The Newest Catholic Church Uproar

[Morm]

Then how about instead of just giving us a reference you post it and explain it so there is no ambiguity?

So you're saying that it's not good to apply 21st century thinking to the 1st century writing but then turn around and say that it's appropriate to apply 1st century writing to the 21st century? That seems a bit like having your cake and eating it too.

 

[cantab]

His argument is not viable because he is not speaking about what the verse is actually talking about.

What the verse is "actually talking about" is a matter of interpretation though.

That is normal for the Bible however. And in any case I will concede it's hard to make an interpretation of the chapter that supports women as priests. On the other hand, interpreting those verses as not banning women from teaching etc. appears to me to require justification - and you provided a reasonable defence of such an interpretation.

 

[J-man]

My Internet Connection is slow... So i can't make all the quoting and do a long post like i normally do, nor access sites for convenience, so i'll do my best.

In regards to cantab.

I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone- for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quite lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men- the testimony given in its proper time. And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle- I am telling the truth, I am not lying- and a teacher of the true faith to the Gentiles. I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing. I also want women to dress modestly with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing-if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety

Now, Paul is giving instruction on worship and continues on from this chapter into the next talking about the offices of the church. Er... so in a sense i was wrong because 1 Timothy 2 doesn't talk about church office, but church worship, which ties into Church office which 1 Timothy 3 talks about. This has nothing to do with normal everyday life. And saying that i could use this verse to deny women pay for "their" services in the labor force would be arguing against a strawman.

Now in regards to kitten. No, i'm saying we shouldn't apply 21st century thinking to 1st century writing because they are both clearly two different sets of thinking, and then we have have distorted context. However 1st century instruction under 1st century context can be applied to worship in the 21st century, and should be under the authority of Christ through his apostles. These are two different subjects we are talking about.

 

[Morm]

I would like an example of how 1st century instruction in 1st century context has any application in the 21st century.

 

[J-man]

I would like an example of how 1st century instruction in 1st century context has any application in the 21st century.

When a word concerning the Eternal Church of Christ under Christ's Authority is brought up in one century, i'm pretty sure it was meant to be applied in all other centuries following said century.

 

[Morm]

So you're saying that a word, any word(?), is invoked in the bible it's effectively accurate any time thereafter?

Does the bible, at any time, consider that the future would bring drastic changes that might antiquate things or was it assumed it would always be status quo?

 

[cantab]

There is of course a huge non-religious source of instruction and knowledge from over two millenia ago that remains relevant today - Greek mathematics. Newtonian mechanics is over 300 years old and also still remains very relevant. Just because something is old does not make it obsolete or irrelevant today.

 

[Morm]

the constants in both might not change, but the context in the bible certainly does.

 

[J-man]

the constants in both might not change, but the context in the bible certainly does.

Under what authority are you to subject the Bible to this conclusion?

 

[Morm]

There is no "authority" needed for any of this, I don't see how it even applies. I'll humor you though.


Firstly:

the context of your own biblical scholars seems to show that the context within the bible itself can change quite dramatically.

Secondly, simple observation. How can you honestly sit there and tell me the bible still holds the same context it did 1500+ years ago? Hell, just the different accounts from paul to luke to matthew pretty much show that in like 200 years the context has changed- the same basic story with differences abounding in all of them.

Thirdly, I fail to see how a book that doesn't talk about modern sexual equality, technology, morality (ie not nailing people to the cross anymore) or even just anything not using even remotely modern stories or examples can be considered to be within context of todays modern world even to a degree of 90%.

Yes, again, the constants may remain the same (or, according to the first link...perhaps not), but the details become irrelevant as society moves forward.

 

[Jack Jack]

Don't forget that, back in the days of the bible, people did not used to think about progress. Innovation was scarce and slow to spread, people's life changed little in the course of a lifespan.

The result is that people had the impression that life had always be the same and always will be.

I imagine that the bible was written as if the state of the world would never change.

 

[cim]

Don't forget that, back in the days of the bible, people did not used to think about progress. Innovation was scarce and slow to spread, people's life changed little in the course of a lifespan.

