Church Can't Accept (or Justify) Either

ofvraez khizdgxup vgzyjf cupjqsxh gneposmw nuvazhj jsgxvkp

Here is something your as a whole you and your church can look over and pray about. All of your church members can sign up to this free business site and make money for all the friends you sign up and it is free and many other churches has taken this opportunity.

ZenZuu is a next generation social networking platform that lets you create a profile similar to other ancient social networks, except our leading edge technology allows you to make money by signing up your friends and receive revenue sharing. Seize your opportunity to cash in on the trillion dollar internet economy of social networking and global commerce with ZenZuu. Sign-Up Now It's FREE! Tommy vu made it possible for people, all walks of life to prosper so they can help other people out around the world.
For the first time you can list your business opportunity in the ZenZuu Global Business
WWW.ZENZUU.COM/JESDREAM

Here is something your as a whole you and your church can look over and pray about. All of your church members can sign up to this free business site and make money for all the friends you sign up and it is free and many other churches has taken this opportunity.

ZenZuu is a next generation social networking platform that lets you create a profile similar to other ancient social networks, except our leading edge technology allows you to make money by signing up your friends and receive revenue sharing. Seize your opportunity to cash in on the trillion dollar internet economy of social networking and global commerce with ZenZuu. Sign-Up Now It's FREE! Tommy vu made it possible for people, all walks of life to prosper so they can help other people out around the world.
For the first time you can list your business opportunity in the ZenZuu Global Business

You still don't get it do you Pagan? And I doubt you ever will. But I'll give it one more shot any way.

Hillary isn't being called the 'b' word because she is a powerful woman. Pelosi isn't being so referenced because she isn't a powerful woman.

Hillary is being so referenced because she is thought by a good many people to be a miserable human being REGARDLESS of her gender not because of her gender.

Please take off those weird glasses you've got on everything isn't about race and sex for most of us and it shouldn't be if what you really desire in the end is less bigotry.

The reality is it's OK if people call women the 'b-word' if they get too far?

Maybe it'd be OK to call Obama the N-word if you decide it fits? No one called Colin Powell that ...publicly, at least... It'd obviously be that he deserved it if someone did.

(Never mind the swiftboating of *him* as listening to scary black preachers who don't seem to talk much different from you, Gary)

Then you're not paying attention. Is Nancy Pelosi being called the 'b'; word, no. Are any other female politicians being so referenced and if so why?

Pagan you are hearing what you want to hear rather than the reality.

Really, Gary.

You could be the worst President in recorded history and it's not really allowed to call him a *son* of a 'B-word.' in those settings. (And that's not even about being male, it's about some woman or other that supposedly-birthed him, actual mothers notwithstanding, they're fair game anyway.)

Just cause you hold the same attitude doesn't mean it's not sexism, Gary.

Come to think of it, does a 'b-word' for men of influence even *exist* in that kind of context?

The only one I can think of refers to accusations their *mother* wasn't suitably-permitted by law to bear them.

I mean, hey, Gary, let's think about this.

If men *were* treated the same as Hillary is, I'm sure you won't mind if when McCain next talks about foreign policy, I could shout, 'Mow my *lawn,* you beer-swilling sperm-emitting couch potato!'

:)

Seiously.

" Garyd:

"Paganplace why do you assume that the only reason she is being called the 'b' word is because she is a powerful woman?"

Cause I listen? And somehow I don't hear male senators being casually called similar names under similar circumstances? Cause... it's obvious?

"Could it not be that she champions ideas that are wildly unpopular with a lot of people between the mountains and else where?"

This means she's a 'b-word' why?

" Could it not be that she has a reputation for treating subordinates unkindly?"

Promulgated by whom? Why? Compared to whom? :)

"Why should we treat her more diffidently than we would a man in a similar position?"

Cause men don't generally get called 'p*ckers' in press conferences?

