, but there are times where it wouldn't make much sense to be for all time, given the context.
Hey! I'm first here! Cool.
Well, I'll just make this short and sweet. I find religion to be very misogynistic cuz it puts men before women, most likely cuz religion was created by men to control women, as well as other men. I know some would dispute this but it's the truth. I don't mind that there are some rules we all must follow, otherwise we'd have anarchy and more chaos than we do now, but to put oneself or one's own gender above the other is totally wrong. It's the ultimate in arrogant hubris, if that ain't too redundant. Men have always used religion to subjugate women and it continues even to this day. No, I'm not off on another antimale rant, so please don't anyone accuse me of doing so. It's just that it's so true. Men are insecure and use religion to control others and to justify their own beliefs and actions, and women for the longest time have never been treated fairly. I like to think it's getting better now somewhat, but by how much I don't know.
That's all I'll say for now. What does anyone esle think?
Well, there's the book of Ruth, which stars a woman and what she did. There's Mary, the mother of Jesus, who is practically another deity, to listen to the Catholics say it. (I don't think that, although she must have been pretty special. How many other women could have handled giving birth to the Savior of the planet?)
Anyway, women have played an important part in religion, though I won't deny that men get far more representation. But since the Bible was written mostly by men (I say mostly because how else would the book of Ruth have gotten in there?) so of course they would limit the role of women.
There's a book out there called, I believe, Do What You Have the Power to Do that explores the role women had in the Bible using specific examples.
As for the treatment of women by various churches, you're absolutely right. For about 1000-1500 years, the Catholic Church was more concerned with its own power thn any actual religious function. And since women weren't allowed in positions of power, womnen couldn't be priests or anything. They still do it that way, but most other churches don't. I don't know about Judaism or Islam or anything else. (I think that the Koran says that Allah sees men and women equally, although they were never ever treated that way. Not sure.)
On the flip side of things, Wicca is more female oriented, but men play an equally weighted role in the religion.
But this is my question: Why is it that women are referred to the "weaker sex" and are supposed to be (classically) subservient to their male counterparts?
Well, for one thing…
Hate to break it to you, but studies have been done that show that women, no matter what, are on average much less physically stron than men. i seem to recall reading about the results of one Army study that indicated that the top seven percent of women recruits scored only about the same as the bottom seven percent of the men. So there is a legitimate reason to call them the "weaker sex."
Before Islam, women walked around topless, could not enter places of worship, and were treated as property by the practice of polygamy. Islam modified those abuses whitch was progressive in the 7th century.
The role of women in the middle ages is surronded by myth. I'll do some digging, but the chattle slave sterotype is a bit exxagerated.
And now after Islam, women walk around with only their eyes uncovered, can't get a decent education or job in Islamic countries, and are treated as sub-human. What's this about progress?
Matthew -
So sorry I don't pump up on testosterone regularly. I seem to recall somewhere, though I don't remember where, a study done that showed that genetically, women are superior to men. In times of drought or famine, women are better able to handle survival than men.
Also, some might argue that since women are the ones who have kids, that makes them stronger than men, who have NO idea what labor is like. But I'm not necessarily referring to women being physically weaker. I've heard women called emotionally weaker, as well as psychologically and mentally and strategically and intelligence wise, and instinctually, etc. You get the point. Women are, apparently, supposed to be lower than birds.
Along the same topic (sorta), where do all those machismo types get the idea it's OK to knock women around? And what's with FGM in African nations, but not MGM?
Mr. Pesti,
Before Islam, women walked around topless, could not enter places of worship, and were treated as property by the practice of polygamy. Islam modified those abuses whitch was progressive in the 7th century.
Please provide documentation for this. Also, if so, it doesn't speak well of early Christians, does it? Also, what about the non-western world?
I SAID it was progressive in 7th century Arabia, not today. Try "the religions of man". Non Westren cultures, I belive the Chinese started foot binding at this time, and if you know anything at all about that it makes ANYTHING look progressive and forword moving
According to the Bible, the man is supposed to be the head of the household. That doesn't mean he's all-powerful Grand High Poobah--it means that his basic place is to make a living and protect his family. That is a right and a responsibility--it tells lazy bums to get the heck up and work! Women are told to obey their husbands, but husbands are told to respect their wives, as Christ does to the church.
Mike -
OK, fine, it's a religious thing. What about the FGM in Africa, but not MGM (unless you count circumsicion)? And why do a lot of machismo types think it's ok to knock women around? Also, why is it that a lot of men (the ones I know, anyway) think it's ok to be a "stud", but want virgin wives?
Why is it a woman is considered a slut if she sleeps around, but a man's considered a stud? Why is it "ok" for men to have kids when they finally get married, but they don't want women who've had kids outta wedlock? Why are men supposed to be sexually aggressive, and women are supposed to be passive?
The Bible doesn't approve of
*Female Genital Mutilation
*Spousal Abuse
*Sleeping Around Before Marriage
*Studs or Sluts
*Kids Out of Wedlock
Maybe not, but it sure seems like society thinks it's ok. So why does society hold that opinion?
