Prof Tiger & Sardis "All Things Considered" Theology Hut

[The Gray Ghost]

yeah Cletus, ask the 1st and 2nd century Romans how that turned out.

[Cletus]

It's only a matter of time. The smart people who understand how the world works already know that religion is nonsense. Eventually everyone else will be there too.

[AlabamAlum]

If the only reason is "well, we don't have a real reason. Started back when women were possessions and we never got around to changing it." --then fine. GG really seems to suggest more than that, he just hasn't articulated it yet.

It's there if you read it. My statement has been of my personal preference. Others will have their preferences and as long as its within church canon I'm fine with that. The reason behind the preference comes from my belief that men and women have different qualities beyond a few body parts and a chromosome; you seem to focus on a sex organ but fiddle dee dee we'll pass on that. If you want to use pop culture instead of old scripture there's that whole mars/venus thing though I won't go into how much of it is nature vs nurture. I believe those 'mars' qualities and combined with what I've been raised make a man more likely to be a priest I look to for counsel, guidance and spiritual growth and I won't cringe if a woman preaches a sermon nor refuse to take communion she has consecrated.

As far as the 'tradition' argument goes that some branches use to keep the broads out, as already stated I think its partially about authority (men don't want to risk submitting to women) and the rest is about saving face. It reminds me of the Augusta National Bishops and their handling of the woman membership issue. They knew the time had come, but they were not going to let some bossy bitch on the outside make them capitulate. They stood their ground, took their financial and p.r. lumps and later when the fuss died down they started admitting chicks. Might take the RCs and Orthos another 50-100 years but I expect they will do the same.

Well, no, I have accepted and agreed there are differences. Repeatedly. I was asking you what differences, specifically, you are talking about that make a man a better "spiritual leader."

Here is an example: "I prefer men as firefighters because I believe they are physically stronger and more likely to be able to carry my ass out of a burning building."

Here is another one: "I prefer women as neonatal nurses because they are hard-wired to be more compassionate towards babies."


What I am looking for from you is to complete this: "I prefer men as my clergy because they are____________________."

[The Gray Ghost]

Correcting back to the original statements.

Women serving as deacons and priests are fine in my book, but I prefer the (rector of my parish)/(bishop of my diocese) to be a man because he is better suited (or shall we say wired) to lead a congregation/diocese through its daily and long term life. Perhaps I am biased but I believe men have natural leadership qualities balancing experience, emotion and pragmatism that people of both sexes are inclined to follow whereas women struggle to achieve the same result. There are strong women out there, we just had a female Presiding Bishop for 9 years - smart, articulate, lady though rather unitarian in theology and her first response to any resistance was to file lawsuits to seize property and defrock dissenters. The man who replaced her might still be a bit liberal for my taste, but his temperment and the steady hand he has reached out to all corners has been a striking contrast.

[AlabamAlum]

Yeah, that's biased, but it's a reason. Thanks.

I spent a lifetime overseeing managers and directors - both male and female. I am biased, too. I found women with great leadership qualities, but my success rate was, indeed, less with women than with men. Whether that had to do with how some of them were brought up, and the "it's a man's world" culture we have had, I don't know. I know that great female leaders are out there. Maybe not in as high of a percentage as men, but they aren't unicorns.

[The Gray Ghost]

and that rates an A(lmost)EFZ.

[Professor Tiger]

yeah Cletus, ask the 1st and 2nd century Romans how that turned out.

And while you're at it, Cletus, ask your intellectual forbears from only a century ago - the Bolsheviks. They were also going to help along the inevitable death of Christianity as a service to their enlightened knowledge of how the world really works, and as a part of the irrevocable march of history and science.

That didn't work out for them either.

[hedge]

Did the bolshevik revolution eradicate christianity in one fell swoop? Of course not. Nothing will. But it had more effect than you're willing to admit. The church didn't become a behemoth of persecution and misery overnight. It took many centuries. And it will take centuries before it is relegated to the dust heap of history. There are many brooms at work. It's just a matter of time...

[Professor Tiger]

I know that's what your mythological eschatology teaches, but there is no evidence to support it.

