Another outbreak of loving Christian quarreling - but not over gays (for now); this is about women bishops again.
This Times story (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7018594.ece) seems reasonably impartial.
Now to my mind, no reasonable person could object to women priests and bishops, but the Bible seems to be quite clear in forbidding them:
Quote from: 1 Timothy 2:8 - 12
I desire then that in every place (i.e. wherever there is a group of believers) the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarrelling.
Women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire but by good deeds, as befits women who profess religion. Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.
A quick Google search will also find many doctrinal objections which the diehards use to fight with.
I'm trying to think of something taddy to say, but am finding it difficult.
Oops! I've said too much!
Quote from: DavidH on February 08, 2010, 07:32:14 PM
Now to my mind, no reasonable person could object to women priests and bishops, but the Bible seems to be quite clear in forbidding them:
These endless squabbles remind me of that quote attributed to Florence Nightingale:
The Church is now more like the Scribes and Pharisees than like Christ... What are now called the "essential doctrines" of the Christian religion he does not even mention. and I get the impression that was true long before the 1800s. Perhaps the real lesson of the Bible is the danger of entrusting your PR to the wrong crowd.
Been saying this for years: it's high time to be rewriting the bible, to be more in keeping with the modern, middle-road theology. To say nothing of the more liberal branches.
That these groups all cling to the same book the super-zealots use? Is problematic for all: you can argue that, by all supporting the same book, all groups are indirectly responsible for the actions of the other sects.
Besides, if the uber-conservatives can rewrite the bible (the conservapedia project) why not the moderate and liberals?
Long since past time.
The bible seems like a dodgy dossier to me ;)
Both Church and State are burdened with balancing upholding tradition against remaining relevant, and balancing *that* against balancing hidebound dogmatism against revisionist history. There doesn't seem to be an easy answer to how to deal with this, except to walk away when one has had enough, ignoring the objections (grounded or not) of the True Believers™ and True Patriots™...
During my panel interview for the US diaconate within the Anglican Communion, one of the more conservative clerics repeatedly tried to browbeat me into defending my response to [insert scholars' arbitrary chapter/verse numbering system here]. I smiled and replied that he knew I was raised Roman, so please just give me the verse reference in words.
Feeling that he had already scored one important point, he triumphantly threw down the injunction that Bishops may only be the husbands of one wife, so there!
I cheerfully responded that I was not planning to be the husband of *anyone* -- nor did I aspire to a Bishopric [heh heh heh] -- and did they have any relevant questions for me?
The more progressive clerics smiled behind their hands and we moved on...
FWIW, I generally wore (small) gold earrings and braided my hair whenever in my cassock. No one ever objected on those grounds. Go figure...
(http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/hh27/pieces_o_nine/pope.gif)
In another letter Paul gives clothing advice for women when preaching. And it is in one that is undisputed while there is debate about the letters to Timothy.
He also praises a certain Iunia as outstanding among the apostles. That was a problem for some fathers of the church who could not understand how a woman (except maybe for Holy Mary) could be not only an apostle but also outstanding among them. The problem was later 'solved' by turning Iunia into Iunias.
Btw, the prisons were obviously more liberal then since in one letter Paul mentions a son of his sired in prison (often the 'son' and 'sired' part is interpreted as metaphorical though, the same that RCC priests call everyone their children except their own and are called father by everyone but their own children).
Oooh! Dirty ole blaggard!
IMO Pieces goes right to the nub of it. I would put a different shading on it, though:
If Christians cling on to the Bible being 100% literal truth, they at least have (to them) firm ground to stand on. To the majority of us, it's near-lunacy but the fundies then don't have to think much about anything.
The moment you admit that even one verse is anything other than literal truth, you have to make your own judgement about every part of it. Your opinion is as good as the next person's and chaos reigns.
Quote from: DavidH on February 09, 2010, 01:42:18 PM
... chaos reigns
and no one profits. If beliefs are as varied as people (which is the way it is in practice) no one can use them for his/her own benefit. How can you mobilize a holy war if all your subjects believe something different? Then you have to convince them to fight for the guy that charges taxes every now and then* and that b@$tard isn't that popular. Organized religion is a tool of control, it has little or nothing to do with god or internal beliefs, but with blind faith in the words of the leader.
*which goes to the whole 'patriotism' brainwash, but that's a different discussion.
Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on February 09, 2010, 02:28:03 PM
... but with blind faith in the words of the leader.
Ever will it remain thus: for any system of behavior that is based on faith, the initial faith has to be in whomever or whatever authority is dishing out the statements of faith.
That is? Since there cannot be objective, empirical proof (else no need for faith), then the primary faith has to be in the
deliverer of the dogma.
Which creates a dangerous situation: what if the deliverer strays from the dogma he/she is delivering? Conflict! Which creates cognitive dissonance in the faithee.
But, since the initial faith is in the deliverer? That typically trumps what is being delivered-- especially if the deliverer uses delivery methods that instill additional faith in himself(herself). Such as ritual, fancy dress, lofty words, etc. (humans are so easy.... )
It all boils down to Authority: who has the greater Authority in the minds of the believer?
In the larger, 'mainstream' religions, the greater authority is usually invested in the institution itself, and so long as the authority-figures (priests/ministers/etc) do not stray too far from the Tradition, there is little conflict: any apparent conflict is dismissed as 'lack of understanding' on the part of the believer-- he/she believes he/she just does not understand this obvious 'mystery'. However, if the leaders stray too far from the Traditions of the religion, it is the
leader that is questioned, and as often as not, ousted.
But, in the more charismatic groups, who are often based on the personalities of single individuals, the faith/authority is in the individual-- not the dogma. Thus? In these groups, the individual leader can literally say and do
anything. An extreme example, obviously, is Jonestown, Africa.