Simple: People are naturally evil.
Well, that's a relief.
Yes, Mike. I agree with you there. Now you know the real reason why religion was created in the first place, despite what anyone may think otherwise.
Actually, yes, Mark, you are correct--the whole purpose for Jesus Christ and the gift of salvation is because people have had natural sin since the time of Adam.
That's why Christanity is the utimate counter culture. It always stand as going agaist the tide.
For all practical purposes (not the way it should be, but the way it actually IS), how does Christianity treat us women, 50% percent of the population, 100% percent of mothers?
I struggle with the things the apostle Paul said. That whole "submit to your husbands" thing. How far is that submission supposed to go? Wouldn't us strong-willed women be better off not getting married? Oops, too late! Not only married, but married to a guy who insists on treating me as an equal partner! What a rat!
(Oh, I kid. I love my husband. :) )
"Women are not to speak or teach." Tell that to my mother, who has been a Bible class teacher for at least 15 years and who (despite our differences of opinion) has a way of making my faith stronger just by talking to me about God. (She also has a great chicken soup recipe, but that is off-topic! :-)
When a church shows me that the ONLY way I can serve is by baking cookies and cleaning the kitchen, they show me that they don't see me as an individual, but as a stereotype. Having a uterus is not a guarantee that I am good at "womanly" things. (Baking cookies: good at it. Cleaning a kitchen: bad at it. VERY BAD AT IT.) Maybe I might be better at paying the bills, maintaining a church's website, writing the newsletter, blah blah blah.
Our church views it that women can teach and work in the church--we have deaconesses, which I believe is supported by Paul. Women can run Bible Studies (mainly for other women, however), and Sunday Schools and the like.
If people are naturally evil, why bother with Christianity? That's supposed to be the antithesis of evil, hence shouldn't it be the antithesis of people? Aren't people supposed to be "good Christians" and try to BETTER themselves? So...if that's all true, why does society still hold such things as acceptable?
Of course, I could argue that good and evil are subjective viewpoints - but I think we all I know that I believe that.
People are naturally evil--that's why we NEED Jesus Christ as the only way to the Father, God.
In your opinion.
Yes, and it happens to be shared.
Well...I actually NEED the Lady and her Consort. But that's beside the point.
I could still argue that good and evil are subjective viewpoints...
They are incredibly subjective! But if we start arguing subjectivity vs. objectivity, we'll get nowhere. We tried that on the old "Eating a Jeep," and it didn't work. So if this discussion is to get anywhere, we have to have some kind of definition for good and evil.
How about not using good and evil? How about "socially acceptable" and "socially unacceptable"? That's a bit more objective...
(So I'm on this pc streak right now...so sue me. Oh wait...ain't got a thing to sue for. Oops.)
Still Anon has a point. I don't *NEED* JC for anything, thank you. I can understand YOUR need for him, but please don't foist your need off onto me.
Thank you.
I understand that, Scott. That was basically my opinion to the previous statements.
Why is the Judeo-Christian god assumed to be a male? Why not have the god turn out to be a goddess (now that'd be interesting!), or a hermaphrodite? Or, better yet, asexual...but seriously, why is it still, in this day of feminisim and equality between the genders, is the Judeo-Christian god still assumed to be a male?
He is assumed to be a male because in my Bible, it says "He"; everyone refers to him as "Father"; Jesus was generally confirmed to be male, etc.
I don't think this means he's going to be a stereotypical "male", by any means. God's gender is unimportant.
Problem is, a lot of languages don't have an androgynous case. So if ancient Hebrew didn't, it simply wouldn't have been possible to call God "It." In fact, the defaul case was probably the masculine, so anything that wasn't specifically feminine would have been assumed to be masculine. Therefore we call God "He." I suppose we could get out the Wite-Out and change all the references, but then we are faced with two problems: What is Jesus, and would we survive the resulting lynching? And how does an "it" or a "she" have a male child with another "she?"
a lot of languages don't have an androgynous case. So if ancient Hebrew didn't
It didn't and it still doesn't.
Problem solved, then. Not sexism, just a bad case of linguistics.
Matthew - But if the Judeo-Christian god is supposed to be all-powerful, what difference does it make if an it/she had a child with a definite she? Or did Mary have an actual fling with the god in Greek myth style, and we just don't know? ;)
There's a NextGen novel (I think it is, but I forget which) that has a bisexual character, in that it's got the sex organs of both sexes. This person is referred to with such pronouns as s/he and hir, and I forget what all else, so why not put the same to god?
Also, if god is a male then I'm sure many human males would probably suffer...er, shall we say, extreme envy problems, perhaps. Not that I do, mind you. I'm very secure in my masculinity.
This person is referred to with such pronouns as s/he and hir, and I forget what all else, so why not put the same to god?
Also hish (and sheeit, but they decided that didn't sound good). Reason why we don't do that: tradition, and Peter David would probably get mad. Unless the Pope himself said to do that, and Jerry Falwell concurred, and Louis Farrakhan agreed (trying to name all fo the various factions that tend to overreact), there would be a massive public outcry. It's simply not worth it.
