The Rapture Index

[ProfessorDavey]

Academia=Job, ecclesia =vocation.

Really?!?

I suggest you need to define vocation first using some accepted definition and then we can discuss whether academia is just a job rather than a vocation. Precious few of my academic colleagues seem to consider it to be just a job.

The amount of time and effort it takes to become an academic, the hours worked by academics and the notion that many of my colleagues see academia as their life, not their job to the extent that we've recently hired a couple of academics in their 80s who desperately want to continue to be able to conduct their academic research but had been forced to retire by Cambridge suggests it is rather more than just a job.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Really?!?

I suggest you need to define vocation first using some accepted definition and then we can discuss whether academia is just a job rather than a vocation. Precious few of my academic colleagues seem to consider it to be just a job.

The amount of time and effort it takes to become an academic, the hours worked by academics and the notion that many of my colleagues see academia as their life, not their job to the extent that we've recently hired a couple of academics in their 80s who desperately want to continue to be able to conduct their academic research but had been forced to retire by Cambridge suggests it is rather more than just a job.

So, you think you were "called" to academia? Who called you?

[ProfessorDavey]

So, you think you were "called" to academia? Who called you?

Classic goalpost moving - I thought we were talking about a 'vocation' not a 'calling'.

So let's stick to the term you used - vocation. Here is a classic definition:

'a type of work that you feel you are suited to doing and to which you should give all your time and energy, or the feeling that a type of work suits you in this way'

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/vocation

Yup sounds like the kind of attitude that most academics I know have towards academia. And if you want to throw in calling (yes I am aware of the origins of the word vocation) then the calling is a strong inclination towards a profession that it deemed to be particularly worthy and important and that the individual is prepared to devote huge time and effort towards. Hence medicine, teaching etc are considered to be vocations too, along with academia. In each case these vocations are far more than just a job.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Classic goalpost moving - I thought we were talking about a 'vocation' not a 'calling'.

So let's stick to the term you used - vocation. Here is a classic definition:

'a type of work that you feel you are suited to doing and to which you should give all your time and energy, or the feeling that a type of work suits you in this way'

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/vocation

Yup sounds like the kind of attitude that most academics I know have towards academia. And if you want to throw in calling (yes I am aware of the origins of the word vocation) then the calling is a strong inclination towards a profession that it deemed to be particularly worthy and important and that the individual is prepared to devote huge time and effort towards. Hence medicine, teaching etc are considered to be vocations too, along with academia. In each case these vocations are far more than just a job.

vocation originally applied to a religious calling, a word from God. The modern meaning is the equivalent of a job.


Indeed as I have pointed out you call office in the church a job and inflict secular views of management on it.

While apparently seeking some kind of priesthood for yourself

.......it's more than a job ooooooooooooo.

[ProfessorDavey]

vocation originally applied to a religious calling, a word from God. The modern meaning is the equivalent of a job.

It actually derives from the latin words voice and vocatio - which has a much broader context than a religious calling and refers to any kind of summons or calling. So the notion of a vocation has never exclusively referred to a religious calling, and clearly doesn't now as I suspect most of the vocations people will consider will be secular, for example nursing, medicine or teaching.

So, as so often, you fail to understand the broader context, not being able to see beyond your religious blinkers.

Indeed as I have pointed out you call office in the church a job and inflict secular views of management on it.

While apparently seeking some kind of priesthood for yourself

.......it's more than a job ooooooooooooo.

As you have no real idea of academia, then I suggest we all take anything you say about it with a pinch of salt. But, yes it is more than just a job - hence the academic calling (vocation) and the intellectual calling. People devote their lives to their intellectual academic endeavours in the same manner that no doubt some clergy devote their lives to their religious calling. I suspect there are plenty of other clergy who see their role a job too, albeit one with weird hours (a bit like academia - if you knew anything about it you'd know that it isn't uncommon to find academics working and emailing you in the early hours).

[ProfessorDavey]

So, you think you were "called" to academia? Who called you?

You are aware, are you not Vlad, that the concept of academia predates christianity by hundreds of years, and that its origins clearly involved intellectuals being 'called' to a specific place to engage in philosophy and learning. And while academics were being 'called' to the academy as early as 385BC, the christian use of the derived word vocation didn't arise until the middle ages.

Academics have been being called (voco, vocatia) to the academy for nearly 2,500 years.

[ProfessorDavey]

vocation originally applied to a religious calling, a word from God. The modern meaning is the equivalent of a job.

And you'll no doubt be aware that the notion of a 'calling' in the legal profession, i.e. called to the bar, likely predated the use of the term vocation as a religious calling by at least a century.

And of course the modern meaning is not equivalent to a job - the whole point about a vocation is that it is far more than just a job. It is an occupation that someone is exceptionally suited to, usually seen to be worthy or good and that the person is prepared to devote themselves to above and beyond the notion of a mere job.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And you'll no doubt be aware that the notion of a 'calling' in the legal profession, i.e. called to the bar, likely predated the use of the term vocation as a religious calling by at least a century.

And of course the modern meaning is not equivalent to a job - the whole point about a vocation is that it is far more than just a job. It is an occupation that someone is exceptionally suited to, usually seen to be worthy or good and that the person is prepared to devote themselves to above and beyond the notion of a mere job.

Yes but my question is who is doing the calling?
You seem to be the one turning vocations into jobs, equating religious vocations into secular corporate heirarchies.
Who is doing the calling to the bar?
Who is doing the calling to academia?