Interestingly enough, if you go the other direction, to the liberal theologies, the faith/authority goes full-circle, and returns to the individual-- only this time, the individual is each believer, [rather than a leader-figure] who is instilled with his/her own 'authority' to walk their own path. UU church is a good example. This more enlightened view, permits each individual to grow/learn in the direction they feel works best for them, as an individual.
Okay, I had a single point, but I do not remember what it was.... except perhaps, that all walks of faith rely on faith in one or more
authorities.
Hmmm....maybe it was this: Since they [religions] are faith-based, they cannot have empirical/objective evidence supporting them-- else they would not require the faith component. As I've often said in forumns, if you have to believe in it first? That's not evidence--moreover, you are not relying on evidence-- if you believe, you believe because of a blind leap of faith-- you trust the 'authority', whatever that may turn out to be.
There's a great deal in what Bob and Zono are saying. In the current C of E battles you'd have to be an insider to know who the leaders and authority figures are, so to the public it seems a pure clash of ideologies - but these leaders will be there, I'm sure.
Very interesting item on BBC TV news last night: a journalist covering the synod got a liberal female priest and a hard-line male priest to sit down and talk on camera. He started straight in: "We're not just being bloody-minded about this, we have to go by what the bible tells us to do." She came straght back: "Well, we're never going to decide this on biblical grounds because we also base our ideas on what we believe Jesus is telling us in the Bible." I don't remember the precise words but that was near enough verbatim.
To which I would have said, 'so what's the use of the bible at all, if it gives no guidance on a major issue like this?'
Hang on, Sir Humph wants to chip in:
In my Daye, there were no Womenn PREESTES. But why not? Ye layte Queene, ELISABETH who rul'd for moast of my Dayes, was as goode as any Kynge. And did not ye ancient GREEKES and ROMANS have their PREESTESSES?
But I would not for anything bee a womman if I were to sytte next to that Evill, Drunken, Fornicating old BEESTE ye Bishop of UPTON. But mayhap, they are less UPROARIOUS, nowadays.
I remayne,
Yr True Frende, Humphrey Gryblynge.
I think Sir Humps has a point, and yes the quote of the BBC news liberal female priest was how I heard it too. I thought she was re-assuring ;)
[Toadfish mode off]
I always find it hard to get a grip on these gay priest/women priest type discussions. If you believe in unprovable supernatural/superstitious stuff then you're pretty much signing up to arbitrary logically unjustifiable tenets of faith it seems to me. It's just a question of who gets to make them up interpret divine revelation.
[Toadfish mode back on]
The one with the big s(h)tick of course :mrgreen:
True, Beagle, but for myself, I am fascinated to watch them tearing themselves apart yet again. :mrgreen: Also, I am always grateful for the ammunition they are thereby handing out to dyed-in-the-wool extreme atheists like me.
:caveman: :woohoo:
Quote from: beagle on February 11, 2010, 08:40:08 AMIf you believe in unprovable supernatural/superstitious stuff then...................
but, but, it is isn't unprovable supernatural/superstitious stuff........... it's all in the bible innit?
:goldfish:
Quote from: Griffin NoName on February 12, 2010, 01:32:06 AM
Quote from: beagle on February 11, 2010, 08:40:08 AMIf you believe in unprovable supernatural/superstitious stuff then...................
but, but, it is isn't unprovable supernatural/superstitious stuff........... it's all in the bible innit?
:goldfish:
You know my view on that. I still think it's fishy all these supposedly Middle-Eastern apostle types had English names like John or Peter. ;)
Quote from: beagle on February 12, 2010, 07:37:47 AM
Quote from: Griffin NoName on February 12, 2010, 01:32:06 AM
Quote from: beagle on February 11, 2010, 08:40:08 AMIf you believe in unprovable supernatural/superstitious stuff then...................
but, but, it is isn't unprovable supernatural/superstitious stuff........... it's all in the bible innit?
:goldfish:
You know my view on that. I still think it's fishy all these supposedly Middle-Eastern apostle types had English names like John or Peter. ;)
That's the New Testement. I don't do the NT. The OT has much more imaginative names. Like Rebecca. Or was it Rachel?
Quote from: DavidH on February 11, 2010, 09:54:23 AM
True, Beagle, but for myself, I am fascinated to watch them tearing themselves apart yet again. :mrgreen: Also, I am always grateful for the ammunition they are thereby handing out to dyed-in-the-wool extreme atheists like me.
Praise God and pass the ammunition ;) (I think there is a song on that)
While we are at the topic of nasty aspects of religion:
http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/02/12/a-new-timely-study-links-religion-and-racism-duh/
Isn't that generally true for any system that encourages 'us vs. them' dichotomization? I will concede that this dichotomization is too often the whole point of religion.
I agree, Aggie:
Quote from: Swato's linkReligious groups distinguish between believers and nonbelievers and moral people and immoral ones. So perhaps it's no surprise that the strongly religious people in our research, who were mostly white Christians, discriminated against others who were different from them—blacks and minorities.
In the UK football supporters also tend to exhibit racism when shouting for their teams.
Verrily I say unto you pisseth not off (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7221802/Vicar-tells-women-to-submit-to-husbands.html) the ladies of the parish, for they haveth control over the debit cards.
^ Wot thee beagle saith.
I've recounted elsewhere the purses snapping pointedly shut when an over-enthusiastic Gideon waxed on and on to a congregation of mostly upper-class female heads of households and businesses the importance of Submitting to Their Husbands in Godly Humility on his annual begging-for-money missionary appearance.
If the vicar of my Justice of the Peace/ex hospital matron aunt had tried that he'd have been able to sing descant in his own choir.
I wonder if it means the Duke of Edinburgh is now head of the C of E?