The Rapture Index

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, they do not trouble me, but perhaps they should trouble you.
I was pointing out the difference between seeing Christ as a supreme exemplar of how humans should behave (the implication of your first truncated quote) and the theological implications which derive from St Paul's statement of the same doctrine implied in the part of the verse which you didn't quote : "There is one mediator between humans and God" *(which is probably where St John got the idea from).

*That's from the spurious 1 Timothy (Pastoral Eps) which was probably written just before the end of the1st century, so in time to influence John.

Why should everyone conclude that Christ is a supreme exemplar of how humans should behave unless there is something pointing us to his example.

If it's just about being like good blokes surely that depends on your definition of Good. Mohammed lived an exciting militaristic life and held decisions of life and death over people presumably tempering mercy with justice and was a successful businessman. I can think of loads of people who would see this man as a supreme exemplar over Jesus who looks Hippyish in comparison.

Jesus IS an example of how people should behave, in any case. To me only one rattled would baulk at Jesus being God's way, truth and Life since without this element we are back to commandment observance,works and a remoteness of God.

Jesus is God's way of taking the spiritual effects of sin onto himself. He takes an active role in one's salvation

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The question of misogyny in the New Testament is complex. A case can be argued that it wasn't misogynistic at the time Paul wrote the last chapter of Romans but, by the time the six forged letters of Paul were written, it had become misogynistic and when it took over the Roman Empire in the fourth century, it was bad news for women. Read about Hypatia if you want to know what Christianity did for women.

This completely ignores the wholesale sexual exploitation of the Roman Empire.
What happened to Hypatia was not good of course but to make her the supreme example of what Christianity did for women is farcical considering what Christianity led many women out of. This distortion and focus on one person is of course redolent of the Great person view of history.
Throughout history this has cast the great Hypatia as a martyr of philosophy, a Christian saint, and recently a martyr of science( although I think the library is mourned perhaps more than Hypatia) and most recently a feminist Icon. The sexual exploitation of hundreds of thousands of historical 'nobodies' is thus swept aside.

[jeremyp]

This completely ignores the wholesale sexual exploitation of the Roman Empire.

What wholesale sexual exploitation of the Roman Empire?

What happened to Hypatia was not good of course but to make her the supreme example of what Christianity did for women is farcical considering what Christianity led many women out of. This distortion and focus on one person is of course redolent of the Great person view of history.

What did Christianity lead women out of?

[Dicky Underpants]

What happened to Hypatia was not good of course but to make her the supreme example of what Christianity did for women is farcical considering what Christianity led many women out of. This distortion and focus on one person is of course redolent of the Great person view of history.

Well, I think you might well contemplate the two following passages, which illustrate the way Christianity degenerated in its attitude to women.

The first is from St Paul in Galatians:

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

And then from the Church Father, Tertullian a century or two later:

 "And do you not know that you are (each) an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil's gateway: you are the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account of your desert — that is, death — even the Son of God had to die."

I think these sum up exactly the point that Jeremy was making.

PS. I hope you're not going to say that Tertullian became a heretic 

[Dicky Underpants]

Jesus IS an example of how people should behave, in any case. To me only one rattled would baulk at Jesus being God's way, truth and Life since without this element we are back to commandment observance,works and a remoteness of God.

Jesus is God's way of taking the spiritual effects of sin onto himself. He takes an active role in one's salvation

I do not baulk at Jesus being something more than "a good bloke". However, I've learned to live with what you call "remoteness from God". Trust me, it doesn't hurt after a time, and you get to realise that there was nothing 'missing' in the first place.
It's pretty obvious that Jesus had enormous courage - certainly far more than most of us. As for his teaching - well, you have to work out what that was, and trust how reliable his journalists were. You could of course accept everything written in the NT, regardless of all the contradictions in action and teaching, and end up a fundie. Or you choose what you wish to believe, which seems to be what the various and committees and councils (in the first few hundred years after Christ) decided was what you ought to be believing.
Your final sentence is just a doctrinal statement which is just so much woo. If he is God, he damn well deserves to take 'sin' on himself, since he was responsible for creating us and it in the first place. Or maybe he's not God, or only God some of the time when he's not being the Son of God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well, I think you might well contemplate the two following passages, which illustrate the way Christianity degenerated in its attitude to women.

