Discussion in 'General Distance Learning Discussions' started by Garp, Aug 3, 2022.
You are not far from the kingdom.
Medieval theological arguments like not wanting clergy to try to leave church property to their children.
No, theological arguments from the Pauline corpus, mainly 1 Corinthians 7:1-16, esp. v. 7, as well as a significant amount of patristic theology stemming from the canons of the councils of Ancyra and Chalcedon (3-4th centuries). I suppose it's easier just to throw up a historically unsupported theory about bequeathing property to disparage Romanism.
Thank you, 1 Corinthians 7:9 seems especially pertinent to today's Roman Catholic priesthood.
I didn't say I agreed with their rationale; I obviously don't. However, its one thing to disparage upon the basis of nonsense like leaving "church property to their children" and another to disagree with a relatively old and erroneous viewpoint.
No, don't assume that I am a Christian. I am not. But I do think that people who take their religiosity seriously, which I do, are right to weigh the ideas of their teachers and leaders and try to decide whether what's being said is consistent with what has traditionally been known and understood.
This habit of thought made me unpopular with my acquaintances when I began to defend Alito's reasoning in the Dobbs case. I said, and I say, nothing about abortion itself. I say quite a lot about Supreme Court decisions that reflect only the personal social agenda of an unelected Justice and have no foundation in law or historical legal understanding. That's dangerous to democracy.
From reading history, years ago - I was given a different understanding. And the medieval era usually starts with the decline of Rome, hundreds of years later than AD 10-11. Did you mean AD 1000 to 1100? If I remember rightly, it might have been about there, +- 150 years, when the long-standing rule against a married priest having sex with his wife the night before celebration of mass, became an extremely inconvenient rule - as Mass was commonly celebrated daily, by that time. So, no more marriage for priests. Man-inspired, not G*d. And that's precisely what I meant by making it up as they go along.
Same as the rule women could not celebrate mass. Nuns could not do so in their own convents. A male Priest had to do this. Funny how the Church decided women could be Saints (St. Monica) or Doctors of the Church (St. Hildegard of Bingen). And oh, yes - St. Monica was married - the mother of St Augustine. She could be a Saint and give birth to another Saint - but she could not say Mass in her lifetime? I doubt that's 'Divinely Inspired.' More like making it up as they go along - as I said before and still maintain.
I really like St. Hildegard of Bingen. We read of her in German Class - 50 years before she was canonized in 2010. Nun, excellent writer and composer whose music is still played today - but in her day, she wasn't allowed to say Mass.
St Hildegard has another distinction, as a pioneer. Hers was the first known written description of the female orgasm. I've read it in full. A couple-three times. That was permitted (and rightly so) but she couldn't say Mass? And that's not "making it up as they go along?"
If forbidding women to say Mass or preach were the only misogynistic, abusive practice ---- but it isn't. I won't enumerate the abusive policies against women over the ages - but most of them (e.g. Birth control issue) were invented to cover new circumstances. (i.e. making it up as they go along.)
G*d inspired? What kind of G*d would countenance some of these abuses? Nope - that's Man's work.
All I have to say. End of, for me.
I know, it was not a serious retort. However, textualism or strict constructionism is the precise hermeneutic of conservative Protestants. There is a parallel indeed. Liberal hermeneutics isn't a baby in the bathtub of modernity as I've read a number of writers claim, it's a pile of scum that has settled on the bottom.
Fair enough Johann. I think your view on these matters is certainly consistent with the zeitgeist. However, I suppose the question I have is what is the standard by which you determine that male headship in the church or prohibitions of birth control are "abuses" perpetrated against women?
