First female bishop in England

Nomis21

A milestone has been reached in equality with the announcement of the appointment of Reverend Libby Lane as the new Bishop of Stockport.

This appointment suggests that the church is coming more into line (even though several years behind) with modern times and trends.

Would anyone now like to speculate how long before the Catholic Church follows suit by allowing female priests?

How long before there will be a female Archbishop in the C of E?

Could this eventually lead to a female Pope in the next 500 years?

I think the C of E will now move forward with the ordination of openly gay clergy leading to the possibility of a Lesbian Archbishop in about 100 years from now.

I say that it cannot be too soon for the wind of change to blow through.

lazybones32

Love her name...

If people want a 'church' that follows trends and current attitudes, they should just create their own.

katydid

Nomis21 wrote: »

A milestone has been reached in equality with the announcement of the appointment of Reverend Libby Lane as the new Bishop of Stockport.

This appointment suggests that the church is coming more into line (even though several years behind) with modern times and trends.

Would anyone now like to speculate how long before the Catholic Church follows suit by allowing female priests?

How long before there will be a female Archbishop in the C of E?

Could this eventually lead to a female Pope in the next 500 years?

I think the C of E will now move forward with the ordination of openly gay clergy leading to the possibility of a Lesbian Archbishop in about 100 years from now.

I say that it cannot be too soon for the wind of change to blow through.

Somehow I can't see the Roman Catholic church giving equality to women just because the Church of England has. The fact that other members of the Anglican communion have moved forward in this regard in the past, including the CofI, hasn't influenced them one whit.

Remember, these changed happened in then churches of the Anglican communion because of their democratic nature - it was the laity who initiated the change, and who were in a position to vote for it. There's no such mechanism in the Roman Catholic church, and no sign of one being developed.

newmug

katydid wrote: »

Somehow I can't see the Roman Catholic church giving equality to women just because the Church of England has. The fact that other members of the Anglican communion have moved forward in this regard in the past, including the CofI, hasn't influenced them one whit.

Remember, these changed happened in then churches of the Anglican communion because of their democratic nature - it was the laity who initiated the change, and who were in a position to vote for it. There's no such mechanism in the Roman Catholic church, and no sign of one being developed.

Yea........ Their democratic nature. Sure I suppose if they voted that other fella was God instead of Jesus, well then that would make it ok. Cos it would be democratic. Yea.

katydid

newmug wrote: »

Yea........ Their democratic nature. Sure I suppose if they voted that other fella was God instead of Jesus, well then that would make it ok. Cos it would be democratic. Yea.

Huh? The tenets of Christianity are not up for discussion or voting... We're talking about practices and traditions.

Benny_Cake

katydid wrote: »

Somehow I can't see the Roman Catholic church giving equality to women just because the Church of England has. The fact that other members of the Anglican communion have moved forward in this regard
Remember, these changed happened in then churches of the Anglican communion because of their democratic nature - it was the laity who initiated the change, and who were in a position to vote for it. There's no such mechanism in the Roman Catholic church, and no sign of one being developed.

Actually, in the case of the Church of England it was the laity who were the holdup, the bishops and priests were ready to move a couple of years ago.

Generally I'd agree that bringing a wider group of people into decision making roles in churches is a good thing - the downside of synods and so on is that they tend to attract the involvement of people who love church politics!

Though I think that the RCC shouldn't restrict ordained ministry to men, it's ultimately a matter for that church to decide. There is nothing to say that it will inevitably happen. A bigger question is: what is the role of the priesthood and is too much expected of Roman Catholic priests? There is a lot more that the laity could be doing, male and female.

a person.

Nomis21 wrote: »

A milestone has been reached in equality with the announcement of the appointment of Reverend Libby Lane as the new Bishop of Stockport.

This appointment suggests that the church is coming more into line (even though several years behind) with modern times and trends.

Would anyone now like to speculate how long before the Catholic Church follows suit by allowing female priests?

How long before there will be a female Archbishop in the C of E?

Could this eventually lead to a female Pope in the next 500 years?

I think the C of E will now move forward with the ordination of openly gay clergy leading to the possibility of a Lesbian Archbishop in about 100 years from now.

I say that it cannot be too soon for the wind of change to blow through.

There's nothing new under the sun. It was very common in the time of St. Paul and Christ, when St. Paul was setting up the church in the city of Corinth, the temple in the Acropolis overlooking Corinth had over 1000 temple priestesses.

A lesbian anglican archbishop of cantubury that believes in God, would at least make a change from the current one, who recently announced he doubts God even exists. Despite all the pandering to everything and anything, they continue to hemorrhage members in england at an astonishing rate, and what's left of the international anglican communion continues to fracture and disintegrate.

katydid

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Actually, in the case of the Church of England it was the laity who were the holdup, the bishops and priests were ready to move a couple of years ago.

Generally I'd agree that bringing a wider group of people into decision making roles in churches is a good thing - the downside of synods and so on is that they tend to attract the involvement of people who love church politics!

Though I think that the RCC shouldn't restrict ordained ministry to men, it's ultimately a matter for that church to decide. There is nothing to say that it will inevitably happen. A bigger question is: what is the role of the priesthood and is too much expected of Roman Catholic priests? There is a lot more that the laity could be doing, male and female.

Yes, I was thinking more of the initial move towards the ordination of women. In the CofI the issue of female bishops didn't arise as a separate issue as it was included in the initial acceptance of the principle of equality.

You're absolutely right about the kind of people who get involved in such things; whether it's the GAA or the CofI, there will be the engaged and the unengaged. But from years of serving on vestries (local parish councils), and having elected representatives to the diocesan synod, I can assure you that while they tend to be people who are "committee heads" they are also very dedicated and devout people, who do have a genuine commitment to getting church matters right. And I have seen how being involved in the democratic process has brought around the hardliners who would have been suspicious or doubtful about some of the changes. When our vestry members appointed to interview and select a new rector appointed a female rector for the first time, it was heartening to see the positive and accepting reaction from the more conservative members. They felt, I think, that because the choice was made by people they had voted for and who had been selected by the vestry, rather than having these things imposed from above, they were willing to give the person a chance. And of course once the individual occupied the post, they learned to interact with her personally, and the issue of her gender became less important than whether she was going to use the old or new version of the Lord's Prayer!

I agree that it's down to the Roman Catholic church to decide in the end. The problem is that the vast majority of members have no input into the decision. And the powers that be show no inclination to move in this direction; John Paul II banned all discussion of the matter and none of his successors, while not as dogmatic, have shown any desire to promote the issue or even engage in an honest debate about it.