The first is from St Paul in Galatians:

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

And then from the Church Father, Tertullian a century or two later:

 "And do you not know that you are (each) an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil's gateway: you are the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account of your desert — that is, death — even the Son of God had to die."

I think these sum up exactly the point that Jeremy was making.

PS. I hope you're not going to say that Tertullian became a heretic 

Well, he can't be accused of putting women on a pedestal. Other church fathers are available.

[ProfessorDavey]

Well, he can't be accused of putting women on a pedestal. Other church fathers are available.

I prefer to judge people and organisations by their actions, not their words.

So, even today, the largest christian denomination still refuses to allow women to be priest, bishops, cardinals, pope etc. They continue to institutionally discriminate in a direct manner against women. And it is therefore unsurprising that the RCC's teaching (which is, of course, overwhelmingly developed by man) aims to deny fundamental rights of women over their bodies and reproduction.

Oh - and although the CofE is certainly better than the RCC it still doesn't provide full equality for women - parishes are able to refuse the jurisdiction of a woman bishop.

This about this in terms of any other organisation - the RCC position is like a company saying that no-one on the board or in any senior position can be a woman. The CofE is the equivalent of an employee in a company being able to refuse being line managed by a woman. We'd think those positions to be deeply unethical, highly discriminatory and flat out illegal. Yet we allow religious organisations to perpetuation such discrimination with impunity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I prefer to judge people and organisations by their actions, not their words.

So, even today, the largest christian denomination still refuses to allow women to be priest, bishops, cardinals, pope etc. They continue to institutionally discriminate in a direct manner against women. And it is therefore unsurprising that the RCC's teaching (which is, of course, overwhelmingly developed by man) aims to deny fundamental rights of women over their bodies and reproduction.

Oh - and although the CofE is certainly better than the RCC it still doesn't provide full equality for women - parishes are able to refuse the jurisdiction of a woman bishop.

This about this in terms of any other organisation - the RCC position is like a company saying that no-one on the board or in any senior position can be a woman. The CofE is the equivalent of an employee in a company being able to refuse being line managed by a woman. We'd think those positions to be deeply unethical, highly discriminatory and flat out illegal. Yet we allow religious organisations to perpetuation such discrimination with impunity.

The designation of specific priests is but a tradition. I tolerate the idea of a full time clergy but for me it isn't the heart of the matter and throughout church history the designated priest I think has done the job with the support of mainly local women parishioners. So a male priesthood is an ever so slightly a bit of a sham.

Tertullian funnily enough joined a church, the montanist where woman had headed the church for all his apparent misogyny.

The ability to refuse female bishops is I think a transition but I hardly think that satisfies the desire for instant vengeance on the church.

But the perhaps the biggest single mocker on the primacy of a male priesthood is the biblical concept of a priesthood of all believers.

First Epistle of Peter, 2:9:

But you are not like that, for you are a chosen people. You are royal priests, a holy nation, God’s very own possession. As a result, you can show others the goodness of God, for he called you out of the darkness into his wonderful light.

In terms of denying women rights Churches can only campaign for that and it is usually rejected in secular democracies. I am not one of those who are disturbed that there are people who do not agree with abortion laws although I am rather intrigued about how people like you are going to make everyone in society think like you.

[ProfessorDavey]

The designation of specific priests is but a tradition.

So what - not allowing women to attend university was once but a tradition - that something is a tradition doesn't justify its acceptability, does it Vlad.

Most of the rest of the post is waffle and guff, and totally irrelevant to the point of the discrimination. It doesn't matter to me how and why people try to justify discrimination or try to claim it is somehow not discrimination. It makes no difference whatsoever to the fact of discrimination in reality. And if women are treated less favourably than men within the RCC and the CofE (and they clearly are) then this is, without doubt, discrimination.