The result is that people had the impression that life had always be the same and always will be.

I imagine that the bible was written as if the state of the world would never change.

What source do you have for any of this? That's a pretty broad and general statement there. It also depends on stuff like how one defines innovation and change.

 

[Morm]

CIM I somehow suspect their capacity to think about change wasn't quite within the scope of our technology and society today, that much should be common sense.

 

[Vineon]

You can have a guy playing a women. And women playing guys.
Case in point : La Petite vie

Wasn't aware Claude Meunier was a woman.

You just ruined 'popa' for me.

 

[Jack Jack]

Both are guys. Silly Vineon.
I was just saying if just as a man can play a woman, a women can play a man.

CIM, it was something we were taught in sociology. I don't have sources, except class notes.

 

[TheAmazingFlygon]

Well Pope Jeanne (who according to most historians never existed) disguised herself as a man and became Pope.

I am not religious, but IMO seeing how Jesus acted towards women, he would have been pretty disappointed to see that the Church is led by men only.

 

[J-man]

There is no "authority" needed for any of this, I don't see how it even applies. I'll humor you though.

There is authority in this. If Christ, who said "all authority has been given unto me." is the Word (Bible), as John says, than this means that the Biblical meaning is unchanged, that Paul through Christ's authority ordained that only men could preach, and that it was meant to apply to His church no matter what century.

Firstly:

the context of your own biblical scholars seems to show that the context within the bible itself can change quite dramatically.

http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad....response-to-ellen-van-wolde-on-genesis-1.html

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/40_genesis1.html

First off, if "Bara" means "to separate", then how does that fit under the context of Genesis 1:27, where "Bara" is used to say God created Man? Also, why wouldn't Moses use "Badal" to suggest God separated the heavens from the earth when "Badal" is the hebrew word meant "to separate"? That makes no sense. With all do respect Van Wolde must have a great education, but it appears she just wanted to stir up the media.

Secondly, simple observation. How can you honestly sit there and tell me the bible still holds the same context it did 1500+ years ago? Hell, just the different accounts from paul to luke to matthew pretty much show that in like 200 years the context has changed- the same basic story with differences abounding in all of them.

Difference in account isn't the same thing as difference in context. In fact, back in the days of the Bible, slight difference in account meant that the "story tellers" weren't collaborating to produce a false story. So in actuality, the stories of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John having slight contradictions meant that they have the same context... This is why i'm stressing we can't read 1st century writing through 21st century thinking, because things get distorted.

Thirdly, I fail to see how a book that doesn't talk about modern sexual equality, technology, morality (ie not nailing people to the cross anymore) or even just anything not using even remotely modern stories or examples can be considered to be within context of todays modern world even to a degree of 90%.

I fail to see the logic in this reasoning. You seem to be using the logic of "well everyone else is doing it, so that must mean X is true/false". It doesn't work when you are under the authority of your parents, and it doesn't work under the authority of your heavenly father and your savior whom all authority has been given.

Yes, again, the constants may remain the same (or, according to the first link...perhaps not), but the details become irrelevant as society moves forward.

Again, under what authority are you to subject the Bible to this conclusion?

 

[UncleSam]

The reason the Church only allows men to consecrate the host isn't because "the Bible says so", it's because Christ was a man. The mass is supposed to be a sacrifice, in recognition of Christ's sacrifice on the cross. As the mass hearkens back to Christ and Christ was a man, only men can be ordained.

And now, I would posit a question to anyone who believes women should be allowed to consecrate the host: Can you make an argument for it? Is there any historical context or particular reason to change this, apart from the modern attitude of "everyone should be able to do everything"? Quite frankly, this is the same reason women should have to fulfill the same physical requirements as men to join the army: Becoming a priest (or a soldier) is not a privilege. The vast majority of people find leading such lives to be distasteful, though it is necessary for them to exist (at least from the viewpoint of certain people, of course Atheists would say that there is no need for priests to exist, pacifists would say there is no reason for soldiers to exist, etc.).

Just wanted to throw out the real reason the Church doesn't allow women to become priests.

