goodness" and "love" have no real meaning.

--------------------
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:
I'm quite happy to take ChastMastr's word for whatever he might say.

Good! You have it; please enjoy it. [Smile]

quote:
As long as he says something concrete.

I'm sorry, but we don't offer refunds or exchanges. Please call Customer Service at 1-800...

quote:
Because if he seriously tries to answer this, if he really takes a look at what he thinks, says and does that would establish a "relationship" to Christ specifically, then I hope that he will see something important about the role of Church and indeed doctrine without me having to tell him.

If this is meant out of concern for my soul, I appreciate the intent, but I've pretty much described my conversion experience quite thoroughly at this point. [Smile]

(Which, in fact, included, and still includes, really taking a look at what I think.)

quote:
I'm confident that I could answer my own question, but if I did you would just feed off whatever I might say instead of taking a moment to think about this yourself. And part of what this exercise is about is ...

Dude, you're among equals here. This isn't a classroom and you're not our schoolmaster.

quote:
If you are saying that you cannot discuss your relationship to Christ at all, because it would amount to written amateur porn, then you have a very interesting take on Christianity.

And perhaps not a bad one, actually! [Biased]

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001 | IP: Logged

IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Of course I have. Sorry, you don't get to decide that.

I have explained at length what I think you have not provided. Whether you have or have not delivered by those standards is hence largely a matter of objective judgement.

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I've given you my answer; it's your problem if you don't like it very much.

So that's how you think communication works? If you ask me to clarify this or that, you expect me to respond. But if I ask you to do so, then you just wave me aside?

There was to be a point to my Socratic questioning. I have no intention to spell it out for you instead. IMHO, your loss.

--------------------
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:
Basically, these children will be naturally happy in eternity, but will not be in heaven. (Modern attempts to abandon this "Limbo of Infants" basically assume that the necessary graces are always given, though not through baptism.)

"Limbo has never been defined as church dogma and is not mentioned in the current Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states simply that unbaptized infants are entrusted to God's mercy. But limbo has long been regarded as the common teaching of the church. In the modern age, "people find it increasingly difficult to accept that God is just and merciful if he excludes infants, who have no personal sins, from eternal happiness," the new document said."

[ 21. July 2014, 20:33: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]

--------------------
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

I'm sorry, IngoB, but I'm not going to play with you. And after discovering and reading this thread, I'm afraid that seems to be precisely what you're seeking. I'm not. Sorry! [Smile]

I've made my statements and stand by what I've said. And, again, in all sincerity, if you actually intended any of this out of personal concern for my salvation, I appreciate the intent, but I don't think the approach works very well. Good luck, take care, and I mean this truly, God bless you. Perhaps we'll interact more pleasantly and usefully on some other thread.

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001 | IP: Logged

IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

Posted

<crosspost>

I'm well aware of that document, and the current doctrinal state of play concerning Limbo. It is perhaps noteworthy that the sentence the journalist picked, and that you repeated, is misleading in isolation. As the document itself explains: "Because children below the age of reason did not commit actual sin, theologians came to the common view that these unbaptised children feel no pain at all, or even that they enjoy a full natural happiness through their union with God in all natural goods (Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus)." The document contains rather blatant attempts to wiggle out of rather clear doctrinal pronouncements (paragraphs 36-40) IMHO. But it has no doctrinal standing on its own.

[ 21. July 2014, 20:51: Message edited by: IngoB ]

--------------------
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

IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I'm sorry, IngoB, but I'm not going to play with you. And after discovering and reading this thread, I'm afraid that seems to be precisely what you're seeking. I'm not. Sorry!

You have read the 13 pages of a Hell thread in order to fabricate an excuse for fluffing off? That's impressive. Deeply disturbing, but impressive.

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I've made my statements and stand by what I've said.

That's a good idea, they sure can't stand on their own.

--------------------
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: Indeed. You are now basically just repeating my explanations back to me. However, the essential point here is that God does not change His mind, ever. If "working" means that the cog catches, then the cog will catch. If "working" means that the cog doesn't catch, then the cog won't catch. The creative act is one and eternal. God cannot both do and not do in eternity.

But does god need to change other things in the universe based on whether he decides that 'working' means 'the cog catches' or 'it doesn't catch'? Is either of these choices consistent with divine perfection?

quote:
IngoB: As mentioned, your description now is self-contradictory.

