As it's a religious group, I have no real opinion on this. The congregation as a whole has a right to decide who they're led by. If it's distasteful to some, there are other religious organizations to choose from.
Brits, what is your opinion? Will this affect anything in any meaningful way in the UK?
Quote
With many hoping to smash the stained glass ceiling, the Church of England voted over allowing women to serve as bishops on November 20. But the ceiling remains intact, as the vote failed to pass and the outcome could have major implications for the Church's future.
The Church's legislative body, known as the General Synod, made the decision late Tuesday afternoon. After a long day filled with dozens of speeches by various members of the Synod's three elected houses – one each for clergy, bishops and lay people – at Church House in Westminster, London, the measure was put to a vote. It needed a two-thirds majority from each of the Synod's houses to pass, but fell short by just six votes from lay-members.
For years, there has been a strong push to allow women to become bishops in the Church, which opened its doors to women priests back in 1992. Women bishops are already common in the Anglican churches in Canada, the U.S. and Australia and many in Britain were shocked at the Synod's decision, which was widely expected to go the other way. Reverend George Pitcher, an Anglican priest at London's St. Bride's, was stunned by the vote, saying that it could cause "chaos in the Church of England." The decision was also a blow to both the outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, who has long supported the move, as well as the incoming Archbishop, Justin Welby, who endorsed women bishops in his first address from Lambeth Palace just two weeks ago. "I will be voting in favor," Welby told a group of reporters on Nov. 9. "And join my voice to many others in urging the Synod to go forward with this change."
Though it's not the most divisive issue facing the wider, worldwide Anglican community – that would be the question of gay marriage – ordaining women bishops has caused serious conflict within the Church of England for years now. According to Pitcher, the Church is divided between reformers who want to see the Church evolve and conservatives who are against the Church of England becoming a "mainstream, liberal, Episcopal—as in the States—type of Church." Traditionalist members and clergy have been especially firm in their views that only men should serve in the role of bishops, believing it to be scripturally sound. "We accept that there are different interpretations of the scriptures," Jane Patterson, a member of the conservative evangelical group Reform, told the Guardian, "but the church needs to guard against placing society's views over what we see as God's views, as expressed in his written word, the Bible."
Meanwhile, others believe allowing women bishops is not only the right thing to do, but also the necessary thing to do to keep pace with modern England. The Church has been bleeding members for a number of years, with reports from the Research and Statistics Department of the Archbishops' Council for 2010 showing that less than 2% of Britons attend regular services. And the Church's latest move isn't likely to register well with the average citizen; a July poll showed that 74% of Brits thought the Church of England should allow women bishops. "Theology doesn't exist in a vacuum," Jan McFarlane, the Archdeacon of Norwich, pointed out during her speech to the Synod on Tuesday. "A church so out of step with the world around us becomes an irrelevance."
Incidentally, even some advocates of women bishops weren't fully supportive of Tuesday's measure anyway, as it included a clause allowing individual traditionalist parishes to opt for a stand-in male bishop to oversee a women bishop. The clause was an attempt to placate inflexible opponents of women bishops, but it obviously wasn't enough to win over everyone. After the measure was rejected on Tuesday, Archbishop Williams expressed his sadness over the decision and added that "this vote of course isn't the end of the story. This is not an issue that is going to go away." Which, unfortunately, was the one conclusion that the entire Church of England was hoping for.
Read more: http://world.time.com/2012/11/21/the-church-of-england-votes-against-women-bishops/#ixzz2CsvKIQzk (http://readmore:http://world.time.com/2012/11/21/the-church-of-england-votes-against-women-bishops/#ixzz2CsvKIQzk)
I have problems taking a female minister too seriously, so yeah I'm okay with this.
Rowan Williams really is putrid as a leader. But I suppose a charismatic and dynamic leader would be wasted in an institution like the Church of England anyway.
Funny people are saying the church is out of touch when it was the laity who voted it down though :lol:
QuoteThe Church's legislative body, known as the General Synod
Sounds like a ST:TOS Klingon.
:lol:
It's a part of our Government, with seats in the House of Lords. It also runs many of our schools.
What an embarassment of a church. Incapable of making a decision after 12 years of preparation. Trying desperately to balance the homophobic Africans with the liberal Yanks, the evangelicals with the vurtual catholics. Result a messy compromise that everyone hates.
Quote from: Gups on November 21, 2012, 02:08:29 PM
It's a part of our Government, with seats in the House of Lords. It also runs many of our schools.
What an embarassment of a church. Incapable of making a decision after 12 years of preparation. Trying desperately to balance the homophobic Africans with the liberal Yanks, the evangelicals with the vurtual catholics. Result a messy compromise that everyone hates.
The Liberal Yanks already have female bishops, don't they? I thought they'd pretty much thumbed their nose at the Bishop of Canterbury.
Didn't know about the rest. That kind of puts a new spin on things. How can the Prime Minister allow this when it directly affects the government?
Quote from: Gups on November 21, 2012, 02:08:29 PM
What an embarassment of a church. Incapable of making a decision after 12 years of preparation. Trying desperately to balance the homophobic Africans with the liberal Yanks, the evangelicals with the vurtual catholics. Result a messy compromise that everyone hates.
Hey that sounds like the Byzantine Empire.
Quote from: Valmy on November 21, 2012, 02:23:23 PM
Quote from: Gups on November 21, 2012, 02:08:29 PM
What an embarassment of a church. Incapable of making a decision after 12 years of preparation. Trying desperately to balance the homophobic Africans with the liberal Yanks, the evangelicals with the vurtual catholics. Result a messy compromise that everyone hates.
Hey that sounds like the Byzantine Empire.
Not to mention the United Methodist Church and several others.
Good. Who wants to be lectured to by a woman? Yuk.
Quote from: derspiess on November 21, 2012, 02:30:46 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 21, 2012, 02:23:23 PM
Quote from: Gups on November 21, 2012, 02:08:29 PM
What an embarassment of a church. Incapable of making a decision after 12 years of preparation. Trying desperately to balance the homophobic Africans with the liberal Yanks, the evangelicals with the vurtual catholics. Result a messy compromise that everyone hates.
Hey that sounds like the Byzantine Empire.
Not to mention the United Methodist Church and several others.
Yeah. It kind of sounds like most churches. Criminy, how long does it take the Catholic Church to do anything?
Quote from: merithyn on November 21, 2012, 02:32:47 PM
Criminy, how long does it take the Catholic Church to do anything?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcf.geekdo-images.com%2Fimages%2Fpic1418520_md.jpg&hash=ce99d80063882e128f9abe3cdc6232da850fa563)
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 21, 2012, 02:31:21 PM
Good. Who wants to be lectured to by a woman? Yuk.
With most good male ministers, it's like dad or some uncle telling you a witty (if possibly heavy-handed) story. With a woman minister it's at best like mom nagging you.
Women. :rolleyes:
This kind of thing is getting dumb. A lot of Christians want to emphasize 21st century values to make their religion more palatable. I'm an actual Christian, a Catholic matter-of-fact, and the simple truth is much of Christian doctrine does not jive with 21st century ideals of equality. Church doctrine and even Christian theology is not about or even promoting of gender equality in the Church hierarchy. (Doctrine also clearly states in Galatians that all are equal in salvation.) Genuine Christianity however cannot, if you read scripture at its face value, treat women and men as equal in business of the Church. You can gnash your teeth and be mad about it or not, but at the end of the day I wish these atheists-in-all-but-name that still go to churches and advocate basically unchristian things would stop calling themselves Christians, it deludes the brand.