 

[J-man]

The reason the Church only allows men to consecrate the host isn't because "the Bible says so", it's because Christ was a man. The mass is supposed to be a sacrifice, in recognition of Christ's sacrifice on the cross. As the mass hearkens back to Christ and Christ was a man, only men can be ordained.

And now, I would posit a question to anyone who believes women should be allowed to consecrate the host: Can you make an argument for it? Is there any historical context or particular reason to change this, apart from the modern attitude of "everyone should be able to do everything"? Quite frankly, this is the same reason women should have to fulfill the same physical requirements as men to join the army: Becoming a priest (or a soldier) is not a privilege. The vast majority of people find leading such lives to be distasteful, though it is necessary for them to exist (at least from the viewpoint of certain people, of course Atheists would say that there is no need for priests to exist, pacifists would say there is no reason for soldiers to exist, etc.).

Just wanted to throw out the real reason the Church doesn't allow women to become priests.

If Christ is The Word (The Bible) then how does The Bible have no authority in the sanction that only Men can become priest/pastor? Also, if Holy Communion/ The Lord's Supper is a remembrance of Christ's Death, how does that have anything to do with Christ being a Man?

 

[cantab]

Quite frankly, this is the same reason women should have to fulfill the same physical requirements as men to join the army

Indeed, all who seek to join the army (in the same role) should have to meet the same requirements regardless of gender. That will be liable to result in a greater failure rate for women, but doesn't exclude them absolutely. What that has to do with the Church I have no idea.

 

[Chocolate Chip Cookies]

If Christ is The Word (The Bible) then how does The Bible have no authority in the sanction that only Men can become priest/pastor? Also, if Holy Communion/ The Lord's Supper is a remembrance of Christ's Death, how does that have anything to do with Christ being a Man?

Your arguments rest on the preconception that the Bible is infallible and purely God's word. I remember reading a post or irc comment of yours a while back that dictated a 40 year old strawman that the Bible is free of historical error or contradictions. We know as of now that there are dozens of both. So there's no reason that we can't take Paul's words as speaking outside of Christ's influence. Take note of the fact that Christ never even once, iirc, mentions the role of women in his church. It's all Paul, and based on the inaccuracy of the Torah in regards to history, I think it's safe to say that the misogynist culture of the time had more than a little to do with those verses.

Oh and in case you feel the need to reiterate the strawman in question, please feel free to examine these links in regards to the Torah's flaws. I'll admit several of the contradictions are open to interpretation, but others are pretty inexplicable by any apologetic standard-and I've heard 'em all.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html (history and science)

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html (Literary contradictions)

 

[Morm]

There is authority in this. If Christ, who said "all authority has been given unto me." is the Word (Bible), as John says, than this means that the Biblical meaning is unchanged, that Paul through Christ's authority ordained that only men could preach, and that it was meant to apply to His church no matter what century.

A man saying he has authority doesn't mean he has authority to make that claim. It's all hand waving and I find it utterly unacceptable from any reasonable standpoint. It's effectively saying "well I have authority because I do and you just have to live with it". So if the meaning is unchanged, does that mean I can take it word for word quite literally? Let me just point some things out to you that suggest strongly that the bible is out of context for todays world:

-Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female.
-Leviticus 15: 19-24 states I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness.
-Exodus 35:2 clearly states working on the Sabbath means you should be put to death.
-Leviticus 11:10 states that eating shellfish is an abomination.
-Leviticus 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight- I'm pretty fucked with less than 20/20, hey?
-Leviticus 19:27 States that it is forbidden to trim hair, especially around the temples. How long is your hair?
-Leviticus 19:19 forbids planting two different crops in the same field, as it does wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend, for example).

I am looking forward to justification for how the above is still relevant and apply to todays world.

http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad....response-to-ellen-van-wolde-on-genesis-1.html

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/40_genesis1.html

First off, if "Bara" means "to separate", then how does that fit under the context of Genesis 1:27, where "Bara" is used to say God created Man?

Two genders. "Ged separated Man" would fit within the construct of God making women FROM men, separating the two.

Also, why wouldn't Moses use "Badal" to suggest God separated the heavens from the earth when "Badal" is the hebrew word meant "to separate"? That makes no sense. With all do respect Van Wolde must have a great education, but it appears she just wanted to stir up the media.