[ProfessorDavey]

The ability to refuse female bishops is I think a transition but I hardly think that satisfies the desire for instant vengeance on the church.

Where have I used the term 'vengeance' or suggested anything that could come close to vengeance. I think the word you are looking for is justice - effectively justice for women within the CofE that means they aren't treated less favourably than a man if they are a Bishop. Currently they are - the church could have ensured this was not the case through a couple of manners - they have chosen not to, they have taken a deliberate decision to embed discrimination within their organisation.

[Sebastian Toe]

Where have I used the term 'vengeance' or suggested anything that could come close to vengeance. I think the word you are looking for is justice - effectively justice for women within the CofE that means they aren't treated less favourably than a man if they are a Bishop. Currently they are - the church could have ensured this was not the case through a couple of manners - they have chosen not to, they have taken a deliberate decision to embed discrimination within their organisation.

Pope John Paul II

'Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgement is to be definitively heard by all the Church's faithful.'

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So what - not allowing women to attend university was once but a tradition - that something is a tradition doesn't justify its acceptability, does it Vlad.

Most of the rest of the post is waffle and guff, and totally irrelevant to the point of the discrimination. It doesn't matter to me how and why people try to justify discrimination or try to claim it is somehow not discrimination. It makes no difference whatsoever to the fact of discrimination in reality. And if women are treated less favourably than men within the RCC and the CofE (and they clearly are) then this is, without doubt, discrimination.

Already you've been supplied with biblical passages which state that there is no male nor female in Christ and that there is a priesthood of all believers and yet  you choose to ignore these completely. I am not compelled to accept therefore that there must be a male priest in front of me. I can take a congregationalist view and still maintain my relationship with Christ because that is the heart of the matter.

For me the concept of moral failure in any guise is confirmation of the notion of sin. By which I do not mean the atheist caricature definition ''sin is merely about God'' but the anglican version where you can sin against your fellow man.

In your understanding wrongdoing is mainly the preserve of the other feller and religion is the root of all evil and when challenged you can deny that evil is even a thing, a kind of strange flip flop between logic and science where you can park one if it doesn't provide the answer.

Oh and if you discount christians who believe in the priesthood of all believers because they are not as big as the RC church then I'm afraid you are indulging in argumentum ad populum.

 

[ProfessorDavey]

Already you've been supplied with biblical passages which state that there is no male nor female in Christ and that there is a priesthood of all believers and yet  you choose to ignore these completely.

I'm not interested in biblical passages - I'm interested in justice and ensuring that people are not discriminated against because of their sex. Moreover, the passage has no bearing in reality as the major denominations discriminate against women - some more than others, but using the examples I gave, neither the RCC nor the CofE are close to affording women equality with men in terms of their ability to be priests/bishops nor if they are able ensuring that they have equality with a man in the same role.

[ProfessorDavey]

Oh and if you discount christians who believe in the priesthood of all believers because they are not as big as the RC church then I'm afraid you are indulging in argumentum ad populum.

No - I'm not. Franky I'm not interested in the argument about whether all believers are priests or just some that are appointed by the church. That is a little internal spat that you can have with you fellow christians. I am interested in justice and getting rid of discrimination. If some christian denominations do not deliberately discriminate, well good for them - but they a hardly deserve a medal do they as they are just like virtually all organisations in this country who are required, by law not to discriminate.

No, I am concerned about those denominations (and yes that includes all the biggies) that do discriminate - I want to see that end because I believe in justice and equality.

[Outrider]

Already you've been supplied with biblical passages which state that there is no male nor female in Christ and that there is a priesthood of all believers and yet  you choose to ignore these completely.

It doesn't matter whether or not we accept them or not, there are any number of Christians who put those tenets behind others. Their Christianity is not yours, and vice versa.

I am not compelled to accept therefore that there must be a male priest in front of me. I can take a congregationalist view and still maintain my relationship with Christ because that is the heart of the matter.

Again, for you. Does that in any way stop millions of other Christians manifesting their religion differently?