Christianity was never intended to be easy, it wasn't supposed to be something you could sign up for casually as some sort of faddish thing. It's supposed to be hard. Fasting is supposed to be often, for example, and most have simply abandoned that. Even Orthodox Christians, who I greatly respect for their adherence to some traditions despite their unpopularity, have mostly gone soft on fasting.
If Christianity just changes with all the social changes, then you might as well stop calling it Christianity. I'd rather have a 95% atheist world with 5% true Christians than a bunch of CINOs running around with modern, incompatible views on the Church.
Quote from: derspiess on November 21, 2012, 02:04:18 PM
I have problems taking a female minister too seriously, so yeah I'm okay with this.
You know, I feel the same way. Then again, I have no religious impulse, so I suppose I have trouble taking any minister seriously, but women more than men.
I can understand you saying that about the Catholic Church, Otto, but it seems odd that you would put that on all Christian churches given that the reason there are multiple churches is that there was a rift in what being Christian meant.
Christ was male. Priests are the symbolic representation of Christ, and the Church his bride. Ergo, priests are male. It is not a doctrinal issue, but a sacred tradition. There is no debate.
It's not an issue of gender equality, as Mary was elevated to Holy Mother, above and beyond the Apostles. So there, sugar tits.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 21, 2012, 03:00:09 PM
Christ was male. Priests are the symbolic representation of Christ, and the Church his bride. Ergo, priests are male. It is not a doctrinal issue, but a sacred tradition. There is no debate.
It's not an issue of gender equality, as Mary was elevated to Holy Mother, above and beyond the Apostles. So there, sugar tits.
:blink:
Why are you directing that at me? I'm not Christian. I don't really care how Christians decide to organize their faith. I was just surprised at the reasoning Otto provided.
Quote from: merithyn on November 21, 2012, 03:02:34 PM
Why are you directing that at me? I'm not Christian. I don't really care how Christians decide to organize their faith. I was just surprised at the reasoning Otto provided.
Who says I'm directing it at you? You have a real problem discerning expository posts.
Besides, if I were directing it at you, I'd address you as Drama Queen instead. :P
The tradition dates back to the cultural norms in place at the founding of the church. I see no reason why if the church were beholden to those norms back then, that it can't adapt to the ones we have now.
No girls allowed in the Honeycomb Hideout, man. The Pontiff has spoken.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 21, 2012, 03:07:03 PM
Who says I'm directing it at you? You have a real problem discerning expository posts.
Besides, if I were directing it at you, I'd address you as Drama Queen instead. :P
Sorry. I didn't see Marti in the thread, so I assumed the "toots" was aimed at me. :blush:
Ooh, too true on the Drama Queen thing. Of course, that does mean that I get to throw a fit and call you everything but a white man when you don't agree with me. :menace:
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 21, 2012, 02:53:15 PM
This kind of thing is getting dumb. A lot of Christians want to emphasize 21st century values to make their religion more palatable. I'm an actual Christian, a Catholic matter-of-fact, and the simple truth is much of Christian doctrine does not jive with 21st century ideals of equality. Church doctrine and even Christian theology is not about or even promoting of gender equality in the Church hierarchy. (Doctrine also clearly states in Galatians that all are equal in salvation.) Genuine Christianity however cannot, if you read scripture at its face value, treat women and men as equal in business of the Church. You can gnash your teeth and be mad about it or not, but at the end of the day I wish these atheists-in-all-but-name that still go to churches and advocate basically unchristian things would stop calling themselves Christians, it deludes the brand.
Christianity was never intended to be easy, it wasn't supposed to be something you could sign up for casually as some sort of faddish thing. It's supposed to be hard. Fasting is supposed to be often, for example, and most have simply abandoned that. Even Orthodox Christians, who I greatly respect for their adherence to some traditions despite their unpopularity, have mostly gone soft on fasting.
If Christianity just changes with all the social changes, then you might as well stop calling it Christianity. I'd rather have a 95% atheist world with 5% true Christians than a bunch of CINOs running around with modern, incompatible views on the Church.
The problem with this argument is that, as seemingly logical as it sounds, it has absolutely no basis whatsoever in the history of Christianity in general and the Catholic Church in particular. The church has changed its doctrine countless times in the past. Hell, the entire teaching of St. Paul was about a "fad" of appealing to Romans.
Besides, as a Catholic, you should know that the scripture is only one leg of the Catholic doctrine, and not, by any means, the primary or dominant one. in your over-reliance on the scripture I smell the sulphuric whiff of the Lutheran heresy.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 21, 2012, 03:00:09 PM
Christ was male. Priests are the symbolic representation of Christ, and the Church his bride. Ergo, priests are male. It is not a doctrinal issue, but a sacred tradition. There is no debate.
It's not an issue of gender equality, as Mary was elevated to Holy Mother, above and beyond the Apostles. So there, sugar tits.
This argument makes no sense. It is circular. Why pick one characteristic of Christ (in this case, his gender) and make it a requirement for priests but not take another, such as his ethnicity, race, cultural background, height, skin colour or anything else you can come up with? I mean, it's not like the Church makes it a point of requiring all priests to be working class gay Jews who speak Aramaic?
Geez everybody in history is gay according to Marty. :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on November 21, 2012, 04:11:38 PM
Geez everybody in history is gay according to Marty. :lol:
might because of mary magdalen washing Jesus' feet...
Quote from: Valmy on November 21, 2012, 04:11:38 PM
Geez everybody in history is gay according to Marty. :lol:
If it weren't for Mary Magdalene, I'd almost agree with him on this one. :whistle:
Jesus could've cured his gayness.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on November 21, 2012, 04:15:35 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 21, 2012, 04:11:38 PM
Geez everybody in history is gay according to Marty. :lol:
might because of mary magdalen washing Jesus' feet...
Oh just because you are a man getting a pedicure you are gay huh? Huh?
Well ok maybe.
Quote from: Valmy on November 21, 2012, 04:11:38 PM
Geez everybody in history is gay according to Marty. :lol:
A common ploy to attempt to justify his mental illness.
Quote from: Neil on November 21, 2012, 04:29:06 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 21, 2012, 04:11:38 PM
Geez everybody in history is gay according to Marty. :lol:
A common ploy to attempt to justify his mental illness.
So when you're saying all gays are mentally ill it's just a ploy to justify ... ?
His Godhead.
Do people still belong to the CoE?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2012, 05:06:12 PM
Do people still belong to the CoE?
Of course. 2% of England is still 1 million people.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 21, 2012, 03:00:09 PM
Christ was male. Priests are the symbolic representation of Christ, and the Church his bride. Ergo, priests are male. It is not a doctrinal issue, but a sacred tradition. There is no debate.
It's not an issue of gender equality, as Mary was elevated to Holy Mother, above and beyond the Apostles. So there, sugar tits.
Do you actually believe this or are you just explaining Catholic logic?
I know the Catholics have some really trippy shit but the church is a woman somehow and Jesus got married? I guess that's in one of the catholic books.
Quote from: chipwich on November 21, 2012, 05:23:15 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 21, 2012, 03:00:09 PM
Christ was male. Priests are the symbolic representation of Christ, and the Church his bride. Ergo, priests are male. It is not a doctrinal issue, but a sacred tradition. There is no debate.
It's not an issue of gender equality, as Mary was elevated to Holy Mother, above and beyond the Apostles. So there, sugar tits.
Do you actually believe this or are you just explaining Catholic logic?
I know the Catholics have some really trippy shit but the church is a woman somehow and Jesus got married? I guess that's in one of the catholic books.