A flow diagram can help to understand things better:

code:

Take our universe  <-------------------------
      |                                     |
      v                                     |
Change one rule about the Eucharist         |
      |                                     |
      v                                     |
Does this universe still                    |
have divine perfection?                     |
   |        |                               |
   |        |                               |
  Yes       No                              |
   |        |                               |
   |        |                               |
   |      Change some other rules           |
   |      (in some minimal way)             |
   |      so that it has divine perfection  |
   |        |                               |
   v        v                               |
Put this universe in the set S              |
      |                                     |
      ---------------------------------------

It would be good if we could define 'a minimal way' in a mathematical sense, but that's nitpicking here.

quote:
IngoB: Yet ultimately I do not have an undeniable answer.

Now there's a start.

quote:
IngoB: You could say that being eternal limits my God, if you wish.

This isn't the first time I have the feeling that you don't understand what 'eternal' or 'out of time' means.

quote:
IngoB: Once more, you are now just telling me what I first told you. This is precisely my point about morals as standard to which God can be held.

But this is exactly the glaring contradiction in your reasoning. You say that god cannot be held to moral standards. Yet you repeatedly hold him to dpca standards.

quote:
IngoB: No, choice does not imply morals. Voluntary and understanding choice implies morals if one has specified ends and goods as a being, and the choice is about them.

Wrong, choice implies morals. If a stone falls on my head and hurts me, I cannot blame it because it doesn't have a choice. If a dog bites me, I cannot blame it because it doesn't have a choice either.

However, if someone slaps me in the face I can blame him. I don't care what his ends are, or even if he has ends. He chose to slap me, and that's a moral choice.

Of course, god can make it so that slapping someone in the face is the morally good thing. But if he doesn't do that, it's morally wrong. You talk a lot about consistence, but this is what consistence means to me: whenever God interacts with us, His choices are consistent with the morals He gave us. Not because He has to, but because He chooses to.

Your argumentation about the Eucharist comes down to: "God (maybe) chose that Eucharist doesn't work when performed by a woman. Him being eternal means he can't change that decision. And him having no end means we can't question this decision morally." That's bollocks.

--------------------
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

Louise
Shipmate
# 30

Posted

hosting

The exchange between IngoB and ChastMastr has become far too personal.

ChastMastr it is not OK to import matters from the Hell board to other boards by linking. If you have a problem with a poster, then you need to discuss it in Hell and not allude to it here by linking. IngoB, accusing people of fabricating excuses is getting into the realms of personal attack.

This needs to be stopped or taken to the Hell board as per C4.

thanks,
Louise
Dead Horses Host

hosting off

--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.

Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

Lyda*Rose

Ship's broken porthole
# 4544

Posted

LeRoc:

quote:
Your argumentation about the Eucharist comes down to: "God (maybe) chose that Eucharist doesn't work when performed by a woman. Him being eternal means he can't change that decision. And him having no end means we can't question this decision morally."

This reminds me of the so-called, world-ending paradox in the movie Dogma. God condemns the angels Bartleby and Loki to exile from Heaven and to eternity in Wisconsin ( [Eek!]

) for disobeying his/her command thousands of years ago. They find a loophole in which to get their sins forgiven (not involving such traditional things such as, say, penitence and regret). So the movie's McGuffin is that creation will disintegrate if God's eternal will isn't done, so our heroes race to stop the rogue angels from having their way. Creation is rescued. Sort of. Erm.

Hmmm. I wonder if creation will implode if the Roman Catholic Church ever "changes" God's mind on this issue. [Two face]

[ 22. July 2014, 00:58: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]

--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano

Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003 | IP: Logged

mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
My own understanding of morality is this:
1) God is a Being such that what we call "morality," "goodness," and especially "Love" describe Who He Is, within Himself.
2) Therefore, it is neither than God obeys a law outside himself, nor that He has made "goodness" in some sort of arbitrary way in which He could just have easily made "evil" or "badness" the standard of things.
3) We, and all Creation, were and are meant to be a part of His Love, to reflect His Love, to live in and be joyfully a part of that Love and goodness.
5) So, anyway, what we call "love" and "morality" and "righteousness" and "goodness" here on Earth is at least a dim reflection of Who God Is. His Love and Goodness is perfect, but not something so totally alien that words like "goodness" and "love" have no real meaning.

Leaving out the spiders, this is, on a first and second reading, very similar to my way of looking at the question.