[Gordon]

Yes but my question is who is doing the calling?
You seem to be the one turning vocations into jobs, equating religious vocations into secular corporate heirarchies.
Who is doing the calling to the bar?
Who is doing the calling to academia?

I recall telling you a few times to be careful with all the straw you seemingly had at your disposal. I think I should also warn you about playing with concrete: it affects the thinking you know, but it may be that in your case my warning is already too late.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes but my question is who is doing the calling?
You seem to be the one turning vocations into jobs, equating religious vocations into secular corporate heirarchies.
Who is doing the calling to the bar?
Who is doing the calling to academia?

There is no need for a specific person to be calling someone - a calling can, of course, come from within - you are called to do something due to your inner passion for it. Hence if anyone is doing the calling it is the person 'called' themselves.

But in a much more specific sense, both the legal profession and academia have traditions whereby when individuals join they are welcomed/called by others in more senior positions in that organisation. And in both cases that element of a traditional calling of the novice by the senior pre-dates the use of the term vocation in a christian context.

And while neither the Church of England (for example) nor Universities are 'for profit' organisations both have very clear hierarchies and indeed they use the same terminology in certain cases to denote people in more senior positions - for example Dean (I had that title for a while) and Rector. Congregation is also another term used by both academia and churches.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There is no need for a specific person to be calling someone - a calling can, of course, come from within - you are called to do something due to your inner passion for it. Hence if anyone is doing the calling it is the person 'called' themselves.

But in a much more specific sense, both the legal profession and academia have traditions whereby when individuals join they are welcomed/called by others in more senior positions in that organisation. And in both cases that element of a traditional calling of the novice by the senior pre-dates the use of the term vocation in a christian context.

And while neither the Church of England (for example) nor Universities are 'for profit' organisations both have very clear hierarchies and indeed they use the same terminology in certain cases to denote people in more senior positions - for example Dean (I had that title for a while) and Rector. Congregation is also another term used by both academia and churches.

You cannot have both calling and organisation based on standard models imo.

Male hierarchies in the so called "callings" tend to favour males and where there are gender or serial quotas the essential misogyny finds different outlets. Did you infact consult the wikipedia article on sexism in academia?

[jeremyp]

So, you think you were "called" to academia? Who called you?

Next time, you should be more specific about which particular definition of "vocation" you mean.

[jeremyp]

Yes but my question is who is doing the calling?

Well since the Christian god doesn't exist, who is it that calls people to the priesthood?

[ProfessorDavey]

You cannot have both calling and organisation based on standard models imo.

Of course you can - people can feel 'called' into all sorts of organisations with all sorts of organisational structures.

And, of course, if you cannot be called into an organisation with a hierarchical organisational structure then there cannot be a 'calling' to be a RCC or CofE priest as those organisations have some of the most hierarchical and organised operational models going.

[ProfessorDavey]

Male hierarchies in the so called "callings" tend to favour males and where there are gender or serial quotas the essential misogyny finds different outlets.

Blimey - my irony meter has just exploded.

You mean like the male hierarchies in the RCC that ban women from being priest, bishops, cardinals and pope. Or the misogeny by policy within the CofE that while allowing women bishops accepts that it is reasonable for the rank and file to reject the notion of a woman bishop and, by policy, allow them to refuse to be under the organisational leadership of a woman.

[Spud]

The fig tree incident shows that God the creator of Heaven and Earth and perfect being was capable of extreme petulance when a plant that he allegedly designed behaved in the way that he designed it.

In the face of incidents like that, it's no wonder that most people in the World don't take Christian claims seriously.

Hosea 9:10 and Micah 7:1-6 say that fig trees could produce 'early fruit'. Perhaps when Jesus noticed leaves he hoped there could also be some figs. Mark's comment that it wasn't the season for figs should probably be taken to mean the main crop.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Blimey - my irony meter has just exploded.

You mean like the male hierarchies in the RCC that ban women from being priest, bishops, cardinals and pope. Or the misogeny by policy within the CofE that while allowing women bishops accepts that it is reasonable for the rank and file to reject the notion of a woman bishop and, by policy, allow them to refuse to be under the organisational leadership of a woman.

I look forward to your explanation for why it is irrational for people to request a male priest then maybe why it is rational for a woman to request a woman doctor.

[jeremyp]

I look forward to your explanation for why it is irrational for people to request a male priest then maybe why it is rational for a woman to request a woman doctor.

Can women request a female priest?

[ProfessorDavey]

Can women request a female priest?

I guess they can request one - but in the CofE their request can be ignored, while the CofE has enshrined in its laws the right to request a male priest, a request which must be granted. Clear direct discrimination against women, and direct discrimination by deliberate policy.

Good luck with anyone requesting a female priest in the RCC.

[Outrider]

I look forward to your explanation for why it is irrational for people to request a male priest then maybe why it is rational for a woman to request a woman doctor.

Souls are gender neutral, genitals aren't?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Souls are gender neutral, genitals aren't?

O.

So is it then irrational for me to put my genitals in the hands of both male or female doctors? Actually I suppose these days I have to entrust the left one to male doctors, The right to female doctors and Hector to Trans doctors.

[jeremyp]

So is it then irrational for me to put my genitals in the hands of both male or female doctors? Actually I suppose these days I have to entrust the left one to male doctors, The right to female doctors and Hector to Trans doctors.

That's a fetish I've not heard of before. But whatever floats your boat.