Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Love the Pompey story!
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
It might not be a dead horse but it's surely a very bored one.
quote:Well, as it clearly states in the text, the ordained woman
Originally posted by Stoker:
When this passage comes round on the liturgical calender, what would an ordained woman say from the pulpit?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
should tell the childless women to get procreating or risk the fires of hell. It's there in black and white: procreate or incinerate.
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
quote:Bullshit. Fuck this idea and the dead horse it rode in on. "It's very clear" is a non-starter. It's only clear if you know what you want the text to say before you open the book.
Originally posted by Stoker:
it is very clear if you accept the authority of the word (as the C of E or URC does), then it follows that women shouldn't be ordained as that puts them in a position of authority over a local congregation. [/QB]
quote:I did. And I think I answered it clearly and conclusively. But as I have already written my answer down I just linked to the place it can be read.
Originally posted by Freddy:
Interesting that no one answers the OP's question.
quote:There must be some subtle hidden meaning. If only we could interpret it!
Why is this thread still here? It is a dead horse.
quote:Presumably because a kindly host has not yet had the opportunity to apply the humane killer. meanwhile I call bullshit on all those who have tried to resurrect dead horse material under the cover of this thread. You know who you all are.
Originally posted by Freddy:
Why is this thread still here? It is a dead horse.
quote:Isn't this called "junior hosting"? Geez, I call bullshit!
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:Presumably because a kindly host has not yet had the opportunity to apply the humane killer. meanwhile I call bullshit on all those who have tried to resurrect dead horse material under the cover of this thread. You know who you all are.
Originally posted by Freddy:
Why is this thread still here? It is a dead horse.
quote:Not intended that way, TM, though if it does then so does yours (and RuthW's).
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:Isn't this called "junior hosting"? Geez, I call bullshit!
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:Presumably because a kindly host has not yet had the opportunity to apply the humane killer. meanwhile I call bullshit on all those who have tried to resurrect dead horse material under the cover of this thread. You know who you all are.
Originally posted by Freddy:
Why is this thread still here? It is a dead horse.
(I think what's happening here is known as "fooling around." Everybody already acknowledges that the thread is going to be moved, after all...)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:Oh, please. Courage?
If people can't control their verbal diarrhoea on DH topics then a call of bullshit seems overdue to me. The hosting decision is already made in regard of subject matter and I would net dream of questioning it. Those who have violated it (from Stoker on down) have done so. Number yourself amongst them if you have the courage.
quote:
The subject presented itself thanks to ol' Stoker, who probably was just challenging the Ship's norms for his own pleasure. At that point, everyone pretty well knew the thread would be moved to DH where discussion could continue. So what was the harm in continuing rather jocularly in the mean time? I think Purg and DH will survive without you guarding the ramparts.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:If serious (I think you have posted similar elsewhere so there may be a serious point in here) can you pls. explain? Do you mean some other heresy? - I don't follow how you get Appolinarianism out of this one. If just a jest - no worries.
The male-only clergy is an Apollinarian heresy. Heresy trumps (interpretation of) Scripture.
Thus, the male-only clergy is in error.
quote:Genesis 1 v 2? In the amplified version of course, so that it might read something like......' ....and the Spirit which is sometimes described as a feminine form and possibly relating to the Wisdom of God and therefore shows God as male and female, which is really a bit confused (possibly gay reference), was hovering over the waters (definitely a feminist creationist theme about the birthing of creation through the breaking of waters, like the white horse on a rough sea, not to be confused with dead horses.)'
What's the proof-text for the ordination of gay female creationist dead horses?
quote:Sorry, Honest Ron. I didn't see this earlier.
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
But in passing a point arose I would be interested in following up. TubaMirum wrote:quote:If serious (I think you have posted similar elsewhere so there may be a serious point in here) can you pls. explain? Do you mean some other heresy? - I don't follow how you get Appolinarianism out of this one. If just a jest - no worries.
The male-only clergy is an Apollinarian heresy. Heresy trumps (interpretation of) Scripture.
Thus, the male-only clergy is in error.
quote:(Actually, I personally think this is better looked at in another way: that there is no real distinction in Christ between male and female, just as St. Paul wrote. IOW, it's not so much that "Christ assumed the whole of human nature" - but that "human nature" is not in actuality divided by a bright line between male and female. That gender is something of an "accident" (if I've got my terminology right - and I may definitely not have!).
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
The point is a simple one: that Christ assumed "the whole of human nature," not just "male nature"; if this weren't true, then women could not be saved. Here's a post with a more extensive explanation, said better than I will.
quote:How about these references to the inter-relationship of and distinction between men and women?:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
... there is no real distinction in Christ between male and female, just as St. Paul wrote.
...
I can't, myself, think of anything too crucial about the human condition that can be divided up along gender lines, anyway.
