I merely asked why God would call women if He didnt want them to have a full part of the church. Im interested in religious outlooks
I merely asked why God would call women if He didnt want them to have a full part of the church. Im interested in religious outlooks
Aside from Lilith, Eve, both Marys, Joan of Arc, and so on and so forth you mean.
Deborah...Judge, counseller, warrior and wife
How has the Church been irrational - except perhaps in having a constitution too kind to minorities? The vast majority voted for women bishops. The problem is that the contest to be members of Synod is hardly hot, and fanatics can easily build a 'working minority' to destroy progress.
No - it was (allegedly) founded by Joseph of Arimathea (on behalf of Jesus) but suffered a good deal of interference from the Bishop of Rome.
What? It was founded by a Catholic king who could get the pope to sign off on a divorce. The CoE is just the RCC with the monarch replacing the pope.
Complete codswallop. Even by your own reckoning Henry was succeeded by the total Romanist Bloody Mary and her squalid reign of terror. But our Church predated the Papal manoeuvres and survived them largely unscathed, fortunately.
Last edited:
Yeah, and the first thing the Bible records God saying to Deborah is to tell Barak that God "wants you [not me]." And, as soon as Barak steps up, Deborah vanishes. And, even this small role was meant to humiliate occupiers.
Last edited:
A very interesting interpretation.
Tell me, do you see the recent vote as humiliation for female clergy?
Incidentally, divorce didn't exist. Henry legitimately demanded an annulment on the perfectly legal grounds that he had married his brother's wife, which was forbidden by canon law as incest, and believed he couldn't father sons as a result of this sin. The Pope refused for purely political reasons, leaving Henry no alternative but to shake off the foreign interference that had lasted some seven hundred years, and return to a legitimate tradition.
Does anyone else note the similar nature of Church attitude towards women, and the Republican mentality?
And...as a second question, does this have more to do with the GOP base being quite religious, or with a purposeful disregard based on political dogma?
And...as a second question, does this have more to do with the GOP base being quite religious, or with a purposeful disregard based on political dogma?
The Church is pretty well universally in favour of women bishops. The trouble is that very few people have the time or money to waste on being members of the House of Laity, which fact allows a few cranks to prevent a two-thirds vote. There is no 'attitude to women' that I know of.
Since we're talking about the C of E - which is on the whole sort-of-socialist nowadays - I think comparisons with the Republican mob is stretching it a bit, surely?
Last edited:
I think it has more to do with you stereotyping
Perhaps...but as a general rule, when I do stereotype it has a basis in observation. The Church has made it clear for centuries that women do not have the same standing within its structure.
The Republican stance on Womens rights here does very much the same thing. By denying a woman the position of Bishop based purely on gender, or denying a woman the ability to established rights under law....both create an observed agenda that projects a gender bias.
Yes, but I'm not sure what you're implying by the statement. Are you making a value judgement?
I think it's more the product of conservatism and cultural exposure. I have sort of a front row seat here in Utah. Charity here is the domain of the church and not government. Women are historically "Mothers and home makers" and not economic resources.
There is far more Socialism in Utah than any other state in this country. The difference is, it's administered by the Church instead of the State. The 10% church tax is automatically deducted from a Mormon's paycheck in MOST cases (not all), and about 20% of it redistributed to the needy. The rest is divided into church expansion (missionary work), and profit, which is invested. In my view this is "religious persecution" of those that do not wish to take part in "affirming" the validity of religion. Personally, I don't wish to feel "beholden" to something I don't believe in just because I'm having some bad luck.
That said, the vast majority of Mormons here are "conservative", and do vote Republican. So in my opinion it's no stretch at all to link the 2.
That is the "general rule" that everyone who stereotypes uses. It doesn't make it right.
With the Church: sure, maybe, I don't know all the details and I don't really care.
With Republicans though: simply not true. There might be a small sect of the Republican party that puts religion up as its number one issue or that is against women's rights, but I would say it is a small minority. Most Republicans do not have a problem with women's rights- for one, a lot of the women in the Republican party. The whole "Republicans hate women's rights" thing is way overblown in the media like the whole "Democrats want socialism" issue is. Statistically and based on the numbers they are minority positions in each party.
The last candidates have nothing to do with it as you spoke of the "Republican stance" and the "Republican mentality" which is not the same thing. It is stereotyping and logically it does not make sense. In practice, it creates more misunderstanding and polarization.
And what Republican push are you talking about? I really hope it is not abortion because that argument isn't from a point of limiting woman's rights, but instead protecting life. And what counts as human life is arguable based on how you define human life.
I ask then...how do we define a party stance without incorporating the individuals and platform that it submits as its stance? Do we use history? As this does not represent the current stance, but instead the past.
Yes, reproductive rights as defined by the highest court our country has. As well as access to healthcare that is unique to the gender, trying to force unneeded and humiliating personal invasions, using legislation to hamper access to screenings and medical proceedures permitted under law.
This is not an abortion debate, as that has been settled by the SCOTUS. This is an attack on the law, based on personal opinion in the guise of Zoning, Protection, and dishonesty.
Similar threads