Certainly the role of the priest in general has to be looked at in general, but it is very much tied up with the present structure of "them and us". The laity is not really involved; they are allowed have parish councils which can be consulted but have no rights, and it's hard for laity to do more and to commit themselves when they lack a feeling of ownership/partnership. Rather than say the role of the priest has to be looked it, would it be more appropriate to say that the role of all members should be looked at?

Dan_Solo

a person. wrote: »

There's nothing new under the sun. It was very common in the time of St. Paul and Christ, when St. Paul was setting up the church in the city of Corinth, the temple in the Acropolis overlooking Corinth had over 1000 temple priestesses.

I can't find any evidence that there were ever official women bishops before, but the case has been made that abbesses in several locations had equivalent power and function to bishops. TBH it shows how the RCC, which originally had women priests, was corrupted over time by power.

newmug

katydid wrote: »

Huh? The tenets of Christianity are not up for discussion or voting... We're talking about practices and traditions.

Really? Like the 5th, 6th, and 7th commandments? Don't kill, don't abuse sex, don't steal? Kinda what the "Church" ofI was founded on, no?

katydid wrote: »

I agree that it's down to the Roman Catholic church to decide in the end.

Wrong. Its down to Jesus. He decided already, about 2000 years ago. It aint up for discussion.

katydid wrote: »

The problem is that the vast majority of members have no input into the decision.

Yup. Nobody has. We don't mess with what Jesus said.

katydid wrote: »

And the powers that be show no inclination to move in this direction

Yup again. Why would they? We're not in the business of twisting Jesus's teachings for our own ends.

katydid wrote: »

Certainly the role of the priest in general has to be looked at in general, but it is very much tied up with the present structure of "them and us".

For someone who's not a Catholic, you seem to think you know all about Catholicism. But you're so far off the mark, its embarrassing really.


There is no "them and us" situation. Priests are people who have such deep faith, such conviction, that they forego the natural urge to find a partner and start a family. They love God too much. That's not to say they don't have the same desires as the rest of us, but they sacrifice their potential for a "normal" life to ultimately go to Heaven when they die. Admirable really.


Just out of curiosity, do you know of any CofI "priests" who choose to be celibate?

Benny_Cake

newmug wrote: »

There is no "them and us" situation. Priests are people who have such deep faith, such conviction, that they forego the natural urge to find a partner and start a family. They love God too much. That's not to say they don't have the same desires as the rest of us, but they sacrifice their potential for a "normal" life to ultimately go to Heaven when they die. Admirable really.


Just out of curiosity, do you know of any CofI "priests" who choose to be celibate?

What does that have to do with anything though? Clerical celibacy in the RCC is a law, not a doctrine and could be changed any time. Priests in the eastern-rite Catholic churches which are in full communion with the Pope can marry. Orthodox priests can marry and as far as I know, no Catholic questions the validity of Orthodox holy orders.

There are Anglican clergy who choose to remain celibate, no doubt, just as plenty of non-clergy to do. That's their business, surely. Incidentally there are religious communities within Anglicanism, such as Franciscans, whose members practise celibacy. Trevor Huddleston, the anti-apartheid activist and priest (no inverted commas necessary) was a member of one such community.

newmug

Benny_Cake wrote: »

What does that have to do with anything though? Clerical celibacy in the RCC is a law, not a doctrine and could be changed any time.

The mechanism for the celibacy rule, whether it be law or doctrine, is not the issue.


First point, sex is a sin. In fact, its THE original sin. So if you want to go around trying to live a Christian life, you cant be having sex. Usually that means not being married.


Second point, Jesus said to Peter, "If you follow me lad, you'll have some hard decisions to make. You'll have to leave the missus and kids". That's bad enough now, imagine how tough a decision that would have ben back then, when the women of society basically depended on their husband.

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Priests in the eastern-rite Catholic churches which are in full communion with the Pope can marry. Orthodox priests can marry and as far as I know, no Catholic questions the validity of Orthodox holy orders.

Being in full communion with "The Pope" has nothing to do with anything. You's non-Catholics put far too much emphasis on the Pope. He's not God, Jesus is. The Pope is just a priest, who's elected to the position of head priest. That's all. He cant change Jesus's rules.



As for no Catholic questioning the validity of another religion? Haha, yea right. Catholicism is the cornflakes of religion, the original and best.

Benny_Cake wrote: »

There are Anglican clergy who choose to remain celibate, no doubt, just as plenty of non-clergy to do. That's their business, surely. Incidentally there are religious communities within Anglicanism, such as Franciscans, whose members practise celibacy. Trevor Huddleston, the anti-apartheid activist and priest (no inverted commas necessary) was a member of one such community.

Fair play to them. But no, its not their business, its Gods business. As stated above, Jesus laid down that, in order to follow him, there had to be no family ties. No sex is a no brainer seeing as its number 1 on the list of sins.


I'm sorry if my last 2 posts seem a bit narky, its just that I'm sick and tired of the Catholic bashing attitude on this site in general. And when a poster who I know from previous experience is NOT Catholic, comes swaggering in here stating this and that and the other about Catholicism as if they're an expert, it really grinds my gears. Why isn't there a Catholic mod anyway?

katydid

newmug wrote: »

Really? Like the 5th, 6th, and 7th commandments? Don't kill, don't abuse sex, don't steal? Kinda what the "Church" ofI was founded on, no?






Wrong. Its down to Jesus. He decided already, about 2000 years ago. It aint up for discussion.






Yup. Nobody has. We don't mess with what Jesus said.






Yup again. Why would they? We're not in the business of twisting Jesus's teachings for our own ends.







For someone who's not a Catholic, you seem to think you know all about Catholicism. But you're so far off the mark, its embarrassing really.


There is no "them and us" situation. Priests are people who have such deep faith, such conviction, that they forego the natural urge to find a partner and start a family. They love God too much. That's not to say they don't have the same desires as the rest of us, but they sacrifice their potential for a "normal" life to ultimately go to Heaven when they die. Admirable really.


Just out of curiosity, do you know of any CofI "priests" who choose to be celibate?

Commandments? What on earth are you on about?

Remind me again when Jesus decided that priests should be male and celibate? Can you quote the particular verse of the Gospel? I know the Bible pretty well, and I'm not aware of any.

Actually I am a Catholic. Just not a Roman Catholic. And I don't need to be a Roman Catholic to know how the church functions. It's called being educated. From what you evidence, I seem to know a bit more about your denomination than you do...

Actually I know two celibate CofI priests. One has been a lifelong celibate, out of personal choice. The other has had relationships in the past, but chooses at this point in her life to be celibate. She has the option to change this should she wish.

katydid

newmug wrote: »

The mechanism for the celibacy rule, whether it be law or doctrine, is not the issue.


First point, sex is a sin. In fact, its THE original sin. So if you want to go around trying to live a Christian life, you cant be having sex. Usually that means not being married.