This seems like double talk. The immorality of arbitrarily [sic] suppressing individuals [sic] aspirations on the basis of race or sex is apparent. Does a person need to "define why liberal principals are superior" to justify freeing slaves. Certainly not if you are the slave.
This is a misunderstanding of the issues involved and the slavery analogy is inept. Because the Church does not force membership, it cannot by definition “suppress individuals' aspirations” on any basis as those individuals are free to leave. Nor is the Church itself bound by any outside standards in its internal administration.

The Catholic and, as far as I know, the Orthodox Church, are not currently involved in “suppressing” anyone. Whatever the Churches’ involvement in temporal matters in the past, they are not heavily involved in such matters today. Those worldly and political matters in which the Church is involved often deal with condemning racism and defending the dignity of women and indeed all persons in the public sphere.

As far as the internal workings of the Churches in question, Church membership is voluntary. The Church suppresses no one because it forces no one to accept membership in the Church. Since Church membership is voluntary, the assumption is that Church members accept Church teaching of their own free-will. If they do not accept those teachings, they are free to leave. One cannot be oppressed by a group one is not forced to associate with. Moreover, since the Church does not force membership (as evidenced by the fact that Bishop Spong is not a member), it is not bound by any standards but its own, and certainly not by those of Bishop Spong.

Even within the Church, defining the roles of men and women differently is not the same as “suppressing” women. The Church draws on scripture, tradition, and reason. The role of the priest and bishop was established off of the model of the twelve apostles, all of whom were men. That hardly diminishes the role of women as, according to church doctrine, the holiest human (or, I should say, complete human as doctrine teaches that Jesus was both human and divine) ever to live, the only one without original sin, was Mary, a woman. That is hardly an inferior role. It is, however, a different role.

Bishop Spong says that Benedict and other Catholic and Orthodox leaders “continue to use some version of the discredited ‘separate but equal’ argument” That isn’t quite accurate. The Church position would more accurately be described “different but equal – equal in common humanity and love from the Creator, but different in role within the Church.” (The phrase “within the Church” is essential here, as the Catholic Church does not discourage women from being doctors, lawyers, politicians, or work in any other secular careers.)

Bishop Spong need not accept the Catholic or Orthodox interpretation of Scripture, but he must at least deal with it on rational terms within its own system. If he is going to criticize an interpretation that: 1. accords with the text of scripture; 2. accords with the traditions of the Church; 3. accords with every relevant Church council; and 4. accords with the understanding of ever major Church Doctor, scholar, and theologian, he at least owes us his rational for rejecting the interpretation. To simply state that, “to call an all-male priesthood ‘an ancient sacred tradition’ is not an adequate cover to justify debilitating sexist prejudices in the Body of Christ” without dealing with the theological justifications for or against such a position is an intellectual cop-out.

Also puzzling is Spong’s claim that, “In this election the nation has a chance to exorcise both demons [sexism and racism.]” At least as related to the Church, it is difficult to see the relevance of the upcoming elections. Unless Bishop Spong knows something that most of us don’t, neither God nor either Church mentioned has officially endorsed a candidate or party, and those candidates have no control or long term relevance to the doctrines and practices of two 2,000 year old religious bodies.

As an Episcopal Bishop, Bishop Spong carries no special moral authority for Catholics, the Catholic Magisterium, or Orthodox Christians. He is no more recognized as a legitimate priest, bishop, or religious authority in those Churches than any random person off the street. His only claim – the only way he can and should criticize those traditions – is to rationally criticize either the Catholic and Orthodox traditions as a whole, or to criticize them using their own systems and standards of judgment. Instead, he simply applies a few liberal platitudes to bodies of thought that pre-date liberalism by 1600 years.

This seems like double talk. The immorality of arbitrarily [sic] suppressing individuals [sic] aspirations on the basis of race or sex is apparent. Does a person need to "define why liberal principals are superior" to justify freeing slaves. Certainly not if you are the slave.
This is a misunderstanding of the issues involved and the slavery analogy is inept. Because the Church does not force membership, it cannot by definition “suppress individuals' aspirations” on any basis as those individuals are free to leave. Nor is the Church itself bound by any outside standards in its internal administration.