Do any of you snot-nosed, smug monkeys ever take theology, or are all your philosophy courses restricted to the post-industrial atheists?
No, don't read up on the history of western civilization without its most influential institution or anything, that would be wrong. AUGUSTINE WAS A HIPPO
Heh.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 21, 2012, 05:39:12 PM
Quote from: chipwich on November 21, 2012, 05:23:15 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 21, 2012, 03:00:09 PM
Christ was male. Priests are the symbolic representation of Christ, and the Church his bride. Ergo, priests are male. It is not a doctrinal issue, but a sacred tradition. There is no debate.
It's not an issue of gender equality, as Mary was elevated to Holy Mother, above and beyond the Apostles. So there, sugar tits.
Do you actually believe this or are you just explaining Catholic logic?
I know the Catholics have some really trippy shit but the church is a woman somehow and Jesus got married? I guess that's in one of the catholic books.
Do any of you snot-nosed, smug monkeys ever take theology, or are all your philosophy courses restricted to the post-industrial atheists?
No, don't read up on the history of western civilization without its most influential institution or anything, that would be wrong. AUGUSTINE WAS A HIPPO
I'm not going to take a fucking theology course just to sort out marianism. Then again, if actual Catholic theology was like this thread, the professor would announce IT'S ANCIENT TRADITION CLASS DISMISSED.
I'm not familiar with the Catholic books. Could you point me to where it says that churches are women and you can marry them, an that Jesus did so?
Does this mean that marriage is not strictly between a man and a woman, since it can also be between a man and a church?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 21, 2012, 03:10:12 PM
The tradition dates back to the cultural norms in place at the founding of the church. I see no reason why if the church were beholden to those norms back then, that it can't adapt to the ones we have now.
We are talking Anglicanism here. The "traditions" of Anglicanism, what make it distinct from Catholicism, were based not in theology but in a burning desire to create bishops willing to accomodate Henry VIII's desire to replace his wife with a younger, hotter model. :P
... which come to think of it might explain the "no women bishops" thing. :hmm:
Quote from: chipwich on November 21, 2012, 06:00:19 PM
No theology courses at land-grant universities. Not that sorting out Marianism would be a good use of university resources if it had them.
I'm not familiar with the Catholic books. Could you point me to where it says that churches are women and you can marry them, an that Jesus did so?
Does this mean that marriage is not strictly between a man and a woman, since it can also be between a man and a church?
Sorry chip but you just got spanked fair and square.
And I suppose monasticism is a "marriage" between man and church.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 21, 2012, 02:53:15 PM
I'd rather have a 95% atheist world with 5% true Christians than a bunch of CINOs running around with modern, incompatible views on the Church.
I think you've confused Roman Catholicism for Jehovah's Witnesses. Better check with CDM's theology professor.
Quote from: chipwich on November 21, 2012, 06:20:05 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 21, 2012, 02:53:15 PM
I'd rather have a 95% atheist world with 5% true Christians than a bunch of CINOs running around with modern, incompatible views on the Church.
I think you've confused Roman Catholicism for Jehovah's Witnesses. Better check with CDM's theology professor.
Dude, it's in history books. It's not like it's some kind of big secret. Nuns were frequently called the "brides of Christ", in the middle ages. You don't have to look through books on theology to find it. Ordinary history of the middle ages will suffice.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2012, 06:25:46 PM
Quote from: chipwich on November 21, 2012, 06:20:05 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 21, 2012, 02:53:15 PM
I'd rather have a 95% atheist world with 5% true Christians than a bunch of CINOs running around with modern, incompatible views on the Church.
I think you've confused Roman Catholicism for Jehovah's Witnesses. Better check with CDM's theology professor.
Dude, it's in history books. It's not like it's some kind of big secret. Nuns were frequently called the "brides of Christ", in the middle ages. You don't have to look through books on theology to find it. Ordinary history of the middle ages will suffice.
I'm not asking what the Catholic Church calls nuns. I'm asking why that should be so.
Also were monks called the catamites of Christ? Why not?
Quote from: Legbiter on November 21, 2012, 06:17:23 PM
Sorry chip but you just got spanked fair and square.
Would you care to elaborate?
Quote from: chipwich on November 21, 2012, 05:23:15 PM
I know the Catholics have some really trippy shit but the church is a woman somehow and Jesus got married? I guess that's in one of the catholic books.
Naw, it's in the bible.
Quote from: chipwich on November 21, 2012, 06:28:43 PM
Also were monks called the catamites of Christ? Why not?
Why not what?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2012, 06:38:17 PM
Quote from: chipwich on November 21, 2012, 06:28:43 PM
Also were monks called the catamites of Christ? Why not?
Why not what?
Why wren't monks called catamites of Christ?
Quote from: Maximus on November 21, 2012, 06:37:51 PM
Quote from: chipwich on November 21, 2012, 05:23:15 PM
I know the Catholics have some really trippy shit but the church is a woman somehow and Jesus got married? I guess that's in one of the catholic books.
Naw, it's in the bible.
Where?
Quote from: chipwich on November 21, 2012, 06:44:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2012, 06:38:17 PM
Quote from: chipwich on November 21, 2012, 06:28:43 PM
Also were monks called the catamites of Christ? Why not?
Why not what?
Why wren't monks called catamites of Christ?
Nobody established they weren't. If you are going to ask why one thing is not called another thing, we could be here for a very long time.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2012, 06:47:47 PM
Quote from: chipwich on November 21, 2012, 06:44:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2012, 06:38:17 PM
Quote from: chipwich on November 21, 2012, 06:28:43 PM
Also were monks called the catamites of Christ? Why not?
Why not what?
Why wren't monks called catamites of Christ?
Nobody established they weren't. If you are going to ask why one thing is not called another thing, we could be here for a very long time.
I'm fairly certain they weren't. Can you contradict my certainty?
Then why did you ask if they were if you were certain they weren't?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2012, 06:51:21 PM
Then why did you ask if they were if you were certain they weren't?
Perhaps you had some information that I didn't.
Would you like to answer my question, or are you going to keep dancing around it?
Nope. You are probably already certain of the answer. Also, you are being an annoying twat.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2012, 06:25:46 PM
Quote from: chipwich on November 21, 2012, 06:20:05 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 21, 2012, 02:53:15 PM
I'd rather have a 95% atheist world with 5% true Christians than a bunch of CINOs running around with modern, incompatible views on the Church.
I think you've confused Roman Catholicism for Jehovah's Witnesses. Better check with CDM's theology professor.
Dude, it's in history books. It's not like it's some kind of big secret. Nuns were frequently called the "brides of Christ", in the middle ages. You don't have to look through books on theology to find it. Ordinary history of the middle ages will suffice.
Nah, leave it to Chipper to pick and choose his history: Council of Laodicea at Lycum? PICS OR IT DIDNT HAPPEN LULZ
Just read some of the Medieval preachers such as Bernard of Clairvaux...look at how they torture the Song of Songs and you will see how the Church was represented.
Quote from: merithyn on November 21, 2012, 04:16:15 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 21, 2012, 04:11:38 PM
Geez everybody in history is gay according to Marty. :lol:
If it weren't for Mary Magdalene, I'd almost agree with him on this one. :whistle:
Yes, because it is stereotypical for a straight man to only have two important women in his life: his mother and his prostitute friend whom he never fucks.
And don't get me started on the apostles being pissed off at Jesus for showing so much affection to John; with spurned, jealous Judas eventually betraying Jesus with a kiss.