Second point, Jesus said to Peter, "If you follow me lad, you'll have some hard decisions to make. You'll have to leave the missus and kids". That's bad enough now, imagine how tough a decision that would have ben back then, when the women of society basically depended on their husband.







Being in full communion with "The Pope" has nothing to do with anything. You's non-Catholics put far too much emphasis on the Pope. He's not God, Jesus is. The Pope is just a priest, who's elected to the position of head priest. That's all. He cant change Jesus's rules.



As for no Catholic questioning the validity of another religion? Haha, yea right. Catholicism is the cornflakes of religion, the original and best.






Fair play to them. But no, its not their business, its Gods business. As stated above, Jesus laid down that, in order to follow him, there had to be no family ties. No sex is a no brainer seeing as its number 1 on the list of sins.


I'm sorry if my last 2 posts seem a bit narky, its just that I'm sick and tired of the Catholic bashing attitude on this site in general. And when a poster who I know from previous experience is NOT Catholic, comes swaggering in here stating this and that and the other about Catholicism as if they're an expert, it really grinds my gears. Why isn't there a Catholic mod anyway?

Actually the mechanism for the celibacy rule IS the issue, as well as the mechanism for the gender of priests, as these are man-made rules, and have no scriptural basis, despite what you seem to think.

I find it sad that you see sex as a sin. Why do you think God created us with a natural urge which ensures the future of our species, and then made it sinful?

J C

newmug wrote: »

The mechanism for the celibacy rule, whether it be law or doctrine, is not the issue.

Perhaps.

newmug wrote: »

First point, sex is a sin. In fact, its THE original sin. So if you want to go around trying to live a Christian life, you cant be having sex. Usually that means not being married.

Sex is a pro-creative gift from God to Humanity to take forward His Creative work by producing children in His image and likeness within the bounds of Christian marriage.
Like every good thing, sex can be great or disastrous depending on how it is used. It can be sinful or edifying again depending on the circumstances.

... and you are completely wrong that sex was the original sin that caused The Fall of Adam and Eve. You would be correct that sex transmits original sin, along with life itself, down the generations ... but it was the fateful decision by Adam to acquire Satan's occult tree system of the knowledge of good and evil that caused the Fall.

newmug wrote: »

Second point, Jesus said to Peter, "If you follow me lad, you'll have some hard decisions to make. You'll have to leave the missus and kids". That's bad enough now, imagine how tough a decision that would have ben back then, when the women of society basically depended on their husband.

Where in the Bible does it say that Peter was a 'dead beat dad'?

There are, unfortunately some selfish and irresponsible fathers, who abandon their wives and children, but its not something to be proud of ... and certainly not something to found a Church on (with any claim to moral responsibility).
The following statement from St Paul confirms not only the Cephas (or Peter) was married, but that he continued to have his wife with him after his salvation and during his preaching ministry.

1 Cor 9:3-5
3 This is my defense to those who would examine me. 4 Do we not have the right to eat and drink? 5 Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

newmug wrote: »

Being in full communion with "The Pope" has nothing to do with anything. You's non-Catholics put far too much emphasis on the Pope. He's not God, Jesus is. The Pope is just a priest, who's elected to the position of head priest. That's all. He cant change Jesus's rules.

That would be an ecumenical question allright.;):)

newmug wrote: »

As for no Catholic questioning the validity of another religion? Haha, yea right. Catholicism is the cornflakes of religion, the original and best.

'Cornflake Catholics' ... whatever next, eh?:):eek:

newmug wrote: »

Fair play to them. But no, its not their business, its Gods business. As stated above, Jesus laid down that, in order to follow him, there had to be no family ties. No sex is a no brainer seeing as its number 1 on the list of sins.

Not only is sex not a sin ... it's the is the number one commandment and the first blessing of God, given to Adam and Eve at the moment of their Creation!!!

Genesis 1:28 New International Version (NIV)

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

newmug wrote: »

I'm sorry if my last 2 posts seem a bit narky, its just that I'm sick and tired of the Catholic bashing attitude on this site in general. And when a poster who I know from previous experience is NOT Catholic, comes swaggering in here stating this and that and the other about Catholicism as if they're an expert, it really grinds my gears.
Why isn't there a Catholic mod anyway?

I wouldn't describe your last posts as 'narky' ... but they certainly don't present sex, and indeed Christian beliefs about sex in anything like a proper context ... and they serve to feed the anti-christian myth that Christians have hangups about sex being 'bad' and 'sinful' ... when the reverse is actually true ... with sex and marriage being marvelous gifts and blessings from God.

J C

katydid wrote: »

Actually the mechanism for the celibacy rule IS the issue, as well as the mechanism for the gender of priests, as these are man-made rules, and have no scriptural basis, despite what you seem to think.

I find it sad that you see sex as a sin. Why do you think God created us with a natural urge which ensures the future of our species, and then made it sinful?

Sex isn't a sin and God didn't make it sinful.

Sex is actually our most powerful capacity ... the ability to produce other eternal Human Beings that are made in the image and likeness of God and thus to share in the very Creative work of God ... and you cannot get anything more powerful or important than that.
... and as an added bonus it is also the most loving an intimate thing that a Human Being can engage in ... and the intimacy is so all-encompassing that they become 'one flesh' as the Bible so eloquently describes it.

Gen 2:20-25
But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said,

“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

25 Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

J C

a person. wrote: »

There's nothing new under the sun. It was very common in the time of St. Paul and Christ, when St. Paul was setting up the church in the city of Corinth, the temple in the Acropolis overlooking Corinth had over 1000 temple priestesses.

... 1000 pagan temple priestesses are not an argument in favour of Christians priestesses, whatever else it may be.

tommy2bad

newmug wrote: »

The mechanism for the celibacy rule, whether it be law or doctrine, is not the issue.

Actually it is the issue.

newmug wrote: »

First point, sex is a sin. In fact, its THE original sin. So if you want to go around trying to live a Christian life, you cant be having sex. Usually that means not being married.

Ahem, no. Disobedience was the original sin, if it were a metaphor wouldn't a cherry tree be a better one?

newmug wrote: »

Second point, Jesus said to Peter, "If you follow me lad, you'll have some hard decisions to make. You'll have to leave the missus and kids". That's bad enough now, imagine how tough a decision that would have ben back then, when the women of society basically depended on their husband.


Being in full communion with "The Pope" has nothing to do with anything. You's non-Catholics put far too much emphasis on the Pope. He's not God, Jesus is. The Pope is just a priest, who's elected to the position of head priest. That's all. He cant change Jesus's rules.

Nothing to do with anything apart from the fact it demonstrates that the RCC position is based on it's rule, not the actuality of celebasy.

newmug wrote: »

As for no Catholic questioning the validity of another religion? Haha, yea right. Catholicism is the cornflakes of religion, the original and best.