The Catholic and, as far as I know, the Orthodox Church, are not currently involved in “suppressing” anyone. Whatever the Churches’ involvement in temporal matters in the past, they are not heavily involved in such matters today. Those worldly and political matters in which the Church is involved often deal with condemning racism and defending the dignity of women and indeed all persons in the public sphere.

As far as the internal workings of the Churches in question, Church membership is voluntary. The Church suppresses no one because it forces no one to accept membership in the Church. Since Church membership is voluntary, the assumption is that Church members accept Church teaching of their own free-will. If they do not accept those teachings, they are free to leave. One cannot be oppressed by a group one is not forced to associate with. Moreover, since the Church does not force membership (as evidenced by the fact that Bishop Spong is not a member), it is not bound by any standards but its own, and certainly not by those of Bishop Spong.

Even within the Church, defining the roles of men and women differently is not the same as “suppressing” women. The Church draws on scripture, tradition, and reason. The role of the priest and bishop was established off of the model of the twelve apostles, all of whom were men. That hardly diminishes the role of women as, according to church doctrine, the holiest human (or, I should say, complete human as doctrine teaches that Jesus was both human and divine) ever to live, the only one without original sin, was Mary, a woman. That is hardly an inferior role. It is, however, a different role.

Bishop Spong says that Benedict and other Catholic and Orthodox leaders “continue to use some version of the discredited ‘separate but equal’ argument” That isn’t quite accurate. The Church position would more accurately be described “different but equal – equal in common humanity and love from the Creator, but different in role within the Church.” (The phrase “within the Church” is essential here, as the Catholic Church does not discourage women from being doctors, lawyers, politicians, or work in any other secular careers.)

Bishop Spong need not accept the Catholic or Orthodox interpretation of Scripture, but he must at least deal with it on rational terms within its own system. If he is going to criticize an interpretation that: 1. accords with the text of scripture; 2. accords with the traditions of the Church; 3. accords with every relevant Church council; and 4. accords with the understanding of ever major Church Doctor, scholar, and theologian, he at least owes us his rational for rejecting the interpretation. To simply state that, “to call an all-male priesthood ‘an ancient sacred tradition’ is not an adequate cover to justify debilitating sexist prejudices in the Body of Christ” without dealing with the theological justifications for or against such a position is an intellectual cop-out.

Also puzzling is Spong’s claim that, “In this election the nation has a chance to exorcise both demons [sexism and racism.]” At least as related to the Church, it is difficult to see the relevance of the upcoming elections. Unless Bishop Spong knows something that most of us don’t, neither God nor either Church mentioned has officially endorsed a candidate or party, and those candidates have no control or long term relevance to the doctrines and practices of two 2,000 year old religious bodies.

As an Episcopal Bishop, Bishop Spong carries no special moral authority for Catholics, the Catholic Magisterium, or Orthodox Christians. He is no more recognized as a legitimate priest, bishop, or religious authority in those Churches than any random person off the street. His only claim – the only way he can and should criticize those traditions – is to rationally criticize either the Catholic and Orthodox traditions as a whole, or to criticize them using their own systems and standards of judgment. Instead, he simply applies a few liberal platitudes to bodies of thought that pre-date liberalism by 1600 years.

Paganplace why do you assume that the only reason she is being called the 'b' word is because she is a powerful woman? Could it not be that she champions ideas that are wildly unpopular with a lot of people between the mountains and else where? Could it not be that she has a reputation for treating subordinates unkindly? Why should we treat her more diffidently than we would a man in a similar position?

Please *what?*

Christian, I presume?

How bout them ankles. You want government, or you want celebrity makeovers?