This is like Queer as Folk: Palestine.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 21, 2012, 09:44:34 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2012, 06:25:46 PM
Quote from: chipwich on November 21, 2012, 06:20:05 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 21, 2012, 02:53:15 PM
I'd rather have a 95% atheist world with 5% true Christians than a bunch of CINOs running around with modern, incompatible views on the Church.
I think you've confused Roman Catholicism for Jehovah's Witnesses. Better check with CDM's theology professor.
Dude, it's in history books. It's not like it's some kind of big secret. Nuns were frequently called the "brides of Christ", in the middle ages. You don't have to look through books on theology to find it. Ordinary history of the middle ages will suffice.
Nah, leave it to Chipper to pick and choose his history: Council of Laodicea at Lycum? PICS OR IT DIDNT HAPPEN LULZ
It's like talking to a Chick tract here
How do I know your religious belief is correct?Go read this religious document that says so.
Quote from: chipwich on November 21, 2012, 06:00:19 PM
Does this mean that marriage is not strictly between a man and a woman, since it can also be between a man and a church?
I read recently about a guy who wants to break a record or something and lick every cathedral in UK. And he is not even married to any of them. :mad:
Quote from: chipwich on November 22, 2012, 01:39:45 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 21, 2012, 09:44:34 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2012, 06:25:46 PM
Quote from: chipwich on November 21, 2012, 06:20:05 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 21, 2012, 02:53:15 PM
I'd rather have a 95% atheist world with 5% true Christians than a bunch of CINOs running around with modern, incompatible views on the Church.
I think you've confused Roman Catholicism for Jehovah's Witnesses. Better check with CDM's theology professor.
Dude, it's in history books. It's not like it's some kind of big secret. Nuns were frequently called the "brides of Christ", in the middle ages. You don't have to look through books on theology to find it. Ordinary history of the middle ages will suffice.
Nah, leave it to Chipper to pick and choose his history: Council of Laodicea at Lycum? PICS OR IT DIDNT HAPPEN LULZ
It's like talking to a Chick tract here
How do I know your religious belief is correct?
Go read this religious document that says so.
It's not a question of whether a religious belief is correct, it's if people have held this belief. That is in the history books.
I'm not asking whether people have held this belief. I'm asking why they believe it.
As I said on the first page,
QuoteI'm not asking what the Catholic Church calls nuns. I'm asking why that should be so.
You blew that off the last time I posted it , are you going to do that again?
Supporting woman bishops is all well and good, until you've got one for your church. :P
Quote from: chipwich on November 21, 2012, 06:00:19 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 21, 2012, 05:39:12 PM
Quote from: chipwich on November 21, 2012, 05:23:15 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 21, 2012, 03:00:09 PM
Christ was male. Priests are the symbolic representation of Christ, and the Church his bride. Ergo, priests are male. It is not a doctrinal issue, but a sacred tradition. There is no debate.
It's not an issue of gender equality, as Mary was elevated to Holy Mother, above and beyond the Apostles. So there, sugar tits.
Do you actually believe this or are you just explaining Catholic logic?
I know the Catholics have some really trippy shit but the church is a woman somehow and Jesus got married? I guess that's in one of the catholic books.
Do any of you snot-nosed, smug monkeys ever take theology, or are all your philosophy courses restricted to the post-industrial atheists?
No, don't read up on the history of western civilization without its most influential institution or anything, that would be wrong. AUGUSTINE WAS A HIPPO
I'm not going to take a fucking theology course just to sort out marianism. Then again, if actual Catholic theology was like this thread, the professor would announce IT'S ANCIENT TRADITION CLASS DISMISSED.
I'm not familiar with the Catholic books. Could you point me to where it says that churches are women and you can marry them, an that Jesus did so?
Does this mean that marriage is not strictly between a man and a woman, since it can also be between a man and a church?
Dude, it's extremely common to here the church (the "church" in the sense of the brotherhood of all believers, not as in a particular denomination nor as in a building in which worship is conducted) referred to as the Bride of Christ. It's not just a Catholic thing. For somebody in the West to not know this is almost culturally retarded, even if the person in question is an atheist, or a follower of a non-Christian faith. It's like not knowing what people are talking about when they mention the Twilight saga--you might not have ever read the books or have any desire to read them, but unless you've been living under a rock the past few years, you've heard about them.
QuoteI'm not asking whether people have held this belief. I'm asking why they believe it.
People have answered that, and you've blown them off.
Here, chipwich, here, boy. Time to get back in your box.
Chipwich, there are many Catholicn theological sites that explain all those things to those who don't know them. Here:
http://www.catholicity.com/catechism/the_body_of_christ.html
Quote from: Catholic Cathechism
The Church as Christ's Body has three specific qualities:
She is one body
She has Christ as her head
She is Christ's bride
Quote
People have answered that, and you've blown them off.
Then repeat to me what they have answered.
In order for me to believe this claim, regardless of how many billion of people believe it. Billions of Muslims believe that Muhammad was the messenger of God and I don't believe that either, no matter how ,many Islamic councils or websites say so. I'm being generous as it is by taking the bible's word for it.
Martin Silva was kind enough to actually use a link that cited the Bible. Thank you for doing in one post what a gaggle of condescending twits couldn't do in 30. I agree that Ephesians has some language that could suggest that Christ has a similar relationship to the church as a man has to a wife. I can see where they're coming from so I'll stop asking about that.
Now that doesn't address the consequences of that, such as when Christ married the millions of people who have become nuns (saying it's because he married the church is like saying I'm Michelle Obama's husband), why Christ is not considered to have married monks, and why God's wife can't be priests.
Quote from: Catholic Cathechism
The Church as Christ's Body has three specific qualities:
She is one body
She has Christ as her head
She is Christ's bride
The same head as Christ, and married to him? Creepy.
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 22, 2012, 02:10:50 PM
Quote from: Catholic Cathechism
The Church as Christ's Body has three specific qualities:
She is one body
She has Christ as her head
She is Christ's bride
The same head as Christ, and married to him? Creepy.
Causes real confusion when Christ says "gimmie head, babe". :P
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 21, 2012, 02:53:15 PM
This kind of thing is getting dumb. A lot of Christians want to emphasize 21st century values to make their religion more palatable. I'm an actual Christian, a Catholic matter-of-fact, and the simple truth is much of Christian doctrine does not jive with 21st century ideals of equality. Church doctrine and even Christian theology is not about or even promoting of gender equality in the Church hierarchy. (Doctrine also clearly states in Galatians that all are equal in salvation.) Genuine Christianity however cannot, if you read scripture at its face value, treat women and men as equal in business of the Church. You can gnash your teeth and be mad about it or not, but at the end of the day I wish these atheists-in-all-but-name that still go to churches and advocate basically unchristian things would stop calling themselves Christians, it deludes the brand.
Christianity was never intended to be easy, it wasn't supposed to be something you could sign up for casually as some sort of faddish thing. It's supposed to be hard. Fasting is supposed to be often, for example, and most have simply abandoned that. Even Orthodox Christians, who I greatly respect for their adherence to some traditions despite their unpopularity, have mostly gone soft on fasting.
If Christianity just changes with all the social changes, then you might as well stop calling it Christianity. I'd rather have a 95% atheist world with 5% true Christians than a bunch of CINOs running around with modern, incompatible views on the Church.
You might be interested in Georgian Orthodoxy. It's a strongly Judaic form of Christianity (they converted before Rome), and they seem to fast all the fucking time.