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I have explained at length what I think you have not provided. Whether you have or have not delivered by those standards is hence largely a matter of objective judgement.

For this "hence" to have any meaning, this pseudo-argument requires the enthymeme, "whatever is explained at length can be objectively determined." Which is absurd.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
You say that god cannot be held to moral standards. Yet you repeatedly hold him to dpca standards.

Please, what is "dpca"?

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
IngoB: No, choice does not imply morals. Voluntary and understanding choice implies morals if one has specified ends and goods as a being, and the choice is about them.
Wrong, choice implies morals. If a stone falls on my head and hurts me, I cannot blame it because it doesn't have a choice. If a dog bites me, I cannot blame it because it doesn't have a choice either.

However, if someone slaps me in the face I can blame him. I don't care what his ends are, or even if he has ends. He chose to slap me, and that's a moral choice.

Your examples show that morals imply choice, not that choice implies morals. Simple counterexample to the claim that choice implies morals: strawberries or raspberries on your ice cream? Assuming both are ethically provided, this is choice without a moral component. This choice, in other words, does not imply morals.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001 | IP: Logged

LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

Posted

quote:
mousethief: Please, what is "dpca"?

No problem. IngoB keeps saying things like "God cannot do this because of divine perfection", "God cannot do this because he needs to be consistent", "God cannot do this because it wouldn't be appropriate"... Since he keeps giving different names for the reason why his god cannot do things, I've decided to give it the abbreviation dpca (here). Better names are welcome [Biased]

My position is that whatever divine perfection, consistency or appropriateness mean, it is God that gives these things their meaning. So it is absurd to think that when He designed the universe, He was bound by them.

quote:
mousethief: Your examples show that morals imply choice, not that choice implies morals. Simple counterexample to the claim that choice implies morals: strawberries or raspberries on your ice cream? Assuming both are ethically provided, this is choice without a moral component. This choice, in other words, does not imply morals.

You're right of course. Let me formulate it more carefully: whenever your choice affects someone else, it implies morals. When you decide whether to give me an ice cream with strawberries or raspberries, I may like one more than the other. Or I may be allergic to one of them. Or maybe you should have asked first before deciding for me.

[ 22. July 2014, 01:39: 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

Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Let me formulate it more carefully: whenever your choice affects someone else, it implies morals. When you decide whether to give me an ice cream with strawberries or raspberries, I may like one more than the other.

I still don't think so. Let's say that I am a costumed mascot at a sporting event, and I am about to throw a free t-shirt into the crowd. I have a choice - I can throw left or right. My choice affects other people - if I throw left, nobody on the right is getting a shirt. But there's still no moral component.

Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013 | IP: Logged

LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

Posted

quote:
Leorning Cniht: I still don't think so. Let's say that I am a costumed mascot at a sporting event, and I am about to throw a free t-shirt into the crowd. I have a choice - I can throw left or right. My choice affects other people - if I throw left, nobody on the right is getting a shirt. But there's still no moral component.

Of course there is. But I'm not an ethical philosopher.

--------------------
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

I don't want to go into a lengthy discussion about the relationship between choice and morals; like I said I'm not an expert. My argument is this:

God has a choice on how to design the universe. This choice is determined by Him alone, He isn't limited by outside factors.
He can design the universe in such a way that either Eucharist will work both performed by a man or a woman, or that it will work only work performed by a man (given the right other conditions).
This choice affects us, so it has moral consequences.

--------------------
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

mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
God has a choice on how to design the universe.

This is where I differ from both you and IngoB. I don't believe God has choice in any meaningful sense. God's actions derive from his nature. The only choices would be, from our point of view, inconsequential. Anything that has a moral component, God has no choice. God's actions and God's person cannot be distinguished.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001 | IP: Logged

LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

Posted

My head hurts by thinking on so many different levels. I agree that God will always do what is morally good. But at the same time, He decides what 'morally good' means. This is what is causing the confusion. IngoB is confusing this more by jumping from one level to another. We need a different language for this.

[ 22. July 2014, 02:02: 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

mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
My head hurts by thinking on so many different levels. I agree that God will always do what is morally good. But at the same time, He decides what 'morally good' means.

I disagree. This makes it arbitrary; God could have said hurting people was good, but instead he said helping people was good. I can't see it. God is love, and love is good because God is love.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001 | IP: Logged

LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

Posted

quote:
mousethief: I disagree. This makes it arbitrary; God could have said hurting people was good, but instead he said helping people was good. I can't see it. God is love, and love is good because God is love.

