Posted on 12/12/2012 10:31:59 PM PST by Cronos
If you talk with a supporter of women priestesses for long, you’ll come to see that their argument is not based upon concepts of holiness but on power and the equal access to it. They see the priest as being a position of power and they covet that power.
hello — women’s ordination is not condoned by scripture or tradition and is wrong, as is divorce
Maybe they believe Women Church leaders and homosexual marriages will bring them in more members which will bring them more money.
Any one who believes the Gospel could not possibly be involved in one of these clubs on their race toward hell.
The Bible indicates to me that if i miss hell it will just be by the skin of my teeth and i believe.
How can those people even claim to believe?
You wrote: “..early church leaders considered the act of homosexuality to be sinful. The Scriptures have a lot to say about such sins and one would have to be a pretzel to rationalize what is stated. ...”
Here are a couple of articles you might find enlightening:
Dennis Prager: “...Indeed, Judaism may be said to have invented the notion of homosexuality, for in the ancient world sexuality was not divided between heterosexuality and homosexuality. ...”
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/PragerHomosexuality.shtml
<><><><><>
Dennis Prager: “ The only holy sex in Judeo-Christian religions is between a husband and wife. All other sex is unholy. But not necessarily immoral. ....many religious people blur the distinction by labeling unholy actions immoral actions. And that has often given religion a bad name because thinking secular people know that some actions called immoral by the religious are not necessarily immoral.”
People who do not believe in God or religion can surely lead ethical lives. But they cannot lead holy lives. By definition, the ideal of the holy, as understood by Judaism and Christianity and that unique amalgam known as Judeo-Christian values, needs God and religion.
Here is the best way I know of to explain holiness in Judeo-Christian religions: There is a continuum from the profane to the holy that coincides with the dual bases of human creation — the animal and the divine.
The human being can be said to be created in the image of God and in the image of animals. We are biologically animals, and we are spiritually, morally and theologically God-like (at least in our potential). God is the most holy; and animals, as helpful, loyal and lovable as many are, are at the opposite end of the holiness continuum. This is in no way an insult to animals. Saying dogs and lions are not holy is no more degrading to them than saying men are not women or women are not men. That is how they are created.
There is actually a secular way to understand this. If we saw a person eating food with his face in a bowl, we would think, “He eats like a pig” or “He eats like an animal.” That is an insult to a person — because humans are supposed to elevate their behavior above the animal (this is a goal of Judeo-Christian and just about every other major religious tradition). But it is no insult to an animal. When an animal eats face-first out of a bowl, we hardly think ill of it; but when a person mimics animal behavior, we do think lower of that person. So, even non-religious society has imbibed some of the view that acting like an animal is not how a human being should generally act.
Now, to better understand this, one needs to appreciate that holiness is not a moral category. There is nothing immoral in eating with one’s face inside a bowl. It is unholy to do so, but not immoral or unethical.
It is crucial to understand the difference between the moral and the holy.
Even many religious people blur the distinction by labeling unholy actions immoral actions. And that has often given religion a bad name because thinking secular people know that some actions called immoral by the religious are not necessarily immoral.
This is particularly true in the sexual arena, where many religious people characterize unholy behavior as immoral behavior — so much so that the very word “immoral” has come to be equated with sexual sin.
Much consensual adult behavior that Judeo-Christian values would prohibit is unholy rather than immoral. For example, non-marital sex between consenting adults violates the Judeo-Christian code of holiness, but not necessarily its code of morality (if there were coercion or trickery, it would, of course, be immoral). The only holy sex in Judeo-Christian religions is between a husband and wife. All other sex is unholy. But not necessarily immoral.
All immoral actions — such as stealing and murder — are, of course, unholy. But not all unholy actions (like eating with one’s face in a bowl) are immoral.
Nevertheless, just because holy and moral are not identical does not mean the holy is not monumentally significant. Elevating human behavior above the animal and toward the divine is one of the greatest achievements humans can accomplish. If we really did behave like animals in the sexual arena (like the famous bunny rabbit, for example), society would eventually collapse.
Speech is another example. In our increasingly secular world, fewer and fewer attempts are made by people to elevate their speech. That is why public cursing is now much more prevalent. In most ballparks and stadiums, one hears language shouted out that would have been unimaginable a generation ago. Sanctifying speech is another religious value; it is not a secular value. Whenever I see a vehicle with an obscene bumper sticker, I am sure of only one thing: The owner of that vehicle does not regularly attend religious services.
The consequences of the death of the holy are ubiquitous. Secular Europe is far readier to feature nudity on public television than is Judeo-Christian America, and it is far more accepting of people walking around nude in public at beaches. The Judeo-Christian problem with public nudity among consenting adults at a beach or even at a nudist colony is not that these people are necessarily acting immorally (they may not be touching one another or even sexually arousing each other); it is that they are acting like animals. Clothing gives human beings dignity; it elevates them above the animals whose genitals are always uncovered (the first thing God made for man and woman is clothing).