Quote from: merithyn on November 21, 2012, 01:56:57 PM
As it's a religious group, I have no real opinion on this. The congregation as a whole has a right to decide who they're led by. If it's distasteful to some, there are other religious organizations to choose from.
Brits, what is your opinion? Will this affect anything in any meaningful way in the UK?
I'm hearing there is a lot of backlash over this from the government and MPs.
QuoteChurch of England isolated further on equal marriage following bishop vote
by Scott Roberts
21 November 2012, 11:31am
The Church of England's decision to vote against the introduction of women bishops is also likely to undermine its opposition to same-sex marriages, according to an Anglican theologian.
On Tuesday night, the General Synod tore up plans to ordain women as bishops despite overwhelming support in parishes.
While 324 synod members voted for women bishops, church voting rules meant 122 votes against were enough to block it.
The Reverend Canon Robert Cotton of Westcott House theological college in Cambridge said: "We have made David Cameron's job getting gay marriage through much easier — why should he take the Church of England seriously when it seems interested only in looking after its own?"
The Bishop of Durham, Justin Welby, who is the next Archbishop of Canterbury and a supporter of women bishops, tweeted: "Very grim day, most of all for women priests and supporters, need to surround all with prayer & love and co-operate with our healing God."
Although Dr Welby has previously stated his opposition to equal marriage and the ordination of gay bishops, in a speech made at Lambeth Palace on 9 November, Dr Welby signalled that he was willing to engage on LGBT issues in his new role as Archbishop of Canterbury.
According to the Telegraph, Labour MP Ben Bradshaw responded to the defeat by saying: "This means the church is being held hostage by an unholy and unrepresentative alliance of conservative evangelicals and conservative Catholics.
"This will add to clamour for disestablishment, there is even talk of moves in parliament to remove the church's exemption from the Equality Act."
Culture Secretary and Minister for Equalities Maria Miller also expressed her disappointment at the vote and said it showed that the church was "behind the times".
QuoteConservative MP: Church is deluded if it thinks Parliament will listen to opposition of same-sex marriage
by Benjamin Cohen
22 November 2012, 7:53pm
The Conservative MP Sir Tony Baldry who speaks on behalf of the Church of England's commissioners in Parliament has warned that the church is deluding itself if it thinks that MPs will listen to its arguments against marriage equality for gay couples.
Sir Tony, the MP for North Oxfordshire, is the link between the Church of England and the House of Commons so his views hold considerable weight.
Speaking in the House of Commons, he said: "I suspect that every right honourable and honourable Member has recently had representations from church members on same-sex marriage.
"If the Church of England thinks that Parliament will listen to it with considerable attention on moral issues such as same-sex marriage and so on when the Church of England seems to be so out of step on other issues of concern to Parliament, it is simply deluding itself."
Sir Tony has previously spoken out against equal marriage.
Sir Tony also criticised the General Synod of the Church of England for rejecting proposals to allow women bishops. He said: "As a consequence of the decision by the General Synod, the Church of England no longer looks like a national church; it simply looks like a sect, like any other sect.
He added: "If it wishes to be a national church that reflects the nation, it has to reflect the values of the nation."
Yesterday, the Reverend Canon Robert Cotton of Westcott House theological college in Cambridge echoed the sentiments of Sir Tony: "We have made David Cameron's job getting gay marriage through much easier — why should he take the Church of England seriously when it seems interested only in looking after its own?"
If women priests find their career opportunities blocked in the Church of England won't they leave for the competition? Can the CoE afford such faith drain?
Quote from: Martinus on November 23, 2012, 02:24:46 AM
I'm hearing there is a lot of backlash over this from the government and MPs.
Huh. That's actually really interesting. I never really understood how the whole "official state church" thing worked. It'll be neat to see how this all plays out and how the UK's government will handle things.
Quote from: merithyn on November 23, 2012, 10:00:22 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 23, 2012, 02:24:46 AM
I'm hearing there is a lot of backlash over this from the government and MPs.
Huh. That's actually really interesting. I never really understood how the whole "official state church" thing worked. It'll be neat to see how this all plays out and how the UK's government will handle things.
Many people (rightly) point out that right now there are 26 seats in the House of Lords reserved for men only (i.e. the anglican bishops). The sheer idiocy of having one religion sending representatives to the government notwithstanding, the Church of England had a chance to rectify this but dropped the ball - so people who have been calling for kicking them out of the HoL have a much better case now.
Incidentally, that's why I think official state churches are a horrible idea. You just can't combine democratic rule of law and freedom of religion - something has to give eventually.
Quote from: Martinus on November 23, 2012, 10:42:19 AM
Many people (rightly) point out that right now there are 26 seats in the House of Lords reserved for men only (i.e. the anglican bishops). The sheer idiocy of having one religion sending representatives to the government notwithstanding, the Church of England had a chance to rectify this but dropped the ball - so people who have been calling for kicking them out of the HoL have a much better case now.
Incidentally, that's why I think official state churches are a horrible idea. You just can't combine democratic rule of law and freedom of religion - something has to give eventually.
Yep. That's why Thomas, John, et al didn't want it here in the states.
The HoL thing is kind of interesting. What is the justification for that? It's a way for them to protect the moral code of the nation?
Quote from: merithyn on November 23, 2012, 10:54:42 AMThe HoL thing is kind of interesting. What is the justification for that? It's a way for them to protect the moral code of the nation?
Don't think so. When the whole thing started, these archbishops and bishops were powerful lords and landholders in their own right. It didn't make much sense to include lords temporal, but not lords spiritual (in fact, from that perspective, lords spiritual were probably somewhat more meritocratic and democratic, as they originated from elections by their respective synods, and not from simply being born with the title).
Quote from: Martinus on November 23, 2012, 10:42:19 AM
Incidentally, that's why I think official state churches are a horrible idea. You just can't combine democratic rule of law and freedom of religion - something has to give eventually.
And why is that? I don't see any particular evidence that a democracy can't also have an official state church.
Quote from: Barrister on November 23, 2012, 12:39:07 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 23, 2012, 10:42:19 AM
Incidentally, that's why I think official state churches are a horrible idea. You just can't combine democratic rule of law and freedom of religion - something has to give eventually.
And why is that? I don't see any particular evidence that a democracy can't also have an official state church.
Because it becomes impossible to allow freedom of religion if the state church is allowed to dictate or otherwise influence laws that come in conflict, ie women in management roles and marriage equality.
Quote from: merithyn on November 23, 2012, 12:44:27 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 23, 2012, 12:39:07 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 23, 2012, 10:42:19 AM
Incidentally, that's why I think official state churches are a horrible idea. You just can't combine democratic rule of law and freedom of religion - something has to give eventually.
And why is that? I don't see any particular evidence that a democracy can't also have an official state church.
Because it becomes impossible to allow freedom of religion if the state church is allowed to dictate or otherwise influence laws that come in conflict, ie women in management roles and marriage equality.
There are a zillion laws that limit freedom of religion. So what if a state church has some input.
Quote from: merithyn on November 23, 2012, 12:44:27 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 23, 2012, 12:39:07 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 23, 2012, 10:42:19 AM
Incidentally, that's why I think official state churches are a horrible idea. You just can't combine democratic rule of law and freedom of religion - something has to give eventually.
And why is that? I don't see any particular evidence that a democracy can't also have an official state church.
Because it becomes impossible to allow freedom of religion if the state church is allowed to dictate or otherwise influence laws that come in conflict, ie women in management roles and marriage equality.
Dictate? Sure. But that's not the situation in Western countries with state churches.
Otherwise influence? What's the problem? Policies are influenced by hundreds of factors - why shouldn't the official church be one of them.