I mean, seriously, Gaby. You want to *observe* *thick ankles,* look at my grandmother's, who worked on her feet serving people with dumb ideas like that *donuts and coffee* most of her life with arthritis probably worse than mine, for less pay than we even now consider acceptable for a teen boy to bag groceries for, then tell me what *observations* the multibillion dollar networks ought to be making about a Senator and Presidential candidate, before I cancel the cable.

Gods.

" Gaby:

"Carl Bernstein on a national news cable television channel commented on how thick Senator Clinton’s ankles were! No one rebuked him. That is sexism."

That's not sexism, that's an oberservation."

Of *what?*

"Carl Bernstein on a national news cable television channel commented on how thick Senator Clinton’s ankles were! No one rebuked him. That is sexism."

That's not sexism, that's an oberservation.

"A nationally syndicated talk show host asked whether or not Chelsea Clinton’s rear end would be as big as her mother’s. That is sexism. Illustrations could go on and on."

That's not sexism either, that's speculation.

"To criticize Catholicism or Orthodoxy, Bishop Shelby should take one of two approaches:

If he wishes to argue from a modern liberal position, he must make the argument that his entire system or tradition of thought, from its foundation, is superior to the rival traditions. One cannot use liberal principles to undermine Catholic doctrine unless one can first define why those principles are superior in themselves to the doctrine they contradict."

This seems like double talk. The immorality of abitrarily suppressing individuals aspirations on the basis of race or sex is apparent. Does a person need to "define why liberal principals are superior" to justify freeing slaves. Certainly not if you are the slave.

"It was a Woman referred to Hillary as the 'b' word so is she a sexist?"

It happens. If the culture encourages and rewards even women for such dismissals and abuse of prominent women with every right to respect, do you really think sexism isn't in play?

"What is more demeaning to be told you can succeed on your own or to be told that you can't possibly succeed without the help of the government?"

To be told it's your own fault for being a woman if you succeed or fail despite a very tilted playing field, therefore the government should support the 'traditional values' of misogyny and sexism instead of adhering to the ideals we're all created equal?

And how many women Imans are there in the world???

So Mr. Spong sexism is whatever you deem it to be and your view of racism is likely rather similar.

It was a Woman referred to Hillary as the 'b' word so is she a sexist?

What is more demeaning to be told you can succeed on your own or to be told that you can't possibly succeed without the help of the government?

“The two largest Christian Churches in the world, the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox tradition, still refuse to ordain women and many Evangelical Christians are publicly negative toward the move to give women equality in all areas of life…Sexism is still socially acceptable in many areas, still justified by many religious voices from Benedict XVI and Pat Robertson.”

Bishop Shelby’s comments are disappointing and intellectually void. He appears to judge Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox positions from a modern liberal moral tradition. Those particular faiths, however, have their own complex belief systems and rich philosophical / theological traditions. Given the foundations of those systems and traditions, their specific beliefs are on their face fully logical. The result, as Alsdair MacIntyre has pointed out in other context, is that we speak around issues, both positions being fully rational within their own greater philosophical traditions.

To criticize Catholicism or Orthodoxy, Bishop Shelby should take one of two approaches:

If he wishes to argue from a modern liberal position, he must make the argument that his entire system or tradition of thought, from its foundation, is superior to the rival traditions. One cannot use liberal principles to undermine Catholic doctrine unless one can first define why those principles are superior in themselves to the doctrine they contradict.

The other option is to argue against current Catholic or Orthodox positions from within the traditions. Taking this approach, Bishop Shelby’s burden would be to argue that specific Catholic or Orthodox scripture, doctrine, tradition, or long accepted philosophy or theology contradicts current Church practices towards women.

What is invalid is to assume that the standards of one tradition holder greater truth than those of another without justification, then to use those standards to attack the standards of another tradition. One would expect clearer theological and philosophical argumentation from a Bishop. The lack of clarity turns this well-intentioned article into a cheap hack piece attacking two great, rich, and ancient bodies of faith and thought.