IOW, I think that Paul knew more than even he knew when writing to the Galatians that "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." This is more than just a statement of the unity of believers; it's an objective fact about human beings.)
quote:Please read what's actually written, if you are going to comment on it. I wrote this: "IOW, I think that Paul knew more than even he knew when writing to the Galatians that 'There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." This is more than just a statement of the unity of believers; it's an objective fact about human beings.'"
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
How about these references to the inter-relationship of and distinction between men and women?:
‘...the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband...’ (1 Cor 11:3)
‘For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman but woman for man.’ (1 Cor 11:7-8)
‘For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Saviour. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.’ (Eph 5:23-24)
‘For Adam was formed first, then Eve, and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor’ (1 Tim 2:13)
(All quotations from the ESV.)
I find it very remarkable that one verse of Paul’s writing should be taken as the most sublime piece of revelation, a veritable ubertext that overrides everything else written on the subject of the relationship between men and women, while other elements of NT writing that express a different emphasis that would modify or delimit the application of Gal 3:28 are marginalised, ignored, or invalidated. Doing that seems to me to be far too predeterminedly selective.
quote:Well, yes, it is, I'm afraid. Maybe this is a new one. Why was your Minister making the case for not having women in church leadership and authority from the pulpit?
Originally posted by Stoker:
Our minister preached on 1 Tim 2 v 11-15 on Sunday - making the case for not having women in church leadership and authority.
This is probably a very old question.
quote:Ummm, that's what religion does. That's the whole reason to have religion in the first place, so you don't have to answer to mere "reality".
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
(It's interesting, too, BTW, that most of the justifications given for "the inter-relationship of and distinction between men and women" - whatever is meant by this phrase used above - rely on Genesis, and a creation myth.
IOW, the argument has as its basis something that isn't based in reality. All of which would be fine - except that the church doesn't let it rest there, instead attempting to base real law on an unreality. No wonder it's coming apart at the seams.
quote:Not at all (although I knew you'd be along to say so!).
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Ummm, that's what religion does. That's the whole reason to have religion in the first place, so you don't have to answer to mere "reality".
quote:Always happy to oblige!
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:Not at all (although I knew you'd be along to say so!).
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Ummm, that's what religion does. That's the whole reason to have religion in the first place, so you don't have to answer to mere "reality".
quote:Beliefs like that die hard. Your assertion about not rejecting reality on religious grounds would be a lot more convincing in a world that didn't contain a whole lot of young earth creationists. Enough to fund the construction of a fairly large and expensive fake "museum" to showcase their rejection of reality.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
It simply isn't true that any old thing is acceptable in religion; if some aspect of religious belief is clearly not in accord with the reality of the world, the problem is with that belief - not with the facts of the world. This is the very clear lesson of the Church vs. Galileo, and of the geocentric view of the universe; nobody argues this anymore, and of course nobody ever will again.
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
There are other things it purports to explain as well - but none of those things have anything to do with the "the inter-relationship of and distinction between men and women." So the inferences being drawn here are wrong, even if you think the Bible is inerrant.
quote:I may be just a simple atheist, but that seems like it has something to do with "the inter-relationship of and distinction between men and women." (There's also a bit about "the inter-relationship of and distinction between snakes and women", but as far as I know there's no one clamoring for the ordination of snakes.)
To the woman he said,
"I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."
quote:There really aren't that many YECccies, I don't think. They are desperate for a literal reading of the Bible - but most young Evangelicals accept evolution as a fact these days. That whole thing is dying out now.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
There are other things it purports to explain as well - but none of those things have anything to do with the "the inter-relationship of and distinction between men and women." So the inferences being drawn here are wrong, even if you think the Bible is inerrant.quote:I may be just a simple atheist, but that seems like it has something to do with "the inter-relationship of and distinction between men and women." (There's also a bit about "the inter-relationship of and distinction between snakes and women", but as far as I know there's no one clamoring for the ordination of snakes.)
To the woman he said,
"I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."
At any rate, the fact that most Western societies have rejected the notion that men have a divine mandate to "rule over" women (or, at the very least, the women they're married to) doesn't mean that Genesis isn't making that assertion rather clearly.
quote:I'm reluctant to accept a "there aren't that many" argument about a group that can pull together twenty-seven million dollars to indulge their delusion, and still have enough money and clout to fleece the government of Kentucky for subsidies for their expansion project.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
There really aren't that many YECccies, I don't think. They are desperate for a literal reading of the Bible - but most young Evangelicals accept evolution as a fact these days. That whole thing is dying out now.
quote:. . . so given that Sumerian religious lore is still considered valid we should expect to see a "Creationism" section in whatever's replaced newspapers four thousand years from now? That's not exactly encouraging!