Quote from: merithyn on November 23, 2012, 12:44:27 PM
Incidentally, that's why I think official state churches are a horrible idea. You just can't combine democratic rule of law and Because it becomes impossible to allow freedom of religion if the state church is allowed to dictate or otherwise influence laws that come in conflict, ie women in management roles and marriage equality.
Nevetheless we appear to have freedom of religion at least equal to other western countries.
Quote from: Barrister on November 23, 2012, 12:56:20 PM
[Dictate? Sure. But that's not the situation in Western countries with state churches.
Otherwise influence? What's the problem? Policies are influenced by hundreds of factors - why shouldn't the official church be one of them.
Influence is one thing. Having seats in the legislature is another.
Quote from: Barrister on November 23, 2012, 12:56:20 PM
Dictate? Sure. But that's not the situation in Western countries with state churches.
Otherwise influence? What's the problem? Policies are influenced by hundreds of factors - why shouldn't the official church be one of them.
It appears to me that having the bishops in the HoL is an awful lot like giving lobbyists their own seats in the US Senate.
Quote from: Gups on November 23, 2012, 12:56:55 PM
Nevetheless we appear to have freedom of religion at least equal to other western countries.
Not sure that's a very high bar. I don't believe that the US has nearly as much religious freedom as it should, and that's without an official state religion. We are held hostage by the Christian faith just as surely as if we had a strict guideline of Christians-only in the Senate and House.
Quote from: Gups on November 23, 2012, 12:58:18 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 23, 2012, 12:56:20 PM
[Dictate? Sure. But that's not the situation in Western countries with state churches.
Otherwise influence? What's the problem? Policies are influenced by hundreds of factors - why shouldn't the official church be one of them.
Influence is one thing. Having seats in the legislature is another.
I have to admit I didn't know that.
Thinking about it though, and from what I know of the CoE, I'm willing to bet they don't vote as a monolithic block. :lol: And when you consider there are 26 Lords Spiritual, out of a total membership of 760, I wouldn't get all bent out of shape about it.
I didn't think the House of Lords did anything.
Quote from: merithyn on November 23, 2012, 01:03:25 PM
Quote from: Gups on November 23, 2012, 12:56:55 PM
Nevetheless we appear to have freedom of religion at least equal to other western countries.
Not sure that's a very high bar. I don't believe that the US has nearly as much religious freedom as it should, and that's without an official state religion. We are held hostage by the Christian faith just as surely as if we had a strict guideline of Christians-only in the Senate and House.
:lol:
Yeah, that's pretty funny.
Quote from: merithyn on November 23, 2012, 01:01:33 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 23, 2012, 12:56:20 PM
Dictate? Sure. But that's not the situation in Western countries with state churches.
Otherwise influence? What's the problem? Policies are influenced by hundreds of factors - why shouldn't the official church be one of them.
It appears to me that having the bishops in the HoL is an awful lot like giving lobbyists their own seats in the US Senate.
That's a British thing.
Quote from: Gups on November 21, 2012, 02:08:29 PM
What an embarassment of a church. Incapable of making a decision after 12 years of preparation. Trying desperately to balance the homophobic Africans with the liberal Yanks, the evangelicals with the vurtual catholics. Result a messy compromise that everyone hates.
This isn't to do with the Africans and Yanks though - that's the gay issue. This is just the Church of England so not the rest of the Anglicans, I think everyone else couldn't care less. But I agree on the messy compromise: allowing female priests but not female bishops :blink:
It's not clear enough that they didn't actually vote against it. The House of Bishops overwhelmingly voted for it, the House of Clergy overwhelmingly voted for it and the House of Laity voted for it pretty strongly too. But they need a 2/3s majority in each one for it to pass and they were 6 votes short in the House of Laity. So the CofE voted for women bishops but not enough.
QuoteIncidentally, that's why I think official state churches are a horrible idea. You just can't combine democratic rule of law and freedom of religion - something has to give eventually.
How are we lacking democratic rule of law or freedom of religion?
I'm torn on this. I think the CofE needs to go for women bishops, but part of the reason they need to is because they're a state church. On the other hand I don't like the idea that Parliament would legislate what they should do. Personally I think the Synod should have moved to a nearby tennis court and swore to meet as one House until the issue were resolved, in which case women bishops would pass by 74%. The old Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey has suggested that the CofE should keep going on the issue and perhaps simply increase the pressure - hold an annual synod until they get their way.
Quote from: merithyn on November 23, 2012, 01:03:25 PM
Quote from: Gups on November 23, 2012, 12:56:55 PM
Nevetheless we appear to have freedom of religion at least equal to other western countries.
Not sure that's a very high bar. I don't believe that the US has nearly as much religious freedom as it should, and that's without an official state religion. We are held hostage by the Christian faith just as surely as if we had a strict guideline of Christians-only in the Senate and House.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: merithyn on November 23, 2012, 10:54:42 AM
The HoL thing is kind of interesting. What is the justification for that? It's a way for them to protect the moral code of the nation?
No, they were princes of the church. The Lords were the stakeholders, which meant the nobility and the Church. They were in Parliament before the concept of a nation, and when the government wasn't much concerned with moral codes, because the Church handled that themselves.
Quote from: Neil on November 24, 2012, 08:50:30 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 23, 2012, 01:03:25 PM
Quote from: Gups on November 23, 2012, 12:56:55 PM
Nevetheless we appear to have freedom of religion at least equal to other western countries.
Not sure that's a very high bar. I don't believe that the US has nearly as much religious freedom as it should, and that's without an official state religion. We are held hostage by the Christian faith just as surely as if we had a strict guideline of Christians-only in the Senate and House.
:rolleyes:
She makes me pine for that Handmaid's Tale Theocratic state.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 24, 2012, 08:31:33 PM
How are we lacking democratic rule of law or freedom of religion?
I thought it is pretty obvious. By being an official state church with its own seats in the legislature, the CoE is effectively an arm of a government. It is against the principles of democratic rule of law for an arm of the government to discriminate based on gender. But forcing the CoE to give equality to women violates freedom of religion.
Quote from: Barrister on November 23, 2012, 01:08:33 PMThinking about it though, and from what I know of the CoE, I'm willing to bet they don't vote as a monolithic block. :lol: And when you consider there are 26 Lords Spiritual, out of a total membership of 760, I wouldn't get all bent out of shape about it.
I fail to see how this matters at all. From your own field, it's like having the defendant's wife sit on the jury. Sure, she is one of many and she may actually dislike him but that wouldn't be tolerated, would it?
Quote from: Martinus on November 25, 2012, 04:15:00 AM
But forcing the CoE to give equality to women violates freedom of religion.
People who want a CoE style church that discriminates against women are free to have just that (as far as I can tell).
I would imagine that the Church of England will be disestablished once the old Queen dies. Charles is on record as saying he wants to alter the coronation oath so that he will be "Defender of Faith" rather than "Defender of The Faith", so it all becomes rather pointless.
Meanwhile the CofE will get round to having female bishops. One of the reasons that the Synod failed to pass the change was that there was a clause that congregations could opt out of having a female bishop doing whatever a bishop does when they visit a parish church and ask for a male bishop. This struck them as the worst of all worlds and I agree with them, if we are going to have female bishops then they should be recognised as being proper 100% bishops.
What about antidisestablishmentarianism?
Quote from: Martinus on November 25, 2012, 04:18:53 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 23, 2012, 01:08:33 PMThinking about it though, and from what I know of the CoE, I'm willing to bet they don't vote as a monolithic block. :lol: And when you consider there are 26 Lords Spiritual, out of a total membership of 760, I wouldn't get all bent out of shape about it.