Fair play to them. But no, its not their business, its Gods business. As stated above, Jesus laid down that, in order to follow him, there had to be no family ties. No sex is a no brainer seeing as its number 1 on the list of sins.

I thought failing to love God and your fellow man was the number one sin? I must have misunderstood Jesus, your probably right He was entirely obsessed with sex and stopping that kind of thing.

newmug wrote: »

I'm sorry if my last 2 posts seem a bit narky, its just that I'm sick and tired of the Catholic bashing attitude on this site in general. And when a poster who I know from previous experience is NOT Catholic, comes swaggering in here stating this and that and the other about Catholicism as if they're an expert, it really grinds my gears. Why isn't there a Catholic mod anyway?

I do understand your view, it is a little grating to have people who don't know what their talking about expounding on Catholicism. However it would add weight to your gripe if you knew what the hell you were talking about.
Anyway this is about the first CoE female bishop, good for her, hope she dose a good job. I see she's a man U supporter, the're are people, not me mind, who would say it's apt that the first female bishop follows the red devils....

J C

tommy2bad wrote: »

Anyway this is about the first CoE female bishop, good for her, hope she dose a good job. I see she's a man U supporter, the're are people, not me mind, who would say it's apt that the first female bishop follows the red devils....

... this could lead to schism ... with the ABU section of her flock :pac::)

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100205231455AA4Jzzf

Peregrinus

newmug wrote: »

First point, sex is a sin.

No, it isn’t.

newmug wrote: »

In fact, its THE original sin.

No, it isn’t.

newmug wrote: »

So if you want to go around trying to live a Christian life, you can’t be having sex.

Yes, you can.

newmug wrote: »

Second point, Jesus said to Peter, "If you follow me lad, you'll have some hard decisions to make. You'll have to leave the missus and kids".

No, he didn’t.

newmug wrote: »

That's bad enough now, imagine how tough a decision that would have ben back then, when the women of society basically depended on their husband.

Which is possibly one of the many reasons why Jesus never said anything like that? Just a thought.

newmug wrote: »

Being in full communion with "The Pope" has nothing to do with anything.

Actually, it does; it’s the definition of “Catholic”. You’re a Christian in communion, through your bishop, with the Bishop of Rome and all the other Christians in the same communion? You’re a Catholic. You are a Christian not in communion with the Bishop of Rome in this way? You’re not a Catholic. It’s that simple.

newmug wrote: »

Jesus laid down that, in order to follow him, there had to be no family ties.

And yet Jesus instituted the sacrament of matrimony. So there’s a special sacrament for repudiating following Christ? Some mistake, surely?

newmug wrote: »

And when a poster who I know from previous experience is NOT Catholic, comes swaggering in here stating this and that and the other about Catholicism as if they're an expert, it really grinds my gears.

I can put up with that. But when a poster who claims that he is a Catholic is so woefully ignorant of Catholic teaching as to post stuff like this, I begin to despair.

katydid

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, it does; it’s the definition of “Catholic”. You’re a Christian in communion, through your bishop, with the Bishop of Rome and all the other Christians in the same communion? You’re a Catholic. You are a Christian not in communion with the Bishop of Rome in this way? You’re not a Catholic. It’s that simple.

.

Not correct, as I've gone to great pains to explain in the past, and I am not going to go into again. I am an Anglican, not in communion with Rome, and I am a Catholic, whether you choose to accept that or not...

Nick Park

While this was the first female bishop in England, the Church of Ireland appointed Pat Storey as their bishop for Meath and Kildare just over a year ago. A fine Christian minister.

j80ezgvc3p92xu

Protestant failure at its finest.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is there not a verse in the Bible that says that women should not be leaders? I vaguely remember reading this and thinking to myself that the PC brigade would have an absolute field day. Too late to quote now but might have a look tomorrow.

shruikan2553

Zyaire Fast Saddlebag wrote: »

Protestant failure at its finest.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is there not a verse in the Bible that says that women should not be leaders? I vaguely remember reading this and thinking to myself that the PC brigade would have an absolute field day. Too late to quote now but might have a look tomorrow.

Think these are the ones, it wouldnt be the first time a part of the bible is ignored. The PC brigade's issue is probably the whole submission thing.

As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. (NIV, 1 Corinthians 14:33-35)

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. (NIV, 1 Timothy 2:11-12)

Peregrinus

katydid wrote: »

Not correct, as I've gone to great pains to explain in the past, and I am not going to go into again. I am an Anglican, not in communion with Rome, and I am a Catholic, whether you choose to accept that or not...

I accept that, katydid. What I should have said is that in the [Roman] Catholic conception of Catholicism, Catholicity consists in a relationship of communion with your bishop, with the Bishop of Rome, and with all Christians in the like communion. But Newmug, who thinks of himself as a [Roman] Catholic, appears to be unaware of this fairly basic [Roman] Catholic self-understanding.

katydid

Peregrinus wrote: »

I accept that, katydid. What I should have said is that in the [Roman] Catholic conception of Catholicism, Catholicity consists in a relationship of communion with your bishop, with the Bishop of Rome, and with all Christians in the like communion. But Newmug, who thinks of himself as a [Roman] Catholic, appears to be unaware of this fairly basic [Roman] Catholic self-understanding.

Fair enough :-) Mod: <SNIP> Let's not make this personal!

katydid

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Think these are the ones, it wouldnt be the first time a part of the bible is ignored. The PC brigade's issue is probably the whole submission thing.

St. Paul. Who is entitled to his opinion. But his opinion is not Gospel :-)

j80ezgvc3p92xu

Quote:
As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. (NIV, 1 Corinthians 14:33-35)

Quote:
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. (NIV, 1 Timothy 2:11-12)

I knew I read it somewhere. To be honest, this should finalize the discussion.

St. Paul. Who is entitled to his opinion. But his opinion is not Gospel :-)

Well I would be more inclined to go with the opinion of Paul, who spoke to Jesus and performed miracles, than say a bunch of modern feminists who pull their opinions out of thin air. I hope this makes sense.

shruikan2553

katydid wrote: »

St. Paul. Who is entitled to his opinion. But his opinion is not Gospel :-)

Its just what I found about the subject, wasnt sure who said it or to who but as you said, its something a person said, wasn't a direct order from the boss.

Zyaire Fast Saddlebag wrote: »

I knew I read it somewhere. To be honest, this should finalize the discussion.



Well I would be more inclined to go with the opinion of Paul, who spoke to Jesus and performed miracles, than say a bunch of modern feminists who pull their opinions out of thin air. I hope this makes sense.