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
And way more people believe in astrology, so....
quote:I'm not particularly selling it, except to note that it is a plausible interpretation of Genesis. In fact, given how pervasive the assumption of patriarchy is in the rest of Genesis (and the rest of the Bible, for that matter) it seems a lot more plausible to argue, if one believes the Bible to God's guidelines for life, that male-dominated societies are God's intended and preferred social structure. One is certainly hard pressed to find an hint of a gender-egalitarian society depicted in the Bible, even among the early Christians depicted in Acts.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
It is true, what you say about the childbirth thing. Also true, about the man being stronger than the woman, and able to rule by brute strength over her. Those are simple facts of reality, though - every woman is aware of them - and more etiology, I'd say.
In any case, male "rule" over women hasn't exactly been unheard of in other parts of the world or in other religions or cultures. It's been by far the rule rather than the exception. It's an "is" rather than an "ought."
If male "rule" over woman is something that A. Pilgrim believes important in explaining "the inter-relationship of and distinction between men and women," I'd sure like to hear him argue it!
I very much doubt he'd go there - which means that he recognizes that it's not what's being argued at all.
So I'm still not buying it....
quote:We'll have to disagree on YECism; I have no numbers (just the same as you!), although I do exist within the Christian world and can pretty confidently claim it's a (very) fringe view. It's not accepted by the Catholic Church, or the Orthodox, or Anglicans, or mainstream Protestantism, or most evangelicals. And that's almost everybody, I'm afraid! And $27 million could be coming from one crackpot, after all!
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm not particularly selling it, except to note that it is a plausible interpretation of Genesis. In fact, given how pervasive the assumption of patriarchy is in the rest of Genesis (and the rest of the Bible, for that matter) it seems a lot more plausible to argue, if one believes the Bible to God's guidelines for life, that male-dominated societies are God's intended and preferred social structure. One is certainly hard pressed to find an hint of a gender-egalitarian society depicted in the Bible, even among the early Christians depicted in Acts.
quote:And yet whenever there was a leadership vacancy in Acts, the person selected was always an ethnically Jewish man.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
But when you get "there is no Jew or Greek, no male nor female, no slave nor free" - well, then the religion becomes something worth paying attention to....
quote:Well, what's happening in Acts is taking place immediately after the Crucifixion, well before that phrase was written. But, yes: culture trumps faith quite often - and it especially trumps new ideas. Film at 11.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:And yet whenever there was a leadership vacancy in Acts, the person selected was always an ethnically Jewish man.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
But when you get "there is no Jew or Greek, no male nor female, no slave nor free" - well, then the religion becomes something worth paying attention to....
My main point, though, is that "because God said so" can be used to justify just about anything, particularly when using as wide-ranging a document as the Christian Bible to represent what God said. Pretending to have a clear and unambiguous line to God isn't convincing to anyone who doesn't share your interpretation, let alone your God.
quote:Well, that's the basis most people cite for forbidding/permitting the ordination of women as priests. Basically both sides claim to have the backing of a source who is infinitely wise and completely unreachable for comment.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I'm not sure who is claiming to have "a clear and unambiguous line to God" here, though.
quote:There was a spike in interest in exotic Eastern religions in the Hellenistic/Roman world around that time, and Judaism was among the most exotic belief systems known in the Mediterranean back then. Other Eastern imports that got a good grip on the late Roman Republic/early Roman Empire include Mithraism and Isis worship.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
What's interesting to me lately is this: in the New Testament era and just before, I believer, there were people who were sort of "Judeophiles." People fascinated by Judaism who weren't actually Jews (although I believe there was some conversion at that time, too). They were attracted to the Jewish God found in Scripture, apparently, because they found something there that didn't exist in any of the other local religions. This is going to be my next area of research, I think; I'd like to know exactly what this all was about....
quote:As I said, it may be apocryphal. Pompey's fellow triumvir Crassus also visited the Jerusalem temple at a later date, on his ill-fated expedition against the Parthians. No one tells any stories about whether or not Crassus took a peek a the Holy of Holies as well, but if he did he can't have been that impressed. Unlike Pompey, Crassus looted the Temple treasury to pay his troops.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Love the Pompey story!
quote:And look what happened to him! Let that be a lesson to them!
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Unlike Pompey, Crassus looted the Temple treasury to pay his troops.
quote:Eh? What about Acts chapter 6 then? Isn't that the start of them realising that the leadership needs to be widened?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:And yet whenever there was a leadership vacancy in Acts, the person selected was always an ethnically Jewish man.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
But when you get "there is no Jew or Greek, no male nor female, no slave nor free" - well, then the religion becomes something worth paying attention to....
quote:What about it? You'll notice that "widening the leadership" still doesn't include any women.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Eh? What about Acts chapter 6 then? Isn't that the start of them realising that the leadership needs to be widened?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:And yet whenever there was a leadership vacancy in Acts, the person selected was always an ethnically Jewish man.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
But when you get "there is no Jew or Greek, no male nor female, no slave nor free" - well, then the religion becomes something worth paying attention to....
quote:So what? The early church can decide that the ministry needs to be widened, but we can't? What is the definitive cutoff for changes? 300AD? 500AD? 1054? 1518? 1570?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:What about it? You'll notice that "widening the leadership" still doesn't include any women.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Eh? What about Acts chapter 6 then? Isn't that the start of them realising that the leadership needs to be widened?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:And yet whenever there was a leadership vacancy in Acts, the person selected was always an ethnically Jewish man.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
But when you get "there is no Jew or Greek, no male nor female, no slave nor free" - well, then the religion becomes something worth paying attention to....
quote:Good question. It's my understanding that the basic premise of Christianity is that its moral and ethical precepts are based on divine revelation from God Himself in the first century. As such, you'd expect God, and those he spoke with personally, to be the ones who were clearest on What It's All About. That's one of the weaknesses of institutions founded on revelation by a supposedly all-knowing Being, reform implies that He didn't know what he was doing the first time around.
Originally posted by Martin L:
So what? The early church can decide that the ministry needs to be widened, but we can't? What is the definitive cutoff for changes? 300AD? 500AD? 1054? 1518? 1570?
quote:You cannot seriously have 'ethnically Jewish man' highlighted in red like that and then respond 'what about it' when I knock out half of that within the first few years of the church's existence.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:What about it? You'll notice that "widening the leadership" still doesn't include any women.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Eh? What about Acts chapter 6 then? Isn't that the start of them realising that the leadership needs to be widened?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:And yet whenever there was a leadership vacancy in Acts, the person selected was always an ethnically Jewish man.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
But when you get "there is no Jew or Greek, no male nor female, no slave nor free" - well, then the religion becomes something worth paying attention to....
quote:First, if you don't like the color scheme associated with hyperlinks talk to the site management. They picked the Ship's color scheme, not me.
Originally posted by orfeo:
You cannot seriously have 'ethnically Jewish man' highlighted in red like that and then respond 'what about it' when I knock out half of that within the first few years of the church's existence.
Your statement about Acts wasn't true. THAT'S what it's about.
quote:It seems to many of us that reform is exactly what was called for in the Gospels, and that we were shown a way to handle it on our own. If the first century is the litmus test, then nobody passes!
Originally posted by Crœsos:
...reform implies that He didn't know what he was doing the first time around.
quote:And then continues:
However, if we look again at the Tradition we notice that in the body of the Scriptures we do have some remarkable examples of leadership, proclamation by, and vocation of both genders. To mention but a few examples, there is Lydia who enables the Gospel to go into Europe by persuading Paul to preach there. Her role is extraordinarily episcopal. Then backing up a touch we have the Pharisee, Saul of tarsus, rounding up the leaders and members of The Way in order to put them to death. Acts 9 clearly says it was men and women that he was targeting. I suggest to you that Paul was enough of an Alpha male that he was most interested in gathering the leaders. Both male and female Christians are his target. This strongly suggests to me that women held positions of leadership in the early church and that this was recognized and acted on by Saul. But as a catholic as well as evangelical Christian I find the strongest argument is the Virgin Mary who grows in her womb the body and blood of Christ, the incarnate Son of God. She is therefore the first celebrant of the Eucharist. “Let it be according to your word.”
quote:She's an Anglo-Catholic, BTW, and is often described as a "theological conservative"....
The list of arguments goes on and on and I am not going to rehearse them all here. However I will say that what deeply saddens me more than any of these arguments, for or against, is that the church, the Body of Christ, is divided and rent asunder by these arguments. And in fact it is far more than arguments that are at stake. I fear we may be guilty of the sin of idolatry. So let’s back up a moment and remember what is of the greatest importance. We are, all of us, called to be disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ. Bishops are the successors of the apostles in every century. To be an apostle, two things are required. First one must be the witness of the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. And secondly one must be commissioned or sent by Christ to proclaim the Good News. Mary Magdalene [“I have seen the Lord”] fulfilled both those criteria and hence is called the Apostle to the Apostles. So if we are going to worry about who should be a bishop at this time and in this part of the world, the requirement must be that a bishop, as a successor to the apostles, is able and eager to witness to the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ and be recognized as one who has been sent to proclaim our Lord’s Resurrection to the world. That is why Paul who did not know Jesus in the flesh could claim to be an apostle. It was because he was a witness of the resurrection of Christ in the encounter on the road to Damascus and he was sent out by no one less than the Christ to make this proclamation. To state the obvious: this is all about Jesus and the Resurrection, and not about gender. To say that one needs to have certain gender specific human attributes are more important than what we have received as a gift from Almighty God. And that to me is idolatry and serious sin. So I would suggest that all parties in this need to repent and commit, yet again, to praying for God’s guidance in this matter.