Religion in general, including Christianity is growing worldwide, not showing any signs of extinction, but quite the opposite:

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/reli ... 2010-2050/

But if you wish to ignore factual evidence and instead believe in your religion's fairy tales, that's your right.

[AlabamAlum]

A return to primitivity, if those stats are correct. Sad.

[hedge]

"Religion in general, including Christianity is growing worldwide"

Yeah, in sub-Sahara Africa and the like. As those population become more educated and enlightened, that trend will reverse, just as it has in western industrial society. I didn't say it's going to happen tomorrow, but it will happen. And just look at "christianity" in America and Europe (and I suspect Australia and Canada as well). Yeah, people say they are christians and probably believe themselves to be. They're mostly good folks and don't do much harm, go to church every other Sunday (or less) and definitely at Easter and Christmas. I can live with this tepid brand of "christianity", it's more of a social club than anything else, with a little bit of singing and a couple of passages of scripture read and then back home to carry on a totally secular existence until the next time they manage to make it to church. You yourself decry and belittle this form of christianity, but they're the majority of "christians" I see around here and I live in the South. Suffice to say that the angry, doctrinaire, reactionary, pedantic, knit-picking christians such as yourself are in the very small minority (which explains all those adjectives) and getting smaller. Good riddance...

[Professor Tiger]

Thank you, hedge, for your objectively groundless and faith-based observations and forecasts about the impending doom of Christianity and religion. I note your remarks are entirely anecdotal and rooted only in your own urgent desire for it all to be as you wish it to be, but little else. Did you consult a ouija board or a psychic to draw your conclusions, or do you just have a feeling?

Anyhoo , that notoriously fundamentalist Bible-thumping rag, the BBC, throws more cold water on your hypothesis:

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2014121 ... -disappear

[The Gray Ghost]

If you can't live with a less tepid brand of Christianity, there's always that exit ramp you often wish for others.

[hedge]

Just a manner of speaking, Ghost. "I can live with... (whatever)" just means it doesn't bother me. The more rabid brands of religion as practiced by militant zionists, muslim terrorists and Prof are a bit more difficult to tolerate, but that doesn't literally mean that I can't live with it. There are plenty of scourges on this earth that are worthy of scorn and eradication, like genocide, pollution and 1970's radio rock, to name but a few. That type of religious belief and practice is just one more...

[hedge]

Heh, the first line from the article that Prof linked is "Atheism is on the rise around the world"...

[hedge]

More from Prof's enlightening article: "“There’s absolutely more atheists around today than ever before, both in sheer numbers and as a percentage of humanity,” says Phil Zuckerman, a professor of sociology and secular studies at Pitzer College in Claremont, California, and author of Living the Secular Life. According to a Gallup International survey of more than 50,000 people in 57 countries, the number of individuals claiming to be religious fell from 77% to 68% between 2005 and 2011"

[AlabamAlum]

Prof is the king of posting contradictory research to detract from his thesis statement.

He's a dullard.

[hedge]

"“Security in society seems to diminish religious belief,” Zuckerman says. Capitalism, access to technology and education also seems to correlate with a corrosion of religiosity in some populations, he adds."

This is exactly what I was saying yesterday. Sure, in sub-Sahara Africa and the like, where conditions are still harsh and people are mostly uneducated goatherds (very similar to, say, the middle east during the time when judaism, christianity and islam began to flourish), people will grasp at any kind of comfort and structure, even and especially some fairy tale that can't be disproved, which gives them at least the illusion of certainty and authority in a chaotic and hostile world. As conditions improve, this type of need dissipates, and when they improve to, say, the current state of industrialized western society, it begins to become a quint relic of the past. Yeah, some people still like to get together every so often and participate in the harmless rituals of their childhood days, mostly out of nostalgia, but their need to believe in some sky father and all the attendant drivel that went into the creation and perpetration of such myths falls off dramatically, which is where we are today...

[The Gray Ghost]

If by "1970's Radio Rock" you are referring to Top40 bubble-gum music then you get a reprieve, otherwise the Inquisition will be knocking down your door tonight and submit you to the soft cushions and comfy chair.

[hedge]

What about Foreigner?