MarkN - it's the New Frontier novels that have the hermaphrodite character
I belive, one, God is a spirit and has no gender, two, Man, women, male, female, and the relationship between the two, are inventions of God. If you can say something into existance, giving birth is a waste of time. three, all spirits, whether Angel, Demon, "sons of God"(see forword to flood), "gods (as in a little less than the)", Demons of middle Air and earth, monsters (levianthan) are refered to the in the masculine save one(Lilith). Seeing that Spirits have no need to reproduce, gender is irrevent. Also they can assume any form they want to humans......
That's right, Anon. Thanks. I've read so many ST books that I forget what all was in what.
How about God as a multiple being?
KJV: "Let us make man in our image..."
I know it's the royal "we", but what the hey, it's fun to troll!
God is a multiple being, if you want to be picky: Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
Pesti -
First off, some Witches see Lilith as a Goddess of the Star People (a representation of a higher intelligence). I'm one of them.
As for the sex and relationship part - Witches don't see it as an "invention" of anyone. It's a celebration of the divine union between the Lady and Lord. It's the embodiment of the cycle of Life. And that's also why we don't see as premarital sex as a sin. It's a celebration to us.
God is a multiple being, if you want to be picky: Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Doctor, Lawyer, Indian Chief. Curly, Moe, Larry. Hewey, Louie and Dewey. Peter, Paul and Mary. Groucho, Chico, Harpo (Heck, ok, even Zeppo).
MJ, if sex is a celebration for Wiccans, then count me in! When's the next meeting? Of course, it would be wrong and rude to invite myself, so please invite me, ok?
*Raises a brow* Well, Mark, should we get more specific about the Judeo-Christian god? How about Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Shinto, Taoist, Witch, Satanist, black, white, yellow, red, heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, asexual, old, young, male, female, healty, infirm, openminded, closeminded, artistic, logical, illogical, mathematical, emotionless, emotional...
And about the sex being a celebration...*LOL* One, I don't belong to a coven. I'm a Solitary Eclectic Witch. Two, while I do believe in sex magicks, I don't practice them. So sorry, hun...
A news item about the death in Turkey of a Muslim feminist writer.
Konca Kuris had challenged the ideology of using Islam as a tool to subjugate women. She paid for her beliefs.
I am furious.
I agree with you, J. We can only hope that her death will not be in vain. Perhaps other women will see her bravery and push for more freedom.
The reason Jesus was born a male is because he would not have been taken seriously in the culture he was born into had he been a female.
Similarly, that is the same reason his 12 closest deciples were male. The 12 represent the tribes of Israel. Since a female would not have been counted in the culture in which Jesus lived, twelve males were needed so that people would recognize the symbolism that Jesus was employing.
"Father" in the bible is not intended to imply that God has male genitals, but rather to give humans some understanding of the relationship between Jesus and God.
Unfortunately, like any other tool, there are people who will use religion and God for their own benefit. Looking at the way Jesus personally treats women in the bible, I highly doubt that he would be pleased by the abuses that occur in his name.
The reason Jesus was born a male is because he would not have been taken seriously in the culture he was born into had he been a female.
Not even if "she" did all the same things "he" did, even in front of witnesses? Do you think "she'd" be considered a sorceress back then or what? Christianity sure would be a lot different today, I tell ya. (Or would that be Christi Annity? *S*) Women would be not only treated better but perhaps thought of as better than men, probably mostly to the fact that women bear children. But I dunno. Just speculating. Very interesting thought, though.
"Father" in the bible is not intended to imply that God has male genitals, but rather to give humans some understanding of the relationship between Jesus and God.
You don't think that maybe it could've had something to do with, oh, I dunno, the fact that the human species has always been male dominated, and thus religions as a result have always shown that? Except for Wicca, from my understanding, at least. MJ, ya wanna take this one?
BTW, Ghel, I'm not harping on ya. I can be very silly but sometimes it can be a bit hard for others to tell.
No problem MarkN. Actually, I tend to agree with you that the human species has always been male dominated. My point about Jesus was that in a culture so heavily dominated by males, there is no way Jesus could have changed the Jewish religion in nearly the same way as a female. She would not even have been a footnote because she would have been stoned in about fifteen minutes.
In fact, Jesus associates with and defends women on several occasions. He speaks with a prostitute in direct presence of the high priests of the day (who are clearly displeased with his associations), he converses with women doing chores (it may be nothing today, but at the time this was amazingly radical), and he even defends women who are accused of adultry. Saying "whoever is sinless can cast the first stone," Jesus is forcing the men to acknowledge that they are no better than she.
Ironically, his egalitarian treatment of women is part of the reason he is eventually crucified. Turned in by the Jews for his "radical" ideas, he was not only placed on a cross but nailed there. This was not a common practice (nails were not cheap) but rather something saved for "special" convicts.
Yes indeed, Mark! I shall take this one right now, and let me clarify something in regards to Wicca too.