Schools which are run by the church have no problem with women teaching, primary schools are mostly filled by them. Woman also make up a large part of the choir, when you're singing you arent being very silent. Women are also allowed to speak as part of the things like prayers of the faithful. Paul's opinion seems to be ignored often enough as it is.

katydid

Zyaire Fast Saddlebag wrote: »

I knew I read it somewhere. To be honest, this should finalize the discussion.



Well I would be more inclined to go with the opinion of Paul, who spoke to Jesus and performed miracles, than say a bunch of modern feminists who pull their opinions out of thin air. I hope this makes sense.

Er, St. Paul never met Jesus,and himself never claimed to have performed miracles. The only account of miracles is in Acts, written as a hagiography a generation later. Paul said he had a vision of Jes and spoke to him, but let's be honest, how much of that was enthusiasm or wishful thinking we can't be sure. If he DID have a conversation with Jesus, I doubt if they spent their time talking about the role of women in the as yet non-existent church.

Paul was a good man, and had a lot to wise things to say, but he wasn't infallible. He also said some quite ambiguous things about slavery, for example. In other words, he was a man of his time.

We have had two millennia of thought and scholarship since then to work out how Christianity fits with the human condition. And it's not just "modern feminists" who expect men and women to be treated as equals in the church. You'll find that in Christian denominations that have such equality, it is accepted and acknowledged by the vast majority of members, of both genders. The notion of the equality of women was not pulled out of thin air; it is a basic concept, promoted and acknowledged by Jesus, who reached out to women and men equally, and who never gave any sign that he considered women as less than equal to men.

katydid

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Its just what I found about the subject, wasnt sure who said it or to who but as you said, its something a person said, wasn't a direct order from the boss.
.

Exactly!

j80ezgvc3p92xu

Er, St. Paul never met Jesus,and himself never claimed to have performed miracles. The only account of miracles is in Acts, written as a hagiography a generation later. Paul said he had a vision of Jes and spoke to him, but let's be honest, how much of that was enthusiasm or wishful thinking we can't be sure

Ok so Paul could have been just lying about his conversations with Jesus, the road to Damascus ect. By the same reasoning, the evangelists could have been lying about the crucifixion of Jesus. Where do you stop?

Catholics believe the writings found in the Bible are divinely inspired and do not contain a shred of lies. Ergo there is no point really debating if St Paul did or did not converse with Jesus.

In other words, he was a man of his time.

There are truths which are self evident and do not belong to any time. I do not know which passage you are referring to when you say Paul was ambiguous about slavery. However, most truths in the New Testament will apply to the end of time. Perhaps the reason our world is so messed up is that we diverge too much from them.

We have had two millennia of thought and scholarship since then to work out how Christianity fits with the human condition

I would be of the opinion that it is we who must make ourselves compatible with Christianity, not the other way around. This thread runs throughout the entire Bible.

expect men and women to be treated as equals in the church.

What is equality? If we are built for different things, should we all be allowed to to do the same? Surely, we should all be respected and cared for but why should everyone be able to do everything they want? What if I said I want to be a mother and demanded I be able to partake in motherhood, citing the need for equality as my reason. It would be preposterous and I accept that.

The notion of the equality of women was not pulled out of thin air; it is a basic concept, promoted and acknowledged by Jesus

Please quote.

katydid

Zyaire Fast Saddlebag wrote: »

Ok so Paul could have been just lying about his conversations with Jesus, the road to Damascus ect. By the same reasoning, the evangelists could have been lying about the crucifixion of Jesus. Where do you stop?

Catholics believe the writings found in the Bible are divinely inspired and do not contain a shred of lies. Ergo there is no point really debating if St Paul did or did not converse with Jesus.



There are truths which are self evident and do not belong to any time. I do not know which passage you are referring to when you say Paul was ambiguous about slavery. However, most truths in the New Testament will apply to the end of time. Perhaps the reason our world is so messed up is that we diverge too much from them.

I would be of the opinion that it is we who must make ourselves compatible with Christianity, not the other way around. This thread runs throughout the entire Bible.



What is equality? If we are built for different things, should we all be allowed to to do the same? Surely, we should all be respected and cared for but why should everyone be able to do everything they want? What if I said I want to be a mother and demanded I be able to partake in motherhood, citing the need for equality as my reason. It would be preposterous and I accept that.



Please quote.

I didn't say he was lying. He could have been speaking metaphorically, or exaggerating. We can't know for sure. The gospel writers could have been lying, but the fact that four of them wrote the same thing, even though some read the others writings first. Paul is describing a personal, spiritual experience, not a historical one.

Roman Catholics, just like other Catholics and other Christians, believe that the Bible is divinely inspired. It doesn't mean that they believe that every word of the Bible is actually true; it was written by humans, INSPIRED by God. If they believed it literally, they'd believe that the earth had four corners, or that there were people called Adam and Eve, and they would be able to explain different versions of biblical accounts such as the death of Judas.

St. Paul was a man. An extraordinary man, but a man. A man who thought slaves should obey their masters and that women should be silent in church. So an imperfect man... Unless you think that slavery should still exist, and women shouldn't be in choirs or read lessons or prayers in church... The passage about slavery, by the way, is in his Letter to Philomen, where he encourages Onesimus, a runaway slave, to return to his master, and asks Philomen, the master to receive him and treat him kindly.

You have to ask what equality is? Really? Well, if I really have to explain it, it's valuing everyone equally. Of course it doesn't mean we should always be the same and do the same. Where we are "built for different things", such as in the procreation of children, then obviously we play different roles. It would not only be preposterous but just plain impossible for a man to demand to be a mother, since he doesn't possess a womb.

I don't see what that has to do with the present discussion. The possession of male genitalia is not a prerequisite for spirituality, leadership, or the imitation of Christ; neither does the possession of a womb disqualify one from such roles.

Jesus only ever promoted and respected women; not only Mary of Magdalene, but the sisters Mary and Martha, for example. Remember when he took Martha to task for complaining about her sister sitting at his feet with the disciples and listening to his words? He went out of his way to reach out to women and to include them, such as the Samaritan women at the well, or the bent over woman he cured on the Sabbath.

If you can cite any instance of Jesus disrespecting women or making it clear they could not play the same role as men, please cite it. He certainly said nothing regarding the priesthood one way or the other, since it didn't exist during his lifetime.

Nick Park

katydid wrote: »

The passage about slavery, by the way, is in his Letter to Philomen, where he encourages Onesimus, a runaway slave, to return to his master, and asks Philomen, the master to receive him and treat him kindly.

He did much more than that, Paul asks Philemon to receive Onesimus back, no longer as a slave, but as a brother.

Paul's solution to this situation was not for Onesimus to spend his life as a runaway, always one step away from being seized and crucified, but rather for him to be no longer a slave.

katydid

Nick Park wrote: »

He did much more than that, Paul asks Philemon to receive Onesimus back, no longer as a slave, but as a brother.