I agree. To me, 'God is love' is more or less the basis on which I build my theology. And on this basis, I don't believe that he would create a Eucharist that could only be done by men.

However, if I understand IngoB's arguments well (but my head is spinning already), God could have said hurting people was good, but in this case we would also find that hurting people was good because we got our morals from Him. Or something like that.

--------------------
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

mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
mousethief: I disagree. This makes it arbitrary; God could have said hurting people was good, but instead he said helping people was good. I can't see it. God is love, and love is good because God is love.
I agree. To me, 'God is love' is more or less the basis on which I build my theology. And on this basis, I don't believe that he would create a Eucharist that could only be done by men.

However, if I understand IngoB's arguments well (but my head is spinning already), God could have said hurting people was good, but in this case we would also find that hurting people was good because we got our morals from Him. Or something like that.

I see. We're more on the same side of this divide than opposite ones, then. Pax.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001 | IP: Logged

LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

Posted

quote:
mousethief: I see. We're more on the same side of this divide than opposite ones, then. Pax.

I think so too.

--------------------
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

Oscar the Grouch

Adopted Cascadian
# 1916

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
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.
You are simply not thinking this through. What does child abuse even mean? Why is it child abuse, rather than child care? It is the former rather than the latter because God told us what to do with our children. He told is in various ways, but the key principle is that there is no eternal idea of how children have to be treated floating around in some Platonic concept space. That's nonsense.

The reason why indeed God could not decide that child abuse is moral is simply that what we mean by saying "child abuse" is that God has decided that this sort of treatment of children is wrong. That's all. So obviously if God said something different now, then He would contradict Himself. But that is something God cannot do. So you are right as far as the outcome is concerned, but you are subtly wrong about the reason for this outcome. God is not obeying rules against child abuse. God is decreeing how children need to be treated, and He is always true to His word.

Sorry it has taken a while to respond to you. Life has a habit of getting in the way of things.

Now I am beginning to get a clearer picture of what is wrong. For a while I thought that you and I were following different religions. Now I see that the problem is that we are inhabiting different universes. At least, that's the only rational explanation I can come up with. What you've said is just crazy. Things like child abuse are wrong not because God has so decided it, but because it is wrong full stop. Your concept of morality is bizarre. "Thou shalt not murder" was not a surprise to the Israelites. This was not news. They didn't need to be told it because they couldn't work it out otherwise. It was a confirmation of what they (and just about every other society) had known.

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
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.
God is of course perfectly arbitrary, there is not the slightest trace of any constraint whatsoever on Him. That's what it means to be Creator.

If God is arbitrary, then quite frankly I think i would prefer to be an atheist. For that makes God little better than the Devil.

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
God's ways (which include God's morality) are not "other" than ours. They are certainly "higher" than ours.
That's a contradiction in terms. "Higher" is a form of "other".

No it's not. You're just wrong. "Higher" always implies a comparison. "Other" indicates that there is NO comparison.

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
If something seems immoral to sane, reasonable people, it cannot become moral for God.
And this is false.

In what way is this false? We are made "in the image of God". Therefore, it is reasonable to suppose that - in our best state - we can share an inkling of the nature and purpose of God. So it is reasonable to suppose that our sense of morality should connect with God's morality.

In this connection, can I recommend that you read

The Bible's Yes to Same Sex Marriage by Mark Achtemeier? There is some very important stuff in this book about understanding the morality of God and the connection with human morality. I really think you would find it helpful.

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And in related news, Job is the most important book of the OT for modern people.

I would agree with you, but probably not for the reasons you think.

Job doesn't tell us that God's morality is "other" than ours. In fact, the whole book rests on the principle that Job CAN have a good idea of God's morality and call him out on a failure to act up to it. What Job DOES tell us is that it is foolish to think that we can know all there is about God or about the ways of the world and the reasons for evil. But Job's complaints about the perceived LACK of morality on God's part are still valid.

--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu

Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001 | IP: Logged

ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:

ChastMastr it is not OK to import matters from the Hell board to other boards by linking. If you have a problem with a poster, then you need to discuss it in Hell and not allude to it here by linking.

My apologies, Louise. I won't do it again. [Hot and Hormonal]

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001 | IP: Logged

Pages in this thread: 1 2 3 ... 48 49 50 51 52 53

Printer-friendly view

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0

sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website