I fail to see how this matters at all. From your own field, it's like having the defendant's wife sit on the jury. Sure, she is one of many and she may actually dislike him but that wouldn't be tolerated, would it?
Not a good analogy. It doesn't matter if the defendent's wife is on the jury; with BB prosecuting, it's going to be an acquittal anyway.
Quote from: Martinus on November 25, 2012, 04:18:53 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 23, 2012, 01:08:33 PMThinking about it though, and from what I know of the CoE, I'm willing to bet they don't vote as a monolithic block. :lol: And when you consider there are 26 Lords Spiritual, out of a total membership of 760, I wouldn't get all bent out of shape about it.
I fail to see how this matters at all. From your own field, it's like having the defendant's wife sit on the jury. Sure, she is one of many and she may actually dislike him but that wouldn't be tolerated, would it?
Not really. They're stakeholders. That's the whole point of the Lords.
Quote from: Martinus on November 25, 2012, 04:15:00 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 24, 2012, 08:31:33 PM
How are we lacking democratic rule of law or freedom of religion?
I thought it is pretty obvious. By being an official state church with its own seats in the legislature, the CoE is effectively an arm of a government. It is against the principles of democratic rule of law for an arm of the government to discriminate based on gender. But forcing the CoE to give equality to women violates freedom of religion.
How is discrimination against the rule of law? If women weren't able to use the courts or whatever then I'd see what you meant but non-discrimination in parts of employment legislation isn't a principle of the rule of law. Surely by that logic the monarchy would also be suspect because - at the moment - a male heir takes precedence.
But that wasn't my question. How is England lacking the democratic rule of law or freedom of religion given that it has - and has for 500 years - had a state church?
Quote from: Martinus on November 25, 2012, 04:15:00 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 24, 2012, 08:31:33 PM
How are we lacking democratic rule of law or freedom of religion?
I thought it is pretty obvious. By being an official state church with its own seats in the legislature, the CoE is effectively an arm of a government. It is against the principles of democratic rule of law for an arm of the government to discriminate based on gender. But forcing the CoE to give equality to women violates freedom of religion.
In other words
1. You are unable to distinguish between government and the legislature
2. You don't know understand the concept of the rule of law.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 27, 2012, 11:42:13 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 25, 2012, 04:15:00 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 24, 2012, 08:31:33 PM
How are we lacking democratic rule of law or freedom of religion?
I thought it is pretty obvious. By being an official state church with its own seats in the legislature, the CoE is effectively an arm of a government. It is against the principles of democratic rule of law for an arm of the government to discriminate based on gender. But forcing the CoE to give equality to women violates freedom of religion.
How is discrimination against the rule of law? If women weren't able to use the courts or whatever then I'd see what you meant but non-discrimination in parts of employment legislation isn't a principle of the rule of law. Surely by that logic the monarchy would also be suspect because - at the moment - a male heir takes precedence.
But that wasn't my question. How is England lacking the democratic rule of law or freedom of religion given that it has - and has for 500 years - had a state church?
Equality under law is one of the basic principles of the rule of law.
And yes, I believe in many monarchies in Europe, a male heir precedence has been abolished or is considered being abolished exactly because of these reasons (although, with monarchs being mere figureheads, this is less of a concern, admittedly). And it is not purely a discrimination of employment for reasons I already stated - because these people hold legislative functions. If law stated that women cannot be elected to the parliament or be ministers then it would also be much more than a "discrimination in employment".
And are you seriously asking why having one religion singled out by giving it a right to send its representatives to the legislature violates equality under law and freedom of religion? This is bleeding obvious.
I don't see what freedom of religion has to do with the rule of law. You are adopting a rather modern and very narrow definition. England has operated under the rule of law for many centuries, the fact that some of those laws were rather obnoxious is irrelevant, the point is that the place has not been run as a despotism or dictatorship. The whole point of the Civil War, for example, was that the King was not abiding by the rule of law and may have been attempting to set up an absolute monarchy, it was why he was deposed.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 28, 2012, 09:35:46 AM
I don't see what freedom of religion has to do with the rule of law. You are adopting a rather modern and very narrow definition. England has operated under the rule of law for many centuries, the fact that some of those laws were rather obnoxious is irrelevant, the point is that the place has not been run as a despotism or dictatorship. The whole point of the Civil War, for example, was that the King was not abiding by the rule of law and may have been attempting to set up an absolute monarchy, it was why he was deposed.
Well I have been talking more specifically about "democratic rule of law".
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 21, 2012, 05:39:12 PM
Do any of you snot-nosed, smug monkeys ever take theology, or are all your philosophy courses restricted to the post-industrial atheists?
No, don't read up on the history of western civilization without its most influential institution or anything, that would be wrong. AUGUSTINE WAS A HIPPO
OK but if you are going to take that line, you can't pick and choose your theological history.
The fact is that the role of women in the Christianity and very status of the Church itself was a live issue of debate and controversy from the very beginning. It took several hundred years for the Catholic position on all those issues to become established doctrine, something that was accomplished not just by argument but also by brute force.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 28, 2012, 10:13:55 AM
It took several hundred years for the Catholic position on all those issues to become established doctrine, something that was accomplished not just by argument but also by brute force.
I think that has always been a problem with theology. Unless God is going to come down and pronounce a verdict there is no way to ultimately get everybody to agree on one view on some issues outside of force.
Quote from: Martinus on November 28, 2012, 09:58:16 AM
Well I have been talking more specifically about "democratic rule of law".
Fair enough, you shortened it to "rule of law" in several posts which led to confusion. Under that more restrictive definition Britain has never been under "democratic rule of law", which leads me to doubt the usefulness of the definition.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 28, 2012, 10:13:55 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 21, 2012, 05:39:12 PM
Do any of you snot-nosed, smug monkeys ever take theology, or are all your philosophy courses restricted to the post-industrial atheists?
No, don't read up on the history of western civilization without its most influential institution or anything, that would be wrong. AUGUSTINE WAS A HIPPO
OK but if you are going to take that line, you can't pick and choose your theological history.
The fact that the early church was in part nurtured by rich Roman women, many of whom led prayer and were instrumental in keeping the church alive (as well as being some of the great early martyrs), gets swept under the rug.
And emphasizing Augustine, who had serious mommy issues, doesn't help the narrative that the organizing church of the late Roman Empire was quite clearly anti-woman.
I do wonder what would have been the result had women maintained the leadership of Christianity. By that I mean, that there's a theory that the reason Xianity grew and thrived was because mothers prefered the religion and taught it to their children.
I am not sure that it is accurate to say that women had the leadership in early Christianity, rather it is better to say that they had a larger role than has been commonly reported.
Quote from: merithyn on November 28, 2012, 11:07:52 AM
I do wonder what would have been the result had women maintained the leadership of Christianity. By that I mean, that there's a theory that the reason Xianity grew and thrived was because mothers prefered the religion and taught it to their children.
I think it would have flopped. The putting men in charge thing was more about Christianity converting to Romanness (or more accurately Ancient Worldness) than some sort of conspiracy on the part of the church in a vacuum. As the church became more mainstream its views became more mainstream. Of course women were also big drivers in the surprisingly long survival of paganism in the countryside as well.
Quote from: PDH on November 28, 2012, 11:11:52 AM
I am not sure that it is accurate to say that women had the leadership in early Christianity, rather it is better to say that they had a larger role than has been commonly reported.
Seriously? This gets talked about all the time these days.