In your understanding wrongdoing is mainly the preserve of the other feller and religion is the root of all evil and when challenged you can deny that evil is even a thing, a kind of strange flip flop between logic and science where you can park one if it doesn't provide the answer.

No, it's just that sin doesn't mean anything (although moral judgements can); religion is not the root of all evil, but it is a force for evil.

Oh and if you discount christians who believe in the priesthood of all believers because they are not as big as the RC church then I'm afraid you are indulging in argumentum ad populum.

No, it's acknowledging that Christianity is a broad church, and some of the elements of that broad church are hateful, homophobic, misogynist and/or racist manifestations of that religion.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

In your understanding wrongdoing is mainly the preserve of the other feller and religion is the root of all evil and when challenged you can deny that evil is even a thing, a kind of strange flip flop between logic and science where you can park one if it doesn't provide the answer.

I have said none of those things. Stop misrepresenting what I have said.

[ProfessorDavey]

I am not compelled to accept therefore that there must be a male priest in front of me. I can take a congregationalist view and still maintain my relationship with Christ because that is the heart of the matter.

Your personal opinion on the matter seems to be completely irrelevant.

Just because you might not accept that the priest in front of you doesn't have to be a man (good for you) doesn't change the fact that if that particular church does not allow women to become priests women are suffering direct discrimination from that organisation. Your opinion won't change that unless you are successful in persuading that religious organisation to stop discriminating (good luck with that!).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your personal opinion on the matter seems to be completely irrelevant.

I don't see why.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't see why.

Because it has no effect on whether women are being discriminated against by those organisations. Unless you are able to persuade those organisations to stop discriminating against women your opinion that a priest can be a man or a woman (or just any old Jo or Joe in the crowd) isn't worth anything, is it Vlad, as it doesn't prevent the discrimination.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because it has no effect on whether women are being discriminated against by those organisations. Unless you are able to persuade those organisations to stop discriminating against women your opinion that a priest can be a man or a woman (or just any old Jo or Joe in the crowd) isn't worth anything, is it Vlad, as it doesn't prevent the discrimination.

I am just reiterating the biblical notion of the  priesthood of all believers. That is what has the effect. It isn't something i've just made up.

[ProfessorDavey]

I am just reiterating the biblical notion of the  priesthood of all believers. That is what has the effect. It isn't something i've just made up.

So you say - but others will use different biblical sections to justify the need for a specific ordained clergy within a church and that those clergy must be male. For example see the quote from JPII that Sebastian Toe referred to previously, that refers to Luke.

I don't wish to intrude in the internal battles about what the bible means and how it should be interpreted - there are already too many varying views amongst christians. What I am concerned about is that these churches discriminate against women. Just as I don't care how people might justify racism - I will oppose it regardless of its claimed justification, I don't care how people might justify discrimination against women - I will oppose it regardless.

[Outrider]

I am just reiterating the biblical notion of the  priesthood of all believers. That is what has the effect. It isn't something i've just made up.

No, you're reiterating your preferred interpretation of you preferred translation of one amongst a number of varying and contradictory Biblical notions. Other Christians interpret their chosen translations differently.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you say - but others will use different biblical sections to justify the need for a specific ordained clergy within a church and that those clergy must be male. For example see the quote from JPII that Sebastian Toe referred to previously, that refers to Luke.

Yes and weighing it up I am perfectly OK for a volunteer organised institution to run on those lines because at the end of the day they might be right and I might be wrong although I at this time consider myself as the purist here. How clergy are organised is also for me not the heart of the matter. Secondly, I question your definition of misogyny, thirdly your insistence on secular thinking in a religious issue where there is no question of a secular substitute to all of this....and that makes your complaint more backdoor ''de-religion'' than anything else IMHO.

How many catholic women are lining up to be priests, I wonder. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, you're reiterating your preferred interpretation of you preferred translation of one amongst a number of varying and contradictory Biblical notions. Other Christians interpret their chosen translations differently.

O.

If you are saying that there is no concept of ''The priesthood of all believers'' I would beg to differ.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

For anybody interested:

https://catholic-womens-ordination.org.uk/