Wicca is not male dominated. Neither is it female dominated. Both roles are equally important within the religion, as both are aspects of the Divine. The fact that Wicca appears to be female dominated is apparently because of the fact that there is a dominant goddess inside of the religious boundaries. A dominant goddess who is not inferior to the dominant god, but rather, is equal to him. In fact, Wicca realises that were it not for women, there would be no children born to continue with humanity. By the same token, were it not for men, women could not become pregnant with those children.
Another reason that Wicca appears to be female dominated is from the higher number of women in the religion than men. Don't ask me to cite sources, 'cause I couldn't do it now. Women are apparently turning away from the mainstream religions and are finding freedom within the confines of Wicca's loose boundaries. There is a higher deity that we can identify with, since She is a female. From Her, the Horned Consort is born, and with Her is there a union between the masculine and the feminine.
Women are not told that they must cover themselves to stop men from clamoring for them. They are not told that they must come to marriage a virgin. They are not told that premarital sex is wrong. They are not told that if they do not bow to a male deity, they are destined to the celestial dungeons. They are not told that they cannot do this or cannot do that simply because they are women. Wicca recognises that I am as equal to Morgan or to Mark as they are to one another. I am not inferior to them simply because I am a woman, and they are not inferior to me simply because they are men.
Wicca recognises that I am as equal to Morgan or to Mark as they are to one another. In other words, not at all, since Mark2 is a mere software construct created by the Overlord to cause discord.
Couldn't resist.
::In fact, Wicca realises that were it not for women, there would be no children born to continue with humanity. By the same token, were it not for men, women could not become pregnant with those children:: M Jenkins
Most people that I've heard don't like the idea, but with science the way it is today, 2 women can have a child together although it is still expensive and rather experimental.
::Women are not told that they must cover themselves to stop men from clamoring for them. They are not told that they must come to marriage a virgin. They are not told that premarital sex is wrong. They are not told that if they do not bow to a male deity, they are destined to the celestial dungeons. They are not told that they cannot do this or cannot do that simply because they are women. Wicca recognises that I am as equal to Morgan or to Mark as they are to one another. I am not inferior to them simply because I am a woman, and they are not inferior to me simply because they are men.:: M Jenkins
If there are basically no common "rules" or beliefs since basically it almost allows anyone to do or believe anything they wish, then what is the point of the religion itself in the first place? I'm just asking because it doesn't quite compute in my brain.
Most people that I've heard don't like the idea, but with science the way it is today, 2 women can have a child together although it is still expensive and rather experimental. You mean, a child that is biologically theirs, with no father's genes involved? Unless there has been some breakthrough recently that I missed about this, so far
1. this has only been tested on rats, and
2. the experiment was halted almost immediately after fertilization. (like, at 64 or 128 cells).
My information, admittedly, is a little out of date, but I haven't heard anything since the first reports several years ago. It involved a tricky fusing of two egg cells using a specially engineered virus. The article I had, alas, was lost in the Post-Marriage Holocaust.
As an aside, I don't think MJ is saying there are no rules in Wicca; I think she is saying that the rules in her religion don't place restrictions on people just because of their gender. Presumably they place restrictions on people for other reasons.
2 women can have children together? Then unless I'm really missing something, that child would be a girl. Because of the chromosomes. However, as I don't make it a habit to study newfound fertilisation techniques...
And Morgan is quite right. We Wiccans do have rules and beliefs. It just doesn't mesh very well with the monotheistic male religions like Christianity and Islam. We have the Wiccan Rede. We have the Rule of Three. We have the Law of Power. We believe that sexual intercourse is not a dirty act, but rather, a celebration of the divine union of the Lady and Lord. Just because I'm a Solitary Eclectic Priestess doesn't make me any better or any worse than the guy who first introduced me to Wicca. We're equal.
Hop on over to the Wiccan Faith board if you have questions.
::2 women can have children together? Then unless I'm really missing something, that child would be a girl. Because of the chromosomes. However, as I don't make it a habit to study newfound fertilisation techniques...:: M Jenkins
Exactly, they would only be able to produce girls, but it is an interesting capability.
Ummmm...I believe that at this time, I shall refrain from attempting to have daughters with anyone. Thank you for your time. The Queen of the Ruling Council now demands my time.
Ah, ha! Here's a link about babies sans males.
Even after all this time, that thought just makes my skin crawl. If I ever suffered insanity and decided to bear a child, I'd really rather have him/her/them/it conceived in the old fashioned way (if only so I can curse the father while in the throes of labour). Yick...
*Drops a pin, and runs out*
HAH! A dud pin! About time, too!
*Time delay pin suddenly backlashes with a reverberating echo that follows the sonic boom*
Oh, you're a crafty one, you are, Machiko. No pun intended. (Get it?)
*Gets the pun as Mark gets the point*
Ouch! LOL Ah, the pains of love! *S*
J. Goettsche admitted: I struggle with the things the apostle Paul said. That whole "submit to your husbands" thing.
Paul's "wives, submit to your husbands" must be read in context - it cannot be read and understood apart from what follows: "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her." The concept here was mutual submission: each person in the marriage is to be so deeply concerned with the uplifting and welfare of their spouse so much more than their own self-pursuits. This is the nature of covenant: that what lies between us, our relationship, is much more important than just myself. Wives were to submit to their husbands, and husbands must be willing to sacrifice themselves for their wives.
Women are not to speak or teach.
No, a better translation of the Greek would be "I permit no woman to teach or 'lord it over' a man." According to some reading I have done, the problem Paul was addressing was that some women in the church in that day felt so free in their liberation and their ability to participate as partners in the Gospel that they were doing to men what had been done to them for so long...dominating them.
Now, he did say that women should keep silent in the church, but what we forget is that the men were to keep silent, too! Worship was not the experience that most in Judeo-Christian-influenced cultures of today know, with singing and praying out loud and the like. Many times they were much more contemplative, meditative - silent, even - and only the elder(s) leading the worship were to speak.
Paul often wrote of women as co-workers in his ministry, and he assumes their active participation in the worship of the church. In fact, it is a curious thing that, when referring to the Roman couple Priscilla and Aquilla, he places the woman's name first, in contrast to the custom of the day (and even our day for many old-school people) of placing the man's name first. What prominent role did Priscilla play in the church in Rome and in Corinth that she should be named first? In fact, some biblical scholars feel that their is good evidence that Priscilla may have been the author of the epistle to the Hebrews.
Paul also advises the rare viewpoint that the sexual relationship between husband and wife should be mutual and not authoritarian. Were there other religions of that day who espoused that viewpoint?
the fact that the human species has always been male dominated, and thus religions as a result have always shown that?
Excuse me, because I'm not the most knowledgable person to say this, but don't many of the Eastern religions have female dieties that have much more power and influence than male, despite the human males being the dominant forces in society?
What we fail to realize in our lack of knowledge of the ancient Christian church is that the Gospel spread first to the downtrodden and disenfranchised of the times: women, children, slaves, and some of the lesser merchant class. They were all attracted to the message of liberation from world-views of their worth (or worthlessness in the opinion of the times). Christianity's strongest message was in seeking to treat all people, regardless of gender, ethnic background, class status or whatever, as equals before God...the idea that God became human and died so that every person regardless of who they were could come to God. It's foolish, prideful, antagonistic and opportunistic human beings that have repeatedly screwed up what God shared with humanity.
I think it was G. K. Chesterton who said that the biggest problem is when people start confusing religion with faith, and they factor the Divine right out of the equation...or something like that.
Kyle Powderly, I can't accept the idea that worship must be all solemn and depressing? I would think that God would want us to be happy during worship and derive enjoyment from it. If it's the way you describe it would be boring to the point of tears.
::In fact, some biblical scholars feel that their is good evidence that Priscilla may have been the author of the epistle to the Hebrews.:: Kyle Powderly
I really doubt this. Do you have any material on this?
If you really think God meant to have women and men be equal why is it that the Bible says that the man is to be the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church? If that doesn't mean "in charge" I don't know what it is.
JWBZZZZ, Men WROTE the BIBLE, geeze, why else would it say MEN Are in Charge? D'Oh.
SLUGBUG, the way you make that statement, you almost sound like you would never agree with anyone being in charge of anyone else.
Perhaps. Or perhaps he holds the views that I hold, that the most competent person should be in charge when dealing with their area of competence. Quite frankly, my future wife is going to have to be in charge of some things because I'm hopeless.
A woman could easily have written Hebrews. After all, two of the Bible's books are NAMED AFTER and ARE ALL ABOUT women!!! (They probably weren't written by the women themselves, but you know what you mean).
I think Kyle has made some excellent points. Personally, I always look at that when a couple begins talking about who is in charge, then obviously they haven't been reading Ephesians, as that doesn't seem like a logical response of a loving couple. A mutual love and understanding.
Jwb: Kyle meant worship in the early days. He wasn't saying if he endorsed it or not.
Some have theorized that Paul's comments (especially the women must not pray with her head not covered, although you may interpret this several ways) were specifically directed to Corinth, which was having a very bad problem with rowdy women.
::Some have theorized that Paul's comments (especially the women must not pray with her head not covered, although you may interpret this several ways) were specifically directed to Corinth, which was having a very bad problem with rowdy women.:: MikeC
That's what I try to explain when people ask me why not all the laws are followed in the Bible exactly. They were sometimes only for certain people to whom Jesus or the Apostles were talking to at the time.
The trouble is deciding which were for a situation in that era and which are for all time.
Exactly MikeC , but there are times where it wouldn't make much sense to be for all time, given the context.
If I recall Correctly, women without veils were usually of ill repute. "Blessed is the man who walks not in the way of the wicked" Ps 1.1 Put in this context, the order is to act seperate from the pagans as the People of God.
The Author of Hebrews is unknown. If Priscilla wrote it she knew too much about Jewish Theology for a Gentile or a women, from what I understand.
Wives and Husbands: In that age, Men were allowed to throw their children out after birth, particually if they were female, and allowed to keep several male and female, "Companions".
As for why our system is superior to this I could ask several deconstructionist questions, but won't.
Worship: I must remind everyone that worship is th closest we get to God on Earth, espically if the sacerament is celerbrated. God for all his kindness and love, is still a terrible, awesome force, one that must be dreaded as go to realize how truely evil we are in confession. The Problem is when this power is not considered.
Matt Pesti, please translate for a protestant. Pray tell what is a sacerment? I've heard it but it was never explained by anyone who knew.
If I remember correctly, as a fellow Protestant who happened to go to a Catholic grade school, there are 7 sacraments in the Catholic Church: Baptism, First Communion, Confession, Confirmation, Matrimony, Anointing of the Sick, and Last Rites. It's been a long time (too long!) since grade school, but I think I got it right.
Yep. A Sacrament is something like a special blessing conferred by God through a priest.
Baptism- using oils and holy water (blessed water) a baby is cleansed of original sin and becomes part of the church.
Communion - The transubstantiation of Wine and Bread into the body and blood of Christ. The wine and bread is (of course) spiritually changed, not changed in physical form.
Confession - People tell their sins to a priest, who acts as a stand-in for Christ (so to speak). Their sins are then considered forgiven (what you hold bound on earth is held bound, and what you lose on earth etc.).
Confirmation - Again, annointing with oil (this time by a bishop) this time an adult re-affirms that they wish to live a good life for God. They are then blessed and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Matrimony/Holy Orders - Marriage, two people become one; or holy orders, the marriage of the religious to the church (for priests, nuns etc).
Last Rights/Annointing of the sick - If possible the person confesses sins for the last time and then their soul is basically prepared for their death.
This is actually one of the more interesting differences between Catholocism and Protestantism. While the Protestant religion usually takes a more literal interpretation of the bible, and the Catholic religion is based on the bible and tradition, it is in several of the sacraments were the Catholic tradition actually takes a more literal view of the bible than Protestantism.
For instance, while Protestantism generally believes in the symbolism of communion, Catholocism asserts that there is a literal (spiritual) transformation of wine and bread into the body and blood of Christ. They believe that "This is my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant . . ." and "This is my body . . ." is Jesus literally telling his followers that wherever this celebration occurs, Jesus will literally be there.
This is similar with confession. The idea behind confession is that when Jesus told Peter "Whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. . ." Jesus was conferring the ability to forgive sins in his name (this is also the idea behind the pope, since the line of Popes is considered the line of religious carrying on what was started at Peter.)
Anyway, I shall cease my digression now before I write a novel.
On a side note, since this is about women in religion, in the early church women were allowed to be priests and priests were allowed to marry. Somewhere along the line, some male got power hungry.
Just a couple of points....
When Matt wrote "espically (sic) if the sacerament (sic) is celerbrated (sic)" I believe he was specifically talking of "the Lord's Table" (what Ghel defined as "Communion").
The sacrement of Holy Orders applies only to priests. It is the special grace of this sacrement that confers on them the powers to celebrate the Eucharist and to forgive sins. Monks and nuns (and Brothers and Sisters of service orders) do not recieve this sacrement.
Protestants do have equivalent rites, it just doesn't consider them all to have the same exalted position.
Baptists have two Ordinances: Baptism and "the Lord's Table," but they also have times of special prayer and celebration for marriages, for ordaining a minister and for praying for (and yes, annointing -- James 5:14-15) the sick.
While they do not believe that a tete-a-tete with the minister is a necessary part of it, they do believe in the confessing of sin for a re-newing of fellowship with God.
They don't have an equivalent to Confirmation, because they don't have infant Baptism, so the individual does not need to confirm that he is ready to keep the pledges made in his name.
Oops! I stand corrected on the "Holy Orders" thing. That's what I get for leaving the seminary to sell computers :o)
I meant Communion, The Sacrement of the Altar. Lutherans only have two. The other is baptism.
Ghel: I heard of that too, but from what I understand, Women as preists was an exception, not the norm accross Christendom, as opposed to married preists which was a discipline problem, which is agaist the words of St. Paul.
The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod does not ordain women as Pastors, the biggest reason being there is no reason to do it, just a 30 year old academic theory.
Just for the record, the Episcopal Church ordains women, which is one reason why I'm starting to like them very much. On the other hand, their insistence on observing every single minor feast day gets on my nerves.
Methodists also only consider Baptism & Communion sacraments. Of course we have Confirmation, Marriage, etc., but they're not considered sacraments.
Hmmm, random thoughts, in no particular order:
I once dated a priest. SHE had been the seminarian at a church where I was youth minister in Connecticut. Ya gotta love the traditions that ordain women!
Sacrament: "An outward sign instituted by God to convey an inward sign or spiritual grace. From the Greek mysterion 'mystery'; Latin sacramentum." (From the Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms, (c) 1996, Westminster John Knox Press)
Being a Happy Heretic myself (i.e., I grew up Catholic but am now a Presbyterian), I can tell you the difference between the Roman church (I use that as opposed to Catholic, because of the idea that catholic, small "c", means universal) and most Protestant traditions on the question of the sacrament of Communion/the Lord's Table is one of presence. The Roman tradition believes that at the words of institution by an ordained priest, the presence of Christ comes into the bread and wine and they literally become the actual flesh and blood of Jesus, hidden behind the visible appearance of bread and wine. In many Protestant traditions, such as my own Presbyterian one, the belief is that the presence of Christ comes into the bread and juice (thanks, Mr. Welch and the Prohibition of the 1920s!), but that the elements themselves remain unchanged. Also, many Protestant traditions emphasize the fact that Communion is inherantly participatory: the sacarament is not only in the breaking of bread and pouring of wine/juice, but also in the taking of those elements by the people. Communion that people do not take is not really communal with God, now, is it?
There are traditions within Protestantism - such as many Baptist traditions - that believe that the elements of bread and cup are symbols meant to commemorate the last Passover supper Jesus had with his disciples, and that there is no mystical/magical/divine presence actually in the bread and cup.
The other Sacraments of the Roman church are not observed as such in the Protestant traditions, but are seen as having what I would call a sacramental virtue, that is, something special that comes from/gives us a reminder of the presence of God.
RE: worship - "Solemn" doesn't mean boring. I have been a part of some very powerful, solemn worship services that would leave you trembling and wanting to leap with joy and cry and dance and throw yourself on the floor in fear all at the same time. And that's coming from one of the "Frozen Chosen"! J
That being said, I am a big fan of contemporary worship practices as well: the use of contemporary hymns and differing worship structures and styles. But chaos benefits no one in worship.
OK, time to reveal myself here. I am a pastor. And if I show up on Sunday morning and don't have a clue as to what is going to happen in worship, or what I am going include when I lead people in prayer, or don't have a sermon written, then I am actually getting in God's way in the interactive/communal act of worship. The same can be said when someone disrupts worship. My interpretation of Paul's instructions about propriety in worship (i.e., no one should stand up and speak in tongues unless there is one there who has been gifted to interpret the tongue) is that even a gift from God, improperly used, is disruptive and therefore not helpful in peoples' worship of God.
The Presbyterians have a great phrase: "decently and in order." Too bad it's been used to freeze people in place rather than doing what it was intended to do: allow the Spirit to move in a helpful and therefore powerful way.
My own...humble...interpretation of Paul's admonition for women to keep silent in church was to deal with, as MikeC put it, the "rowdy" people, specifically women who were going to the opposite extreme from where they had been (restricted, oppressed, shut out of the inner courts of the Temple which was for men only) and becoming disruptive in church and worship. It wasn't meant to control women or hold them down as much as remind them of the standards of worship which had to be applied to all the people in the church. That should be the way that Christians act and worship now, as well: the same freedoms and restrictions should be applied to all people.
For example, in my parents' Bible study group, it really irks my folks that at the end, when there are prayer needs, the group says "Why don't the women go get the coffee ready while we men pray?" Boy does that get my hackles up!!! If both men and women are created in the image of God, why are they not allowed to participate in all aspects of the worship of God? Grrrr.
Ghel: seminary to computers - you are my hero! I am the biggest ordained techno-geek on the planet. A few friends and I are considering the question of how the Church can use this tres cool technology. Consider the cartoon of a preacher in a pulpit in a gothic-style church, with the caption that reads: "Today's Old Testament lesson can be found on your pew console at http://www.bible.com/ot/Joshua/24_12."
:: OK, time to reveal myself here. I am a pastor. And if I show up on Sunday morning and don't have a clue as to what is going to happen in worship, or what I am going include when I lead people in prayer, or don't have a sermon written, then I am actually getting in God's way in the interactive/communal act of worship. The same can be said when someone disrupts worship. My interpretation of Paul's instructions about propriety in worship (i.e., no one should stand up and speak in tongues unless there is one there who has been gifted to interpret the tongue) is that even a gift from God, improperly used, is disruptive and therefore not helpful in peoples' worship of God.:: Kyle Powderly
How long have you been preaching anyway? My father is a preacher himself, and he has gotten a knack for getting up and just starting to talk about whatever comes into his head of a religious nature, even though he does prepare sermons for Sunday too, but when he is asked he can usually talk for quite a while on most Biblical subjects.
::It wasn't meant to control women or hold them down as much as remind them of the standards of worship which had to be applied to all the people in the church. That should be the way that Christians act and worship now, as well: the same freedoms and restrictions should be applied to all people.:: Kyle Powderly
So, am I supposed to assume from this that you don't believe that God gave it to men to be in charge?
::For example, in my parents' Bible study group, it really irks my folks that at the end, when there are prayer needs, the group says "Why don't the women go get the coffee ready while we men pray?" Boy does that get my hackles up!!! If both men and women are created in the image of God, why are they not allowed to participate in all aspects of the worship of God? Grrrr.:: Kyle Powderly
Nevermind, that answers my question. I don't understand why you can think this if you read the Bible, though. This is not to say that women are bad or lesser people, but it seems to me that God gave each gender specific duties and responsibilities that they are supposed to do.
>For example, in my parents' Bible study group, it really irks my folks that at the end, when there are prayer needs, the group says "Why don't the women go get the coffee ready while we men pray?" <
Boy, would they be surprised if I were one of those making coffee-I make horrible coffee!
::Boy, would they be surprised if I were one of those making coffee-I make horrible coffee!:: margie
I don't understand how cooking can be so hard for people. Coffee should be one of the easiest things in the world to make.
I can make beefaroni. From the can. Sometimes. And I can open a pretty mean can of pop too!
I can do coffee. Make the best coffee in the world.
And I make some pretty darn good toast.
They'd either love or hate my coffee... it's infamously strong. My theory is that the wimps can water it down, while it's hard to strengthen it.
I make amazing wonderful heartstopping coffee. Unfortunately, I can't appreciate it anymore; a loved one made me quit caffeine about a month ago. *pout* I still crave it. Hmmm... I can make Ramen noodles.
Heh, said loved is the best cook I know, and he's male. Alternatively, my best male friend is a horrid cook. *shrug*
Darn fine cup of coffee you got here, darn fine indeed.
Would you like some pie, Agent Cooper?
Sure will, sure will. Hey, where's the Log Lady?
>I don't understand how cooking can be so hard for people. Coffee should be one of the easiest things in the world to make. <
I don't drink coffee, so I never know how much to put in. I'm only starting to learn how to cook. My dad used to do all the cooking. Mostly now, I microwave stuff. Some of those dinners are pretty good! It's hard to figure out recipes for only 1 person.
(I turn the big 3-0 tomorrow. Gad, I feel old!)
margie, don't try to make stuff only for one person that wasn't meant to be. Make big stuff that reheats well if you like the microwave. Speaking of cooking, I wish you could taste my chocolate upside down cake or the bread I can make. Granted, I use a bread machine, but you still have to know how to make it to use the machine
I can cook reasonably well. That is, give me a recipe and ingredients, and I can probably make it and not poison anyone and maybe even have it taste good. I usually don't for two reasons. One, my dad's a much better cook than anyone else I know. Two, the microwave is much faster.
Uh oh, you guys got me started. Cooking is my favorite topic!
I love my bread machine, Jwb! My favorite bread: add a clove or two of garlic (minced or crushed in a garlic press) and a teaspoon or two of basil to a white or whole-wheat recipe, butter your slices, and voila, you have garlic bread! It smells heavenly while baking....
margie, you might consider mastering the Japanese art of the "donburi." A donburi is a good-sized bowl (a little larger than a cereal bowl). You put a serving of rice in it and cover it with some kind of liquidy topping/sauce, and you have a whole meal in a bowl. The most popular one is oyako-don. Oyako means "parent and child," in other words, chicken and eggs. It's flavored with soy sauce and sugar, basically, and includes sliced onions. Another good one is mahbo-don, which is more Chinese style. It is an easy Szechuan sauce thickened with cornstarch, plus chopped scallions, cubed tofu, fresh ginger, and ground pork. It will make a tofu fan of you, I guarantee, even if you think you hate the stuff. Any of these recipes can be found on the 'net, I'm sure, or ask me and I'll post some.
We need a Nitcentral recipe thread. Maybe Mike will be kind enough to establish one. It's not that off-topic--I don't know about the rest of you, but eating is sure a religious experience for me!
juli k, I like that but I also add a tiny bit of Italian seasoning.
Mrs. ScottN makes a mean Challah in the bread machine. Actually, she just makes the dough in it, and then she braids it by hand and cooks it in the oven.
Scott, we do that a lot as well. The little bread bombs that the machine produces aren't always the most convenient form for serving.
::bread bombs:: Matthew Patterson
I like that use of wording.
::Challah:: ScottN
What kind of bread is this?
It's the bread served on Shabbat. It's usually braided, and often yellow (either from Saffron -- if you can afford it -- or eggs, or...)
It's often topped with poppy seeds or sesame seads.
I think I've had that once or twice before. We have a recipe for it, at least.
On an unrelated note... I'm just mad about saffron... saffron's mad about me... I'm just mad about saffron... she's just mad about me... they call me mellow yellow...
I've had that. It's good bread.
I adore that bread.
I love Challah when it's done right.
I've also seen (but never had) another kind of bread that looks a lot like Challah, but with whole eggs (still in the shell) "caught" in the braid and baked with the bread. Has anyone had it, or at least have more knowledge of it than me?
But Matthew, do they do it "quite rightly"?
::It's usually braided, and often yellow (either from Saffron -- if you can afford it -- or eggs, or...):: ScottN
I didn't know Saffron was that expensive.
::I've also seen (but never had) another kind of bread that looks a lot like Challah, but with whole eggs (still in the shell) "caught" in the braid and baked with the bread. Has anyone had it, or at least have more knowledge of it than me?:: TomM
Why don't the eggs explode?
I have no idea. Perhaps the shells are pricked to allow the steam pressure to escape?
I moved the past three days discussion to the new chapter and closed this part.