Paul's solution to this situation was not for Onesimus to spend his life as a runaway, always one step away from being seized and crucified, but rather for him to be no longer a slave.

Well, that's one interpretation. He tells Philomen to accept him as a brother, and to treat him kindly. But he also tells Philomen that he wanted to keep Onesimus with him, but wouldn't do so without Philomen's consent; implying that he still accepted Philomen's right to decide what Onesimus would do.

It's an ambiguous text in many ways, and I agree that it could mean that Philomen could accept him as a brother and no longer be a slave. But I'm not convinced...

At the end of the day, Paul was a fallible man and, like all of us, didn't always make himself clear.

j80ezgvc3p92xu

Roman Catholics, just like other Catholics and other Christians, believe that the Bible is divinely inspired. It doesn't mean that they believe that every word of the Bible is actually true; it was written by humans, INSPIRED by God. If they believed it literally, they'd believe that the earth had four corners, or that there were people called Adam and Eve, and they would be able to explain different versions of biblical accounts such as the death of Judas.

We have established that the Bible is divinely inspired. If we think of God in terms of ultimates eg. ultimate beauty, ultimate truth ect. than I do not believe that God would allow falsehoods to creep into the text. I imagine it would be repugnant to the idea of a Holy Bible. If Paul says women should not lead over men, I take that to be a divine guidance because it is God inspired. How many other conversations with God could a holy man such as Paul have and not actually record them? I am not fit to challenge Paul on his thinking, I accept it and try to find the rationale for it.

The passage about slavery, by the way, is in his Letter to Philomen, where he encourages Onesimus, a runaway slave, to return to his master, and asks Philomen, the master to receive him and treat him kindly.

I take your word for it that such a passage exists. I also imagine it exists for a reason. It might not be that Paul is accepting of slavery, merely trying to prevent bloodshed or retribution. I do not know, I will have to consult men wiser than me.

You have to ask what equality is? Really? Well, if I really have to explain it, it's valuing everyone equally. Of course it doesn't mean we should always be the same and do the same. Where we are "built for different things", such as in the procreation of children, then obviously we play different roles. It would not only be preposterous but just plain impossible for a man to demand to be a mother, since he doesn't possess a womb.

I think we are missing each other here. The type of equality you speak of seems to be the Marxist inspired one, where everyone should be treated the very same no matter what the social/biological or even physical conditions are. Everyone should be treated with love, respect and kindness but not everyone should be allowed to do what they want for the sake of a vague notion of "equality". To explain my previous example: if I saw a biological man adopting a toddler in the name of equality I would strongly protest because more than likely the child would not receive the care and nurture it deserves. Why? Because it will be nursed by a man, not a woman, simple as. Similarly with female priests in the RCC. I will protest because women, more often than not, do not have the leadership qualities that are central to the role of the priest. I am of the opinion that we have to call a spade a spade.

Jesus only ever promoted and respected women; not only Mary of Magdalene, but the sisters Mary and Martha, for example. Remember when he took Martha to task for complaining about her sister sitting at his feet with the disciples and listening to his words? He went out of his way to reach out to women and to include them, such as the Samaritan women at the well, or the bent over woman he cured on the Sabbath

Again, Jesus cared for the women. But he in no way encouraged them to compete with or lead over men. He did not instill in them a need to seek artificial equality. Case in point: it was Peter who would become the Rock on which Jesus built his Church, not Mary Magdalene. I think there was a very good reason for this.

katydid

Zyaire Fast Saddlebag wrote: »

We have established that the Bible is divinely inspired. If we think of God in terms of ultimates eg. ultimate beauty, ultimate truth ect. than I do not believe that God would allow falsehoods to creep into the text. I imagine it would be repugnant to the idea of a Holy Bible. If Paul says women should not lead over men, I take that to be a divine guidance because it is God inspired. How many other conversations with God could a holy man such as Paul have and not actually record them? I am not fit to challenge Paul on his thinking, I accept it and try to find the rationale for it.



I take your word for it that such a passage exists. I also imagine it exists for a reason. It might not be that Paul is accepting of slavery, merely trying to prevent bloodshed or retribution. I do not know, I will have to consult men wiser than me.



I think we are missing each other here. The type of equality you speak of seems to be the Marxist inspired one, where everyone should be treated the very same no matter what the social/biological or even physical conditions are. Everyone should be treated with love, respect and kindness but not everyone should be allowed to do what they want for the sake of a vague notion of "equality". To explain my previous example: if I saw a biological man adopting a toddler in the name of equality I would strongly protest because more than likely the child would not receive the care and nurture it deserves. Why? Because it will be nursed by a man, not a woman, simple as. Similarly with female priests in the RCC. I will protest because women, more often than not, do not have the leadership qualities that are central to the role of the priest. I am of the opinion that we have to call a spade a spade.



Again, Jesus cared for the women. But he in no way encouraged them to compete with or lead over men. He did not instill in them a need to seek artificial equality. Case in point: it was Peter who would become the Rock on which Jesus built his Church, not Mary Magdalene. I think there was a very good reason for this.

Yes, we have established that the Bible was divinely inspired. Not written by God, but by human beings INSPIRED by God. And, like anything written by humans, fallible.

Like it or not, there are inconsistencies in the bible. There are two different accounts of creation in the two Genesis chapters, different accounts of Judas' death in Acts and in Matthew, Matthew says in chapter 5 you should announce your good deeds, "let them shine before man" while in chapter 6 he says you should keep your good deeds secret. Mark says there was a young man sitting in the tomb after the resurrection, while Luke says there were two men.

I could go on. The point is that the biblical texts were written at different times by different people, and it would be very strange if they didn't have inconsistencies. If you want to believe that Paul was writing in some sort of trance, fair enough, but not every Christian feels the need to do so. He was a human being with human flaws.

You don't need to take my word for it. Maybe - crazy idea - you could actually read the Bible for yourself, and learn more about Paul and what he wrote.

How is it "Marxist inspired" to wonder how male genitals give someone special abilities to be a priest? I specifically said that equality doesn't mean everyone should be treated exactly the same - did you read what I wrote at all? I said that, for example, a man can't have a baby because he doesn't have a womb. On what basis do you conclude that women in general don't h have leadership qualities? Or that a man who would wish to care for a child would be unable to?

Why would Jesus have encouraged women to compete or have leadership over men? He didn't encourage men to compete with women or have leadership over them. A very bizarre statement. Jesus respected men and women, and encouraged them all to spread his word and live his message. He gave one man encouragement to take on a certain role. Did he have a competition amongst his male disciples?

You have a strange understanding of how Jesus operated.

j80ezgvc3p92xu

Yes, we have established that the Bible was divinely inspired. Not written by God, but by human beings INSPIRED by God. And, like anything written by humans, fallible.