And that is what the Judeo-Christian value system ultimately yearns for — the elevation of human conduct to the God-like, rather than allowing us to behave like fellow animals.
typically churches that accept female pastors are like salmon who have made their run and laid their eggs. the only thing they have left to do is die.
Sounds harsh but these churches never attract real men—as in guy guys. the males who are there have already checked out in more ways than one.
You don’t really follow scripture, except where it agrees with you. Which is unfortunate. Scripture is pretty clear on this that women cannot and should not be priests.
If that is the case, any position in the Presbyterian church would be open to women, inasmuch as it is a lay position.
The Catholic church has hordes of women in similar (lay) leadership positions: DRE's, prayer group and Bible study leaders, parish administrators, canon lawyers, diocesan chancellors, Vatican ambassadors, maybe even judges on canonical tribunes if I'm not mistaken.
[Off topic, but I wonder, even, if women could not be Cardinals. At present all Cardinals are Bishops, but the office of Cardinal is not, strictly speaking, defined in the NT, nor is it some function of the priesthood: so is there any reason women could not be electors in a papal conclave??]
In any case, not priests. That's something else.
We left the PCUSA after the local pastor passed out “God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen” with the words changed to: “God Rest Ye Merry Gentlepeople.”
You’re incorrect here. Presbyterians interpret the same passage we use to refer to priests in reference to their pastors. Elders as overseers/Bishops.
At least as I understand it, it's priesthood --- not leadership per se --- that is a distinctively male charism.
My own hunch (and this is not Catholic Doctrine, it's from Mrs. Don-o's Big Bag o'Hunches) is that women don't function optimally in a hierarchical structure, whether it be the Church, the military, a business hierarchy, or any other. Women's strengths aren't along the lines of the priestly and hierarchical, but rather along the lines of the mystical and prophetic.
All of our illustrious female Doctors of the Church are mystics.
BTW, that same issue overlays everything, including marriage. We are not far from protestants in general not having their marriages recognized by the Catholic church. Taking out the concept of Marriage as a sacrament has some pretty serious consequences for their organization as a whole.
That church is apostate...
That church is apostate...
They arrive at conclusion #1 by interpreting Scriptures independently of what Church Fathers have taught through the centuries (this they reject as mere "tradition"); and they arrive at conclusion #2 by saying Sola Fide--- faith only, relying on God's superabundant clemency, and independent of "works" and personal "righteousness."
Mouse around to "Gay Christian" websites like this one (Link), and you will see a host of arguments for the moral OKness of "gay marriage," many of them based on the assertion that such Greek NT words as arsenokoitai and malakoi do not refer to all same-sex relations per se, but only to temple prostitution, servile pederasty and the like.
You may want to jump up, arms waving, to tell me that this is all balderdash, but I know very well that it's balderdash. But that's because I am convinced that the correct interpretation of Scripture is securely established by (1) Sacred Tradition (the writings of the earliest Fathers of the Church) and (2) Natural Law, as interpreted by (3) the formal teaching authority of the successors of the Apostles.
Even highly intelligent and very faithful pastors cannot refute the "gay theology" people convincingly on the basis of Scripture alone.
Why? Because they can't exclude other, ostensibly "scholarly" interpretations.
The "gay" advocates are adept at using "Sola Scriptura," "Sola Gratia," and "Sola Christus" and "Sola Fides" theology to reach the conclusions they want.
I would love to be proved wrong about this.
Can you, or anybody, steer me to a website, say, where the gay exegetes are refuted point by point, and without reliance on Natural Law, Sacred Tradition, Magisterial authority, or any resources other than the Bible itself?
It's really hard to read much into that.
As for homosexuality the scriptures are abundantly clear. I can understand these churches leaving rather than having an unrepentant sinner leading them in mock worship.
Indeed. I am wondering when these so called wanna-be “priestesses” are going to sign up to preach the gospel in an Islamic or communist nation and possibly be martyred for the faith.
Waiting.....
Still waiting.....
How many do you want? Here's one:
I’ve only read some of his work but Dr. Robert Gagnon’s work would probably be a good place to start:
http://www.robgagnon.net/Index.html
I would have this question for those who try to say Scripture condones homosexual activity: would the original audience the books of the Bible were initially written for have believed homosexual behavior was acceptable from these documents?
Singing to the choir and doing a good job of it.
As stated it remains controversial except for the fact that there is no Junia in Greek for a male. It is a female name only, but then that does not change the controversy, does it?
I’m sorry, JCB, but inthai is not advocating priestesses but pastoresses. That is completely different
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.