It was a bit controversial, but certainly interesting that there may be some mistranslation within our modern bibles.

Difference in account isn't the same thing as difference in context. In fact, back in the days of the Bible, slight difference in account meant that the "story tellers" weren't collaborating to produce a false story

Well yeah, considering many of the gospels weren't even ALIVE when Jesus was nailed to the cross. I'd think maybe they did some plagiarism though, it's not too hard to pick up someones work from 60 years earlier and rewrite it in your own words. It's the "Purple monkey dishwasher" effect, where stories change over generation gaps.

So in actuality, the stories of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John having slight contradictions meant that they have the same context... This is why i'm stressing we can't read 1st century writing through 21st century thinking, because things get distorted.

If you cannot read the 1st century writing through 21st century thinking because it gets distorted, in what way is it relevant and within context to us? How can we possibly take the correct meaning from it? That right there is pretty open and shut if you ask me.

I fail to see the logic in this reasoning. You seem to be using the logic of "well everyone else is doing it, so that must mean X is true/false". It doesn't work when you are under the authority of your parents, and it doesn't work under the authority of your heavenly father and your savior whom all authority has been given.

Jesus was a man living in a society. Son of God or not, he grew up in those sociological conditions and as such was not beyond participating in their norms. Show me evidence to the contrary.

Again, under what authority are you to subject the Bible to this conclusion?

You need authority to question the bible? That is pretty much a perfect demonstration of indoctrination demonstrated by you, if that's indeed what you mean. Just because a book says it is correct does not mean it is correct. Just because a man claims to be the son of god and convinces people of it, it does not make it true. Just because a book claims to have authority doesn't mean anything and it certainly doesn't mean I am in need of equal or greater authority to question it. There is zero reason that I can see as to why I shouldn't challenge this using the twin cannons of common sense and the scientific method.

Actually, in the exact same way the bible does it, I am going to claim that I have authority. God told me I have authority over the bible, any interpretation of the bible, any of its readers and especially you. Because of this, I am the word of God and officially have the authority to do and say whatever I please without question. Do you see how ludicrous it sounds coming from me? Well that's exactly how it sounds coming from the bible and from you (about the bible). Asking me what Authority I have is pretty much trying to curtail the points of the debate and go over my head and that is just not reasonable.

Edit: Chocolate chip cookies, have you seen the lineage of Jesus? It goes by father, each gospel giving a different story that can be dramatically different. Then we get to Joseph and OOOPS looks like he's not the father so it was an exercise in futility.

 

[TubaKing]

Hide

A man saying he has authority doesn't mean he has authority to make that claim. It's all hand waving and I find it utterly unacceptable from any reasonable standpoint. It's effectively saying "well I have authority because I do and you just have to live with it". So if the meaning is unchanged, does that mean I can take it word for word quite literally? Let me just point some things out to you that suggest strongly that the bible is out of context for todays world:

-Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female.
-Leviticus 15: 19-24 states I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness.
-Exodus 35:2 clearly states working on the Sabbath means you should be put to death.
-Leviticus 11:10 states that eating shellfish is an abomination.
-Leviticus 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight- I'm pretty fucked with less than 20/20, hey?
-Leviticus 19:27 States that it is forbidden to trim hair, especially around the temples. How long is your hair?
-Leviticus 19:19 forbids planting two different crops in the same field, as it does wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend, for example).

I am looking forward to justification for how the above is still relevant and apply to todays world.

http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad....response-to-ellen-van-wolde-on-genesis-1.html

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/40_genesis1.html


Two genders. "Ged separated Man" would fit within the construct of God making women FROM men, separating the two.



It was a bit controversial, but certainly interesting that there may be some mistranslation within our modern bibles.



Well yeah, considering many of the gospels weren't even ALIVE when Jesus was nailed to the cross. I'd think maybe they did some plagiarism though, it's not too hard to pick up someones work from 60 years earlier and rewrite it in your own words. It's the "Purple monkey dishwasher" effect, where stories change over generation gaps.