We are clearly taking two different approaches here. You seem to think that parts of the New Testament are wrong, or inapplicable, and it is up to us the common people to bring the text in with the time. That, for me, smacks of Protestantism.

I would be of the opinion that we have to render ourselves to the Bible, not the other way around. Who are we to poke holes in it, if the learned men of the Church (who dedicated their lives to the study of the text) found it to be sound. We can discuss this all we want but at the end of the day I am not a renowned Bible scholar and neither are you.

you could actually read the Bible for yourself, and learn more about Paul and what he wrote.

I really do not want to go down that route with you. You can do better than that, even on an online forum.

wonder how male genitals give someone special abilities to be a priest?

There are more differences between the sexes than their genitals, which is the crux of my argument. Women are better suited than men to some things. Men are better suited than women to others. To reject this proposition is to embrace the Marxist version of "equality" - we see how that works out in the disastrous effects of feminism and all other associated isms.

He didn't encourage men to compete with women or have leadership over them.

He didn't encourage men to have leadership over women because it was a given at the time. There was simply no need to. Perhaps Paul had to speak up about it because he saw it creeping into the early Church and wanted to nip it in its bud.

You have a strange understanding of how Jesus operated.

Please enlighten me, o learned one. All your writings are so laboriously reasoned I eagerly await the outpouring of more wisdom in each one of your future posts. Why do we even need Priests, the Catechism or the Bible itself when we have lay people who already know everything there is to know about how Jesus operates?




Overall, I think the reason the Anglicans allowed this nonsense is because their heretical sect is in decay. I have heard that large numbers of their churchgoers are jumping ship to the Catholic church, will post a link to the article when I find it.

katydid

Zyaire Fast Saddlebag wrote: »

We are clearly taking two different approaches here. You seem to think that parts of the New Testament are wrong, or inapplicable, and it is up to us the common people to bring the text in with the time. That, for me, smacks of Protestantism.

I would be of the opinion that we have to render ourselves to the Bible, not the other way around. Who are we to poke holes in it, if the learned men of the Church (who dedicated their lives to the study of the text) found it to be sound. We can discuss this all we want but at the end of the day I am not a renowned Bible scholar and neither are you.



I really do not want to go down that route with you. You can do better than that, even on an online forum.



There are more differences between the sexes than their genitals, which is the crux of my argument. Women are better suited than men to some things. Men are better suited than women to others. To reject this proposition is to embrace the Marxist version of "equality" - we see how that works out in the disastrous effects of feminism and all other associated isms.



He didn't encourage men to have leadership over women because it was a given at the time. There was simply no need to. Perhaps Paul had to speak up about it because he saw it creeping into the early Church and wanted to nip it in its bud.



Please enlighten me, o learned one. All your writings are so laboriously reasoned I eagerly await the outpouring of more wisdom in each one of your future posts. Why do we even need Priests, the Catechism or the Bible itself when we have lay people who already know everything there is to know about how Jesus operates?




Overall, I think the reason the Anglicans allowed this nonsense is because their heretical sect is in decay. I have heard that large numbers of their churchgoers are jumping ship to the Catholic church, will post a link to the article when I find it.

Parts of the Bible ARE wrong. I have demonstrated that to you with several examples; you can choose to ignore them, that's your choice. But they remain inconsistencies all the same. It has nothing to do with the denomination of Christianity you belong to, all denominations bar some very fundamentalist sects accept that this is the case.

You don't have to be a "renowned Biblical scholar" to understand this. First of all, you start by reading the Bible, and familiarising yourself with it. Then you can learn to accept the inconsistencies and look past them to the essence of the message, instead of fretting in ignorance...

Of course there are more differences between the sexes than genitals. But we're talking here about spirituality and leadership, and you still haven't clarified what you think women are lacking which prevents them from being Roman Catholic priests. Especially when female priests and ministers from other Christian denominations manage just fine. And why, contrary to your imaginings, people are heading from the RCC to other Christian denominations. You only have to look around my CofI church on an aerage Sunday, where about a fifth of the congregation, including the priest, were once Roman Catholics.

Exactly as you say, he didn't encourage men to have leadership over women because it was a given AT THAT TIME. In case you hadn't noticed, this is 2014.

I'm sorry you find reasoned posts tiresome. Unfortunately it's how most people around here operate. Better get used to it.

Peregrinus

There's no denying, Paul said some awkward things about women. Particularly if you are prepared to "quote mine" in order to make him appear to support whatever position you want him to support. But you can usually find other quotes to support the diametrically opposing position ("in Christ there is neither male nor female", anyone?), so the exercise is not necessarily a useful or enlightening one. Paul's letters were written over a period of decades, to different people, facing different challenges, and all the time Paul's own understanding of Christ and his teachings (which, at the start of his career, was negligible) was deepening. It's not difficult to find Paul thinking differently in different letters.

So snatching a line here and a line there doesn't make for a compelling argument against women bishops (or, for that matter, in favour of them). If you really want to try to bring Paul's thinking to bear on this issue (or any other), you're going to actually have to read Paul's letters coherently, following his train of thought, and seeing what conclusions all the little snippets that people quote are leading to.

For the record, the most recent authoritative declaration of the Catholic position on this question is found in John Paul II's apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. We may like what John Paul II says in that document, or we may not like it, but either way there is one thing we must acknowledge; he doesn't quote the teachings of Paul at all in support of his position against the ordination of women. He quotes the example of Christ as evidenced in Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, and as explained by the author of Revelations. And if a theologian of the authority and stature of John Paul II doesn't think that the writings of Paul offer useful support for a position against the ordination of women, we should admit the possiblity that he may be right about that.

katydid

Peregrinus wrote: »

There's no denying, Paul said some awkward things about women. Particularly if you are prepared to "quote mine" in order to make him appear to support whatever position you want him to support. But you can usually find other quotes to support the diametrically opposing position ("in Christ there is neither male nor female", anyone?), so the exercise is not necessarily a useful or enlightening one. Paul's letters were written over a period of decades, to different people, facing different challenges, and all the time Paul's own understanding of Christ and his teachings (which, at the start of his career, was negligible) was deepening. It's not difficult to find Paul thinking differently in different letters.

So snatching a line here and a line there doesn't make for a compelling argument against women bishops (or, for that matter, in favour of them). If you really want to try to bring Paul's thinking to bear on this issue (or any other), you're going to actually have to read Paul's letters coherently, following his train of thought, and seeing what conclusions all the little snippets that people quote are leading to.

