- May 24, 2006
- Reaction score
Denial.greekischristian said:I have yet to call anyone any name...
Meaning - arbitrarily applied random offensive labels to matters not of the nature you claim them to be. "Certain class of people" - that says it all ... 'you people'.I have merely pointed out that certain characteristics correspond with certain ideologies and that said ideologies are often associated with a certain class of people.
Actually there is no 'other side' - but multiple sides, and you haven't debated - just randomly thrown out inflammatory terms in an attempt to instigate heated responses. I've given points for debate - they've been ignored or dismissed with political polemics "patriarchal", "misogynist", "Popish", "fundamentalist", "radical" (the odd Right-wing epithet in the mix), "reactionary", "disneyland", etc. Which to my mind suggests that you find the material unfamiliar, and so do not have a vocabulary for it?The other side of the debate has done the same, heck,
Again, much of your argument seems to rest on outdated Feminist political polemic of the pre-Womanist era (understanding that Womanist thought has gone far itself beyond an initially ethocentric beginning to a full-flowering that unlike Feminism that is not misanthropic - meaning, no charged terms like 'Patriarchal', but expecting men to be real men). The idea that woman and man are interchangeable and not different is not current, and in fact disrespectful of Women and Men alike. Such an approach simply creates an imbalance in the other direction - women keep their private female society, roles which biology retains alone to their sex, but men lose all private male society, any distinctive role complimentary to women - in a word, men become useless. In situations where it has been applied to religious groups, one ends up with what has become the norm in religious groups where women dominate religious leadership - men don't participate (and, that has nothing to do with misognyny on their part, and everything to do with male biology and the psychology of their sex - the need for responsibility, to be active, to have stewardship, etc.) There are other reasons that has happened of course, and those religions that adopted women's ordination to make up for the men not showing up have continued the downward spiral of attrition. There is nothing progressive about that.
There is no male or female in Christ, thus to deny one a ministerial role in the Church based on a non-existant distinction is a direct affront to the ministry and salvific work of Christ.
Okay - but the context of that scripture has nothing to do with roles in society, the governance of the Church, or the administration of the sacraments - but salvation.
As above - it isn't denying the work of the Holy Spirit if it *isn't* the work of the Holy Spirit. Part of the issue I see above is seeing it in terms of individualism - the Holy Spirit's work is in community. So, you have a shaky purely theoretical claim that the Holy Spirit *is* calling for women's ordination - on what basis? Do you have proof of such or just a 'burning in the bosom'?By extension, it is a denying of the work of the Holy Spirit in said individual... The refusal to ordain for mere reasons of gender, a non-existant distinction in Christ, is to openly dismiss and ridicule the work and grace of the Holy Spirit.
That has yet to happen - I think you are seeing evil where there is none.... claim innocence to an accusation then later, in the very same paragraph, prove the accusation true.
Yes - Christianity was a subculture. Off-hand, Fr. Alexander Schmemann in "Introduction to Liturgical Theology" quotes K. Heussi in regards to the 'monastic' nature of Christian life during the first centuries. They lived in the world, but separated - separate from public life and its celebrations, business, political life, entertainment, and much else. "Narrow confines" is how I believe he describes it - we have the witness of their pagan contemporaries to know that Christians were on the fringe, considered strange and scandalous for their departure from the 'norms' of society. The rumors of orgies were centered around the fact that Christian women attended the meetings of the Christians in the same room as the men (what would become the nave.)Are you suggesting that the culture and society that Christian women found themselves in differed substantially from the culture and society of those around them?
That only applies in the case of mixed marriages, for which the Church had special rules - same as those who lived under the hand of a pagan master. The situation changed some with the emancipation of St. Constantine, but the monastic movement that followed was the preservation of the Apostolic life of the age of persecution.Because that's simply not the case, they suffered under the same oppressive patriarchal structure that all the women of that era suffered under. The culture and society in which they lived were, in fact, the same culture and society in which the pagans lived.
As for women 'suffering an injustice' for not being ordained - that is *nothing* like a real injustice. You have continued to call it an injustice, but have not illustrated how it can be - I'm guessing the attempt is in the hypothesis that the Holy Spirit is trying to make the Church ordain women, but we're (of course) quenching the Holy Spirit? There are also men who are called and capable that are not ordained - do you fight for that 'injustice'?
Yes, and I spoke with you as we oft do in academic circles - your claim illustrates your unfamiliarity, so you make pretense of offense rather than engage. Go ahead, answer - I'm a graduate student in the UWL Celtic Christianity programme. Iron sharpens iron. I recognized your claims as being out of literature such as Peter Berresford Ellis - if you have it from another source, let's discuss it. Otherwise, the fact is I 'threw down' to your challenge, and you've run.If you had wished a discussion on Brehon Law, rather than assume that I was unfamiliar with it,