|
My Imaginary GF posted:Banning women from priesthood isn't about women being unequal to men; its about accumulating capital and property under a church hierarchy. Greed>hate is usually a good rule when analyzing doctrinal policy development. You're also ignoring a hell of a lot of other context. Firstly, one of the problems the early Jesus Movement, pre-Council of Nicea, had was that it kinda wanted to avoid causing trouble and scandal where it could, and it popped up in places with highly patriarchal cultures, meaning that when Paul was picking where to pick his battles when spreading and formalizing doctrine, he decided that one of the places not to cause trouble was traditionalist ideas of gender roles. There's also the fact that he, himself, was trained as a Pharisee religious scholar, and thus had been brought up in very similar roles, too. It is true that, specifically in the Catholic context the church has struggled with trying to keep the position of priest and especially of bishop from being inheritable, hence the Latrian Council in the 12th century introducing the idea of priestly celibacy and banning married priests, though even that isn't uniform, as Eastern Rite Catholics, who come from a failed reconciliation with the Orthodox church, are still permitted to marry under their modified version of canon law so long as they acknowledge the primacy of Rome. Similarly, converting Anglican ministers who are already married are permitted to stay in that ministry, should they become a catholic priest. The thing is, again, particularly in a Catholic context, these things then become tradition and reams of theology will be written to justify them and codify them as tradition. Banning women, specifically, from the priesthood is not really about position and property; that's what banning married priests is about. Banning women from the priesthood is more a matter of the surrounding gender norms from the cultures that formed Christianity/Catholicism and would go on to continue supporting it transferring over to the religion, particularly when it would eventually go on to be the state religion of first Rome, then much of Europe and the Eastern Roman Empire. Then, after that, theological justifications are authored and tradition sets in and it becomes a very difficult thing to change, with time. You're correctly identifying one of the concerns of the church Hierarchy, it's true, but it doesn't really apply in this case.
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 11:22 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:Setting that aside, the Bible was written by a multitude of authors, with a multitude of passages whose meanings are almost totally obscured, and a great many metaphors and figures of speech that are almost completely unfamiliar. Is it at all surprising that people argue about what is actually meant? Consider that Jesus only explains a few of his parables. Are we to interpret the parable of the great banquet as a specific rebuke of his disciples, or of the Pharisees, or as a general thing? If it is general, what is it all about? The Gospel of Thomas tells it as being against worldliness, but it lacks the second half, which is the more obscure. This is another excellent point to remember. The bible is the collection of many authors' work over thousands of years, many of whom directly disagreed with one another. In my personal thinking, I've always preferred to think of it as revelation reflected through an imperfect human lens. Even if the revelation is divine, if it's coming through a human, it's going to reflect their biases, their worries, their cultural surroundings, their upbringing, and their anxieties.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
Medieval Medic posted:Why not "she"? Does god have a penis? God does not officially have a gender, being beyond such things. Both he or she are technically inaccurate.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
Stottie Kyek posted:I thought there were a bunch of gods but people in Abrahamic religions are only supposed to worship the God of Abraham (or YHWH or Allah just God, or whatever people call it). There's a lot of stories in the Bible about various prophets' interactions with followers of Baal, Marduk or Asheroth. It doesn't necessarily mean that these gods don't exist, just that the Abrahamic God is the best one. Henotheism, or the worship of one God above all others, developed before Judaic monotheism, yes. You see it in many of Yahweh's contendings with the Gods of other peoples in the earlier books of the Old Testament, just how he fucks up Dagon in Dagon's temple after the Ark of the Covenant is captured by the Philistines. The idea of God as the one true God rather than the best God ever comes mostly as a result of theological innovations from the Babylonian Exile, as a way to explain how Yahweh was not actually defeated by Marduk (Common near eastern theological explanation for losing a war was that your Gods also did battle and the enemy God defeated yours, much as his or her people beat yours on earth) but had rather used the Babylonians as the instrument of his wrath for the sins of Judah.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2014 03:05
|
|