If you cannot read the 1st century writing through 21st century thinking because it gets distorted, in what way is it relevant and within context to us? How can we possibly take the correct meaning from it? That right there is pretty open and shut if you ask me.




Jesus was a man living in a society. Son of God or not, he grew up in those sociological conditions and as such was not beyond participating in their norms. Show me evidence to the contrary.



You need authority to question the bible? That is pretty much a perfect demonstration of indoctrination demonstrated by you, if that's indeed what you mean. Just because a book says it is correct does not mean it is correct. Just because a man claims to be the son of god and convinces people of it, it does not make it true. Just because a book claims to have authority doesn't mean anything and it certainly doesn't mean I am in need of equal or greater authority to question it. There is zero reason that I can see as to why I shouldn't challenge this using the twin cannons of common sense and the scientific method.

Actually, in the exact same way the bible does it, I am going to claim that I have authority. God told me I have authority over the bible, any interpretation of the bible, any of its readers and especially you. Because of this, I am the word of God and officially have the authority to do and say whatever I please without question. Do you see how ludicrous it sounds coming from me? Well that's exactly how it sounds coming from the bible and from you (about the bible). Asking me what Authority I have is pretty much trying to curtail the points of the debate and go over my head and that is just not reasonable.

Edit: Chocolate chip cookies, have you seen the lineage of Jesus? It goes by father, each gospel giving a different story that can be dramatically different. Then we get to Joseph and OOOPS looks like he's not the father so it was an exercise in futility.

It seems like Kitten Bukkake has read "Why Can't I Own a Canadian" (from the bolded part of the above quote) and the article itself if worth reading and very relevant to the discussion at hand: http://www.humanistsofutah.org/2002/WhyCantIOwnACanadian_10-02.html

I have to agree that the entire Bible simply cannot be logically interpreted in a literal fashion. With all of the scientific evidence of natural selection and the Big Bang, for example, it seems absurd to me to suggest that the events in the beginning of Genesis took place exactly as written (with God creating the universe in six days and such). Particularly, my concerns are about the multi-millennial disconnect from when the actual events written about supposedly took place and the inaccuracies that naturally occurred through mistranslations and potential doctoring by clergy, as well as the fallacies of human writing/documentation (particularly by secondhand sources).

There are numerous contradictions in the Bible, as other users have listed, and little to no objective evidence that the contents of the books are indeed the "word of God".The burden of evidence lies not with he who doubts a claim, but with the person who makes the claim. I may say that there is a dragon in the middle of the room that only I have the power to perceive, but it would be up to me to prove the existence of said dragon. Me saying "prove to me the dragon is not real" does not constitute solid evidence, for the same could be said for any concept man is capable of imagining. Though absence of evidence is indeed not evidence of absence, it is extraordinarily difficult (if not impossible) to prove that something is not real and I would think it should be exponentially easier to prove that something is actually real (or true).

Organized religions are groups generally known for being proudly static and immutable. Although the prejudices of the founders of said religions usually still hold true for their leadership today, this may not be reflected by the majority of the religion's followers who either don't know about said prejudices (often manifested by denial), don't care about them, don't want to be condemned for heresy, or some combination of the three. The world has changed a lot in two-thousand years and while religious leaders tend to make it their jobs to preserve tradition, I think the majority of people have learned to respect that and move on with with their lives.
Is it fair that women can't be ordained? No.
Will it be changing anytime soon? No.

 

[Slater]

All my thoughts on religion are summarized in this qoute "Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence And That What Can Be Asserted Without Evidence Can Also Be Dismissed Without Evidence." -Christopher Hitchens

 

[Jack Jack]

Quite frankly, this is the same reason women should have to fulfill the same physical requirements as men to join the army: Becoming a priest (or a soldier) is not a privilege.

Since when having a penis is a physical requirement to become a priest? I thought priests where not suppose to make use of their penises anyway (except to pee).

And if ordination is akin to marriage and the church is female, then why is that a problem for ordaining women? Homosexuality was a sin in the same book that said eating pork is a sin. And I think priests actually do eat pork. At least, In Québec, they do since it's the least expensive kind of meat available.