For the record, the most recent authoritative declaration of the Catholic position on this question is found in John Paul II's apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. We may like what John Paul II says in that document, or we may not like it, but either way there is one thing we must acknowledge; he doesn't quote the teachings of Paul at all in support of his position against the ordination of women. He quotes the example of Christ as evidenced in Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, and as explained by the author of Revelations. And if a theologian of the authority and stature of John Paul II doesn't think that the writings of Paul offer useful support for a position against the ordination of women, we should admit the possiblity that he may be right about that.

And some of them weren't even written by Paul. Or, let's say, may not have been. They weren't quite so strict about plagiarism in those days, and people would write in the style of people they admired, and attribute the writings to them. It wasn't considered dishonest, more a sign of admiration.

J C

katydid wrote: »

Well, that's one interpretation. He tells Philomen to accept him as a brother, and to treat him kindly. But he also tells Philomen that he wanted to keep Onesimus with him, but wouldn't do so without Philomen's consent; implying that he still accepted Philomen's right to decide what Onesimus would do.

Paul abided by the laws of the state, even when he disagreed with them - and he encouraged Oneisimus to do the same, whilst appealing to Philomen's better nature, to free Oneisimus and treat him as an equal.
The alternative was for Onesimus to be forever an outlaw and run-away slave.
In today's terms, it's akin to advising a fellow Christian in financial difficulties to approach his lender and try to make a deal with them to reach financial freedom ... whilst encouraging the lender to also be reasonable in their demands from the borrower.

katydid wrote: »

It's an ambiguous text in many ways, and I agree that it could mean that Philomen could accept him as a brother and no longer be a slave. But I'm not convinced...

At the end of the day, Paul was a fallible man and, like all of us, didn't always make himself clear.

He was patently clear.

katydid

J C wrote: »

Paul abided by the laws of the state, even when he disagreed with them - and he encouraged Oneisimus to do the same, whilst appealing to Philomen's better nature, to free Oneisimus and treat him as an equal.
The alternative was for Onesimus to be forever an outlaw and run-away slave.
In today's terms, it's akin to advising a fellow Christian in financial difficulties to approach his lender and try to make a deal with them to reach financial freedom ... whilst encouraging the lender to also be reasonable in their demands from the borrower.

He was patently clear.

I agree. It's a good analogy but you can't get away from the fact that Paul lived in a society that accepted slavery. The point is that he seems to have accepted something that we would find unacceptable today. So when we look at his writings we have to take this into account, and realise that he was a fallible human being, and his pronouncements are not infallible sacred scripture.

And not clear. As I pointed out, he indicated he needed Philomen's permission to act in regard to Onesimus, but yet he told him to treat his as a brother. That's not clear...

J C

katydid wrote: »

I agree. It's a good analogy but you can't get away from the fact that Paul lived in a society that accepted slavery. The point is that he seems to have accepted something that we would find unacceptable today. So when we look at his writings we have to take this into account, and realise that he was a fallible human being, and his pronouncements are not infallible sacred scripture.

Where does Paul accept slavery?
He clearly doesn't accept slavery ... in fact, he encourages both Oneismus and Philomen to both reject slavery, whilst not breaking state law - which could have meant even more misery for Oneismus, if he continued to break the law.

J C

katydid wrote: »

And some of them weren't even written by Paul. Or, let's say, may not have been. They weren't quite so strict about plagiarism in those days, and people would write in the style of people they admired, and attribute the writings to them. It wasn't considered dishonest, more a sign of admiration.

... so for you, the Bible is some kind of part-plagiarized work written by fallible men offering their equally fallible, and in some cases, downright wrong, opinions?
It's certainly an alternative point of view!!!

You say that you are a member of the Church of Ireland. Is this view of the Bible, common within this Church?

For me the Bible is the directly inspired Word of God ... and I've never had reason to revise my opinion, in this regard.

katydid

J C wrote: »

Where does he accept slavery?
He clearly doesn't accept slavery ... in fact, he encourages both Oneismus and Philomen to both reject slavery, whilst not breaking state law - which could have meant even more misery for Oneismus, if he did continue to break the law.

He says he would have liked Onesimus to stay with him, but he wouldn't do so without Philomen's permission. Philomen was not Onesimus's boss; he was his owner.

As I said, that contrasts with his exhortation to treat Onesimus as his brother. Hence the lack of clarity. Your analysis may well be correct, but it is not crystal clear.

J C

katydid wrote: »

And not clear. As I pointed out, he indicated he needed Philomen's permission to act in regard to Onesimus, but yet he told him to treat his as a brother. That's not clear...

Its perfectly clear ... according to state law, Paul and Onesimus needed Philomen's permission for Oneismus to be granted his freedom.
According to the moral law no man should be a slave of another man.

Paul neatly 'squared this circle' by proposing that Oneismus go to Philomen to ask for his freedom (thereby abiding by state law) ... and he asked Philomen to grant it (thereby abiding by moral law).

To say that Paul was pro-slavery is a gross untruth about the man.
The alternatives for Onesimus, was to remain a run-away slave ... subject to severe state punishment, if and when he was caught ... or to return to Philomen and suffer whatever punishment that he decided to meet out to him.

As Christians we bear no responsibility for laws with which we disapprove ... but we don't have the right to break them ... or make a bad situation worse by encouraging others to ignore them.

katydid

J C wrote: »

Its perfectly clear ... according to state law Paul and Onesimus needed Philomen's permission.
According to the moral law no man should be a slave of another.

Paul neatly 'squared this circle' by proposing that Oneismus go to Philomen to ask for his freedom (thereby abiding by state law) ... and he asked Philomen to grant it (thereby abiding by moral law).

To say that Paul was pro-slavery is a gross untruth about the man.

I didn't say he was pro-slavery. But it could be INTERPRETED as pro-slavery. He could have done what Jesus often did and defied the law of the state, in a state where the religious laws were the laws of the state. Paul was dealing with a different state, but nevertheless.

J C

katydid wrote: »

I didn't say he was pro-slavery. But it could be INTERPRETED as pro-slavery. He could have done what Jesus often did and defied the law of the state, in a state where the religious laws were the laws of the state. Paul was dealing with a different state, but nevertheless.

Staying within the law, while achieving an anti-slavery result was what Paul did.

Jesus never defied the State and its laws ... but He certainly defied the religious laws ... by showing up hypocrisies, where they existed.

katydid

J C wrote: »

Staying within the law, while achieving an anti-slavery result was what Paul did.

Jesus never defied the State and its laws ... but He certainly defied the religious laws ... by showing up hypocrisies, where they existed.

The religious laws WERE the state laws in Israel at the time...

J C

katydid wrote: »

The religious laws WERE the state laws in Israel at the time...

They weren't actually ... Roman State Law applied ... and was supreme.
That was why, for example, the Pharisees needed the endorsement of the Roman Governor, Pontius Pilot, to put Jesus to death for blasphemy. They couldn't do it themselves, using their own religious laws.