As I mentioned, I don't agree with priestly celibacy, or even the RCC's office of "priest" to begin with. However, that view is not reflected in the early patristic era (i.e., the ante-Nicene fathers) and begins to pick of headway in certain quarters of the church in the post-Augustinian era and culminated in the 10-11th centuries, becoming common during the period leading up to the Reformation. Officially, the rule was codified in canon law, if my memory is not failing me, in the 18th century. As far as presiding over a mass, you should know that the New Testament explicitly states that women are prohibited from serving in the office of elder/bishop/pastor/presbyter (the underlying Greek terms in the NT are synonymous referring to the same office of elder). That is why my own communion precludes women from being pastors. That isn't a commentary on the abilities, worth, dignity, or gifting of women-- it is simply obedience to the biblical prescriptions.
I should add - to put her achievements into perspective: St. Hildegard was more than what I said. She was also a philosopher and a medical practitioner - and more. She was born in 1098 and died in 1179. We studied her in German class because she was German. Her writing, like all other German writing at the time, was in Latin. First person I remember studying, who wrote in German (Middle High German) was Walther von der Vogelweide, B. 1170, D. 1230. He was a singer of "Courtly Love" songs and a major poet of his time. So long ago -- my last German class was in 1961, but I still remember some very good things. The writings of St Hildegard and of Walther being two of those good memories.
Modern editions of St. Hildegard's and Walther's books are -- yes -- available on Amazon. They wrote to last.
This is where I eat crow. I stated earlier that ATS would eventually be accredited by a USDoE recognized agency. I based this on conversations several of us had with a member of the Administration that said they were seeking USDoE recognized accreditation. It appears that the son of Dr. Hayes spearheaded this movement and was overruled by his father who, in an article in a local newspaper, basically stated he was in control. My apologies to all.
Yes - 1 Tim 2:12, which states: “But I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.”
Said to be "word of G*d" through St. Paul. I don't agree with that - but it doesn't matter. Here's a Baptist take on it - they read the same Greek you read. Different interpretation. Neat modern Venn diagram - labels in English and Greek.
Organized religion is full of manufactured dichotomies and arguments like this. "We know what it says - but here's what (we say) it means." Just one of the reasons I abandoned it.
(1) First I'm gonna need my BS cutter. The big 'un. ...there.
(2) This is a MAN who said this -St. Paul. I think he was expressing his own views. I think he was VERY wrong.
(3) I DO think it is a commentary on the abilities, worth, dignity, or gifting of women. Many of them do too - and they should be listened to.
Well...that was... interesting? Lol here I thought naturopathic physicians were crazy but this tops them for sure.
We sure agree on a lot of things, Josh. Maybe you should yourself get checked out, to be sure you're still all right.
Oh really? That is quite funny since my own ministry has long partnered with 9Marks in a variety of ways and since Denny Burk, who I've personally met and who is also one of my son's profs, wholly agrees with me on this issue. His interlocutors obviously don't, and that is why he wrote the relevant article.
Sure. People raise arguments about all sorts of things. The existence of an argument does not, in and of itself, mean that there is any validity to those who dissent. And by the way, what is the alternative to "organized religion"? Disorganized religion?
I appreciate your willingness to express your views (I really do). Like any person living in the free world, you're able to express your take, however bad it might be. Although, it does not surprise me that you, a professed unbeliever, do not have a legitimate biblical hermeneutic nor an adequate bibliology. A person who rejects the Christian faith thinks Paul is wrong?! Woah. I would have never guessed. Moreover, you claiming Paul was "VERY wrong" about the qualifications of pastoral leadership is akin to me expressing my unweighted and uninformed opinions about the dynamic efficiency of protons in the hadron collider.
Johann, what you apparently do not understand is that Christians do not get to decide what biblical passages to ignore. Those that do, namely liberals, have a completely different epistemology and theology of Scripture. Thus, whether you think the prohibition of women pastors is a commentary on the abilities, worth, dignity, or gifting of women is an irrelevant opinion that assumes something we don't believe, namely, that the Bible isn't the final word on the issue.
One alternative would be to practice religion individually without belonging to an organization and subscribing to its tenets.
Separate names with a comma.