Quote from: PDH on November 28, 2012, 11:11:52 AM
I am not sure that it is accurate to say that women had the leadership in early Christianity, rather it is better to say that they had a larger role than has been commonly reported.
By leadership, I mean that mothers were the primary drivers - from what I understand - of the religion in the homes. That has, often, proven to be what maintains a religion far more so than any particular priest/priestess.
Quote from: Valmy on November 28, 2012, 11:13:37 AM
Of course women were also big drivers in the surprisingly long survival of paganism in the countryside as well.
Yes, this is what I mean.
Quote from: Valmy on November 28, 2012, 11:13:37 AM
I think it would have flopped. The putting men in charge thing was more about Christianity converting to Romanness (or more accurately Ancient Worldness) than some sort of conspiracy on the part of the church in a vacuum. As the church became more mainstream its views became more mainstream.
That makes sense.
Quote from: Valmy on November 28, 2012, 11:14:36 AM
Quote from: PDH on November 28, 2012, 11:11:52 AM
I am not sure that it is accurate to say that women had the leadership in early Christianity, rather it is better to say that they had a larger role than has been commonly reported.
Seriously? This gets talked about all the time these days.
Yeah, if by all the time you also mean the people who come up to me in my class and ask me why I don't talk about the ancient matriarchal religions...and indeed, the serious scholarship focuses on the family aspect and the Patrician women financing early Christianity. I would argue that the basic undercurrent of thought seems to still be the unbroken line from the Apostles to the Priests.
Still, there ARE the History Channel specials that seem to take the Holy Grail, Holy Blood story and run with it.
Remember that the early church was also extremely pacifistic, millenial to a wild degree, given to outrageous ascetic acts and martyrdom. These things were watered down when it became legit.
Quote from: PDH on November 28, 2012, 11:33:46 AM
Yeah, if by all the time you also mean the people who come up to me in my class and ask me why I don't talk about the ancient matriarchal religions...and indeed, the serious scholarship focuses on the family aspect and the Patrician women financing early Christianity. I would argue that the basic undercurrent of thought seems to still be the unbroken line from the Apostles to the Priests.
Still, there ARE the History Channel specials that seem to take the Holy Grail, Holy Blood story and run with it.
I agree with you here. It kind of feels like most of what we hear is the pseudo-history that a lot of women/Pagans/non-historians want to believe was the case rather than the actual history of how it all worked out.
Quote from: PDH on November 28, 2012, 11:33:46 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 28, 2012, 11:14:36 AM
Quote from: PDH on November 28, 2012, 11:11:52 AM
I am not sure that it is accurate to say that women had the leadership in early Christianity, rather it is better to say that they had a larger role than has been commonly reported.
Seriously? This gets talked about all the time these days.
Yeah, if by all the time you also mean the people who come up to me in my class and ask me why I don't talk about the ancient matriarchal religions...and indeed, the serious scholarship focuses on the family aspect and the Patrician women financing early Christianity. I would argue that the basic undercurrent of thought seems to still be the unbroken line from the Apostles to the Priests.
Still, there ARE the History Channel specials that seem to take the Holy Grail, Holy Blood story and run with it.
Yeah, why are you skimping on the ancient matriarchal religions?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 28, 2012, 11:56:13 AM
Yeah, why are you skimping on the ancient matriarchal religions?
I give them their full historical due.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 21, 2012, 02:53:15 PM
This kind of thing is getting dumb. A lot of Christians want to emphasize 21st century values to make their religion more palatable. I'm an actual Christian, a Catholic matter-of-fact, and the simple truth is much of Christian doctrine does not jive with 21st century ideals of equality. Church doctrine and even Christian theology is not about or even promoting of gender equality in the Church hierarchy. (Doctrine also clearly states in Galatians that all are equal in salvation.) Genuine Christianity however cannot, if you read scripture at its face value, treat women and men as equal in business of the Church. You can gnash your teeth and be mad about it or not, but at the end of the day I wish these atheists-in-all-but-name that still go to churches and advocate basically unchristian things would stop calling themselves Christians, it deludes the brand.
Christianity was never intended to be easy, it wasn't supposed to be something you could sign up for casually as some sort of faddish thing. It's supposed to be hard. Fasting is supposed to be often, for example, and most have simply abandoned that. Even Orthodox Christians, who I greatly respect for their adherence to some traditions despite their unpopularity, have mostly gone soft on fasting.
If Christianity just changes with all the social changes, then you might as well stop calling it Christianity. I'd rather have a 95% atheist world with 5% true Christians than a bunch of CINOs running around with modern, incompatible views on the Church.
I love it. A new round of the literalist orthodox against the rest. Its so 400-500 AD
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 28, 2012, 10:13:55 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 21, 2012, 05:39:12 PM
Do any of you snot-nosed, smug monkeys ever take theology, or are all your philosophy courses restricted to the post-industrial atheists?
No, don't read up on the history of western civilization without its most influential institution or anything, that would be wrong. AUGUSTINE WAS A HIPPO
OK but if you are going to take that line, you can't pick and choose your theological history.
Don't gimme that shit, Rabbi. We're talking about one of the fundamental premises here, not some obscure facet of the christological controversy.
QuoteThe fact is that the role of women in the Christianity and very status of the Church itself was a live issue of debate and controversy from the very beginning. It took several hundred years for the Catholic position on all those issues to become established doctrine, something that was accomplished not just by argument but also by brute force.
Brute force. :torquemadarolleyes: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Hey Torquemada, whaddya say?
Quote from: merithyn on November 28, 2012, 11:24:11 AM
By leadership, I mean that mothers were the primary drivers - from what I understand - of the religion in the homes. That has, often, proven to be what maintains a religion far more so than any particular priest/priestess.
I've always assumed that's why modern Jews trace their ancestory matrilinearly.
Quote from: Martinus on November 28, 2012, 04:12:30 AMAnd it is not purely a discrimination of employment for reasons I already stated - because these people hold legislative functions. If law stated that women cannot be elected to the parliament or be ministers then it would also be much more than a "discrimination in employment".
That's not really an accurate comparison though. In terms of the legislators point, there are 92 hereditary peers who are drawn from a group subject to sexist inheritance rights. In this country, at this point, the male succeeds to the throne even if a female's born first (Princess Anne v Prince Charles).
QuoteAnd are you seriously asking why having one religion singled out by giving it a right to send its representatives to the legislature violates equality under law and freedom of religion? This is bleeding obvious.
Yes. How does it? Ideally with examples.
QuoteEngland has operated under the rule of law for many centuries, the fact that some of those laws were rather obnoxious is irrelevant, the point is that the place has not been run as a despotism or dictatorship. The whole point of the Civil War, for example, was that the King was not abiding by the rule of law and may have been attempting to set up an absolute monarchy, it was why he was deposed.
You can go more modern than that. The classic example is apartheid South Africa which had the rule of law and a horrible, racist and anti-democratic system of government. As an aside I really recommend (Lord) Tom Bingham's Rule of Law. It's very good and I think you'd enjoy it.
QuoteThe fact is that the role of women in the Christianity and very status of the Church itself was a live issue of debate and controversy from the very beginning. It took several hundred years for the Catholic position on all those issues to become established doctrine, something that was accomplished not just by argument but also by brute force.
The big issue with bishops (which doesn't exist with the priesthood) is the theology of apostolic succession which the CofE believe in and believes itself to be part of. Apparently a former Archbishop of York thought that the CofE should've allowed female bishops twenty years ago to deal with that problem, but only allowed female priests more recently :lol: