Theology IV

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Don't see why it matters if there was a pre-existent tradition. As someone on an Anglican website said about this:

"If it predicts the Messiah will raise after three days, then it proves the whole thing was made up beforehand.

If it predicts something else, then it proves there is no such thing as true prophecy.

Either way, Jesus didn't exist."

[Nurvingiel]

^ That strikes me as a bit unfair. In that poster's mind, either way pre-determination is wrong. That's hardly the way to approach an argument. I don't believe in pre-determination either, but sheesh.

EDIT: Wait, is that an Anglican saying that Jesus didn't exist? Might I offer you Communion in the form of a clue?

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Not quite theology, but related news.

You know, there is are a lot of conservative Anglicans that would probably be happier as Catholics. Then, they could continue to not ordain women bishops and also not approve of active homosexuality.

Though I think a massive split in the Anglican church would be awful, at least we could all get on with our lives. Right now it seems like all we do is argue about this, when we should be doing other, more important things like outreach and engaging young people in the Church.

Of course, conservative women priests would face a conundrum: join a conservative diocese like the Southern Cone (where they also do not allow women priests), join Catholicism, or stay in the liberal Anglican church where you can bless a gay marriage if you want? This is just speculative though. I don't actually know of this being a problem.

Right now, women bishops and gay tolerance are the biggest issues for our church.

The idea that women shouldn't be priests or bishops makes me profoundly angry, but I try to be nice. The idea is so sexist that it offends me to the core. I feel very strongly about equality: I won't even get my hair cut at a salon that has different prices for men and women.

Due to my tendency to anger on this subject, I've never actually asked anyone why they don't think women should be bishops. I read in a newspaper (so this is distinctly unreliable) that one reason is that there is no precedent for women bishops as Jesus had no women Disciples.

If anyone can offer illumination, I promise to be the very soul of civility.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Hector? Lief? Anyone want to take this?

Anyway, here's more religion news.

[Nurvingiel]

Wasn't that in response to this insane story?

The blogger you quoted is absolutely raving. He also uses "mental illness" as an insult.

But this takes the cake:

He ought to be disciplined, even fired, immediately by the University of Minnesota.

Hi there wrongful dismissal lawsuit!

I don't think people should purposefully disrespect each others' religions, but firing him over this would be wrong.

[The last sane person]

All this fuss ... because he kept a cookie?

Okay, this is just plain stupid. I get the whole symbolism thing to some degree (Without it religion is pointless)... But it's a cookie he stuffed in his mouth. WTF does it matter what he does with it? He wanted to show it to his friend. Who are all these grabby people who kept waylaying him? And what's more, I don't care what religion you are, but if yer getting publicly funded, you sure as hell shouldnt be so fussy on the public dime.

Fund your own self thank you very much.

It's a cookie. It's kinda sad, but I laughed so hard at the end with the whole 'God will punish us if we don't return the cookie! Quick! We must pray!' Hehehe he is hold a cookie "Hostage" Oh this is great.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Actually, it was because of Bill Donohue's response to it. That arrogant, self-righteous, belligerent twat is always just looking to pick a fight, and now he got one with consequences he would never have expected. I know that I'm going to write to Bill Donohue and make it very clear that it's because of his puffed-up and aggressive attitudes that this whole thing happened. If he's a decent Catholic, instead of just a complacent conservative who uses Catholicism as a background for his own self-assurance (like so many frickin' people are), he'll care about that.

Originally Posted by The last sane person

All this fuss ... because he kept a cookie?

Okay, this is just plain stupid. I get the whole symbolism thing to some degree (Without it religion is pointless)... But it's a cookie he stuffed in his mouth. WTF does it matter what he does with it? He wanted to show it to his friend. Who are all these grabby people who kept waylaying him? And what's more, I don't care what religion you are, but if yer getting publicly funded, you sure as hell shouldnt be so fussy on the public dime.

Fund your own self thank you very much.

It's a cookie. It's kinda sad, but I laughed so hard at the end with the whole 'God will punish us if we don't return the cookie! Quick! We must pray!' Hehehe he is hold a cookie "Hostage" Oh this is great.

Try to keep in mind, Catholics don't believe in symbolism. We believe that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. To a Catholic, he didn't take a symbol with him, he took our God. It's not some dull Protestant memorialist concept. Catholics believe in the Eucharist as a mystic sacrifice, a consecration, God becoming bread and offering himself under that aspect to us for our salvation. And the boy just had a temper tantrum and walked out with him. That is just wrong.

Now, that said, I think a lot of people did over-react. People threw words like desecration a lot, which as far as I can tell doesn't bear on this situation. What the college student did was wrong, but people got too hysterical about it.

But since you don't object at all to the University of Minnesota professors seething hatred of Catholicism, and out and out statements that he will publically "with much pomp and circumstance" desecrate the single most sacred object in the Catholic religion, I take it you think there is nothing objectionable to him wilfully, maliciously, and intentionally performing the action which is the single most offensive and blasphemous , for NO REASON other than to wilfully, maliciously, and intentionally perform the single , you find no problem with that. Nope; desecration, absolute mean-spirited spite, and incredible insult all for no reason other than their own sake is all perfectly okay. It's just getting offended at some undergrad brat's pouting theft of your God that's problematic.

I'm surprised at you, though, Nurv. Being a Christian, I would think this would mean more to you than a mild and empty "I don't think people should purposefully disrespect each others' religions". I would think it would matter to you the absolute disrespect for the Christian faith exhibited here. I would think you would object more to this man's absolute hatred, contempt, and intentional baiting of Christians than to people getting mad about it. I seem to recall you being a good deal more upset about the Danish cartoons than a lip service "I don't think people should purposely disrespect each others' religions".

If anyone's interested, here's the guy's blog. There should be juicy pictures of Eucharistic desecration tomorrow.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Hector? Lief? Anyone want to take this?

Well . . . *Strangles.* I'm in Washington DC for a month, presently with very limited Internet access, and very busy. Having some fun, though I haven't gotten to go sight-seeing yet. I'm pretty determined not to get embroiled in online debates while I'm here- I've got enough on my plate already with my liberal roommates.

I'll gasp out a quick response though, for you or Hector to embroider on if you like.

Nurvingiel, men and women are not absolutely psychologically the same. They have different kinds of bodies, and different kinds of minds as well, better suited to different functions (speaking in broad, general strokes, here- there are exceptions from normal gender roles among both men and women). This is pretty common knowledge among psychologists. While social upbringing certainly plays a role, so does biology. Leadership has been a male trait throughout the history of our species, it is a genetically male trait in almost all our primates, and this is only changing in the most modern of the last few modern centuries due to massive social pressure. Which has not, arguably, led to good results for worldwide countries that accept this liberal influence, but I won't go there in this thread . . .

The reason I got into the above biological differences between men and women's minds is that it made a difference to leaders of the Church. However, these are actually physical manifestations of a deeper spiritual principle.

In the early days of the Church, spiritual typology was very dominant, not only within the Scripture, but in events and people and places all over the world. The Church taught that people should absolutely not rebel. Masters are a type of Christ. To the Church, kings are a type of Christ to their subjects, so subjects cannot rebel except to the extent that the kings require them to deviate from the laws of God. To the Church, slaveowners were types of Christ too, so slaves should not rebel against their masters. Jesus was the greatest role model for us of this submission. Even though by rights he could have justly massacred the Jews who were seeking his death and taken his rightful place as King of Israel by force, he instead submitted to the authorities of his time even to the point of accepting death on the cross.

Children, Christians taught, should similarly submit to their parents, and wives to their husbands, women to men (generally not being in command of them, in the writings of St. Paul and other Early Church Fathers), slaves to masters, subjects to monarchs, parishioners to clergy (especially the bishop), etc. Submission to authority is a scriptural Christian virtue that exists throughout the Old Testament and New Testament and valued throughout Church history. It is diametrically opposed to the emphasis on the value of distrust of authority, rebellion, freedom and individual rights that are emphasized and taught as good things in modern culture.

This, to the Church, was a type of what exists in the Heavenly Kingdom, and by demonstrating loyalty to representatives of Christ here on Earth, we show loyalty to Christ in Heaven. Heaven is a monarchy. There is submission to God who is the source of all virtue and all that is right. Paul taught that Christ submits to the Father, man to Christ and woman to man. This doesn't mean that women are in some way less valuable. That would be tantamount to saying that because Christ submits to the Father, he is less valuable than the Father. It's ridiculous. But submission to godly authority exists in Heaven, and Jesus taught us all to pray, "Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven." Thus Christ's kingdom on Earth falls into line with the spiritual example set in Heaven, obeying the order of authority that Christ instituted on Earth.

Where this authority breaks down, we also have seen that immorality, heresy and a vast variety of dangerous behaviors proliferate. Breakdown in the authority of secular rulers has led to bloodthirsty rebellions all over the modern world, breakdown in spiritual authority (such as the bishops) has led to the breakdown of spiritual unity to the truth, and the feminist movement for equality between men and women has been a big push toward the breakdown of the family unit. The Spiritual Kingdom on Earth, the Secular Kingdom on Earth and the miniature Family Kingdom on Earth have broken down as a result of their rejection, and massive pain and devastation have been wreaked on every level of these three frames of existence as a consequence. Peace, love and joy, on the other hand, are the results of stable families, stable societies, and most importantly of all, stable unity to the truth in Christ (the spiritual kingdom).

In Scripture, Church Tradition from the earliest days of the Church up to now, and in human experience across the pages of our history books, we can see how unity to the type of God's Kingdom in Heaven has led to decreased pain and separation from it has led to increased pain. That is because God's Kingdom works, and inventing our own kingdoms, we can't do a better job than Christ did with his.

A bishop is a man at least partly because his maleness makes him more specifically a type of Christ in Christian symbolism, and his office is to be Christ to his parishioners and even to the priests. Christ was a "Priest of priests," and so were his twelve male disciples (all men, all bishops), and so are bishops today. Christ also came as a man to Earth because men are a specific type of Christ in their households.

Women are not specifically types of Christ. They are types of the Bride of Christ, the Church, Christ's "helpmate" (as his disciples were His helpmates, as all His Church exists to do His will). Their femininity and the joy of their rightful relationship to their husbands is splendidly portrayed in the Song of Songs. A bride is a woman, and even so the Church is a woman to Christ. The Church relies on His leadership, his power to protect her, His guidance. She manages His household, the world, and expresses His love for His children, which actually come into being through her (as in pregnancy). Christ provides the Spirit that changes a heart, like a sperm, and the Church's evangelization (as a woman's pregnancy) produces a new believer. The Church, as a woman, submits to her Husband and He died for her. He was absolutely in love with her, and still is, even as Paul specifically commands men, "Husbands, love your wives," and further orders men to love them even to the point of laying down their lives for them, just as, he adds, Christ laid his life down for the Church.

Christ's relationship with the Church and his monarchial kingdom in Heaven is what the lives of his followers flow into. We become one with his Kingdom while still alive on Earth, our lives falling into parallel with Christ's eternal life in Heaven, becoming fused with His life so that His will dominates ours and fills our lives. When this happens, when we become so united with His will, we obey. Christians of the Early Church were willing to be martyred in the arena rather than rise up in rebellion because they loved Christ and were fused with his gentle, gracious submission to the authorities God had established. Slaves in the Early Church sometimes returned to their earthly masters -- they at least submitted, most of the time -- because they loved Christ and submitted as Christ submitted. Women up to the modern era submitted to their husbands out of love for Christ. Priests submitted to bishops. Women did not claim authority over men. Children submitted to parents. These virtues overflowed into the lives of believers as rich blessings, granting stability and purity to kingdoms, households and the Church.

Of course, there are exceptions where people broke the rules, refused to obey, and consequently suffered spiritual consequences and became seeds of anarchy. The modern era truly is anarchic, in many ways. It has in a vast variety of ways ridded itself of the old model, and it is working as fast as it can to rid itself of resemblence to God's Kingdom in Heaven.

Do with this post what you will . I know we won't see eye to eye on this, Nurvi, but this is what the Scripture says, the Tradition of the Church says, and what their stance has historically been. They haven't changed their position on clergy or bishops within the Church, the one place where their power remains intact (despite the efforts of divisive Catholics to change Church practice), though some Church leaders have offered statements that are increasingly accepting of evil changes in the secular world that have assaulted the image of Christ's Kingdom on Earth.

There's probably more to it than that which I've pointed out so far. We follow the teachings of Christ, and he taught that bishops should be male, as is indicated both by his choice of disciples and the practice of the Early Church. And there are sound spiritual, typological reasons for this, since bishops are to be Priests for priests, even as Christ is Priest for his entire Body, who are all spiritual priests (according to the Book of Hebrews).

I'm done with this now . And it wasn't a short response after all! I'll probably end up replying to your reply too . Knowing me . . . Oh well, maybe I'll avoid it. I don't want to get sucked into debates while in DC.

Don't let that stop any replies from Hector or Gwaimir, elaboration on what I left out, and from Nurvingiel or anyone else. I'll just try to keep my mouth shuttish. I mean shut.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Hi there wrongful dismissal lawsuit!

I don't think people should purposefully disrespect each others' religions, but firing him over this would be wrong.

Don't you think a person should be fired who publicly advertises, asking that someone sell him a living human being for him to desecrate and humiliate on film? YES Anyone who isn't a sick pervert would say yes.

He has sought the opportunity to do this to Christ Himself. The Eucharist is Jesus Christ. Therefore yes, the man definitely deserves to be fired.

At the very least.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

At the most. No death threats.

[Lief Erikson]

I'm not threatening anyone. It's the government's role to punish criminal acts, not mine and not any other civilian's. If the government won't fulfill its duty to preserve justice, it's not my role to do its job for it. The government is Christ's representative on Earth to do His will on secular matters. Therefore it's my responsibility to submit to it. If the government fails to preserve justice, it fails before God, not Lief.

[The last sane person]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

But since you don't object at all to the University of Minnesota professors seething hatred of Catholicism, and out and out statements that he will publically "with much pomp and circumstance" desecrate the single most sacred object in the Catholic religion, I take it you think there is nothing objectionable to him wilfully, maliciously, and intentionally performing the action which is the single most offensive and blasphemous , for NO REASON other than to wilfully, maliciously, and intentionally perform the single , you find no problem with that. Nope; desecration, absolute mean-spirited spite, and incredible insult all for no reason other than their own sake is all perfectly okay. It's just getting offended at some undergrad brat's pouting theft of your God that's problematic.

When did I say that? I only read about the cookie abduction; I didn't go to the other link. Personally, I'm not really one for the catholic religion, but I'll tolerate it like I do every other religion. I'm not one for spouting seething hate though. So, what did this other fellow do?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

But is the Eucharist sacred to everyone because it's sacred to some?

I know people who worship trees...is it a matter of religious tolerance so now no one makes a pencil out of one?

It looks like a tempest in a teapot to me, but we're low church from waaaaaay back.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

He posted an advertisement on his blog, asking for people to send or bring consecrated hosts to him, in order that he might "treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web". Someone sent him the hosts, and apparently a Koran, as well, and today he wrote, "Yes, the sad little cracker has met its undignified end, so stop pestering me. The cracker, the koran, and another surprise entry have been violated and are gone."

So, he deliberately desecrated a consecrated Host (to Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, and most Anglicans the Body of Christ), and a Koran (the Word of God to Muslims), along with a third unidentified object, presumably of religious significance.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

He posted an advertisement on his blog, asking for people to send or bring consecrated hosts to him, in order that he might "treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web". Someone sent him the hosts, and apparently a Koran, as well, and today he wrote, "Yes, the sad little cracker has met its undignified end, so stop pestering me. The cracker, the koran, and another surprise entry have been violated and are gone."

So, he deliberately desecrated a consecrated Host (to Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, and most Anglicans the Body of Christ), and a Koran (the Word of God to Muslims), along with a third unidentified object, presumably of religious significance.

Right, which makes him a "slang term for men's private parts" of the first water. I just can't be convinced God did anything but laugh.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Don't you think a person should be fired who publicly advertises, asking that someone sell him a living human being for him to desecrate and humiliate on film? YES Anyone who isn't a sick pervert would say yes.

He has sought the opportunity to do this to Christ Himself. The Eucharist is Jesus Christ. Therefore yes, the man definitely deserves to be fired.

At the very least.

No. It's a cracker.

You may believe that it's a human being, just as a Muslim may believe that this Quran printed on paper is the one that co-exists eternally with God, or a Hindu may believe that a cow is sacred, or I may believe that this can of sardines is my late Aunt Mary.

But wafers are wafers, books are books, cows are bovines and sardines is fish.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

But wafers are wafers, books are books, cows are bovines and sardines is fish.

Sardines am fish.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

In related news, according to The Economist, at a June meeting of the Cordoba Initiative in June in Kuala Lumpur, "speaker after speaker called for some formal, internationally agreed restriction on the defamation of religion. "I can never accept that freedom of speech is morally right when it offends my faith," said Prince Turki al-Faisal, a senior Saudi official (and former head of his country's intelligence service). Several participants said there should be a legal regimes to uphold an article in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (a UN treaty that came into force in 1976) which states that "any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law."
Put like that, the proposition sounds reasonable. But it can easily turn into a censor's charter. In Britian, for example, a new law outlawing "religious hatred" would have made it impossible-at least in its very early version- to express strong disagreement with the tenets of any faith."

Cracker police, here we come.

[Tessar]

I'll be perfectly honest: I think he's a horrible person for wanting to do this. I think it's incredibly rude, cruel, and shows an utter disrespect for other people's beliefs. I wish there were something to prevent it, but then you get into all kinds of rules that have no end and things end up not being better, but being worse if you try to enforce religious respect.

However there is nothing I can do about him except pray for him, which I do.


And other than that? If he has punishment coming, I'm content to let God handle that, because if God decides it.... then I can promise he'll get something much worse than losing his job.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Actually, it was because of Bill Donohue's response to it. That arrogant, self-righteous, belligerent twat is always just looking to pick a fight, and now he got one with consequences he would never have expected. I know that I'm going to write to Bill Donohue and make it very clear that it's because of his puffed-up and aggressive attitudes that this whole thing happened. If he's a decent Catholic, instead of just a complacent conservative who uses Catholicism as a background for his own self-assurance (like so many frickin' people are), he'll care about that.

Nice Gwaimir. If you want a good laugh on Donohue’s behalf check out South Park's "Fantastic Easter Special" episode where Donohue is pilloried for thinking hes above the pope and above god in an absolutely hysterical mockery of The Da Vinci Code (Hare Club For Men ).

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Cracker police, here we come.

Oh weve had these for generations in the south already. *runs*

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Tessar

I'll be perfectly honest: I think he's a horrible person for wanting to do this. I think it's incredibly rude, cruel, and shows an utter disrespect for other people's beliefs. I wish there were something to prevent it, but then you get into all kinds of rules that have no end and things end up not being better, but being worse if you try to enforce religious respect.

However there is nothing I can do about him except pray for him, which I do.


And other than that? If he has punishment coming, I'm content to let God handle that, because if God decides it.... then I can promise he'll get something much worse than losing his job.

You can also write to Bill Donohue, make it clear that we know this is a response to his shenanigans, and tell him that if he doesn't tone it down, someone else will probably do something similar one of these days.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Nice Gwaimir. If you want a good laugh on Donohue’s behalf check out South Park's "Fantastic Easter Special" episode where Donohue is pilloried for thinking hes above the pope and above god in an absolutely hysterical mockery of The Da Vinci Code (Hare Club For Men ).

I'm too pissed at Donohue to want a laugh at him.

Oh weve had these for generations in the south already. *runs*

Oh, boooo...