Can You go to Heaven if Your Preacher is a Woman
I've never understood why some branches of Christianity are absolute in their prohibition against women pastors and priests. The only explanation I have ever heard is that Jesus allegedly had only male disciples. We know no one has ever testified he/she saw the Jesus disciples, no one has ever testified they even saw a Jesus. The whole tale is from people who wrote after Jesus was dead. So, the notion that there was a Jesus and that he had only men as disciples is not verified by any first person surviving writing.
The Christian narrative has been the faith is run by men. While some denominations had women as clergy as early as the 1800's men have successfully kept them in their proper place in many other places. Two large ones that prohibit women clergy is Catholicism and the largest Protestant denomination, Southern Baptists.
To commemorate Women's History Month, a recent article listed other well known denominations that have women pastors. They are the United Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ (Christian Churches), Assemblies of God, Methodist, Presbyterian, Evangelical Lutheran Church of the U.S., and the Episcopal Church. Reader may know Methodists are the second largest Protestant Denomination after Southern Baptist (Methodists are about to split into smaller sub denominations) and Assemblies of God are a large Pentecostal denomination. Assemblies of God claims at least 1/4th of their preachers are women.
The link article was followed by lively comments. One commenter insisted most of the women pastors are lesbians. Lots of scripture is quoted that has little or nothing to do with female pastors. Other commenters insisted women pastors fall into the same category of evil as do gay pastors.
Some comments have to do with the Original Sin. Eve was the one who persuaded Adam to eat the apple God had instructed them not to eat. Also she was naked. It was probably more evil than Adam being naked. They covered themselves with leaves as soon as they learned being naked was sin but by then God has seen them.
Eve being so sinful make me wonder if some denominations think those in the pews will be sinful if the listen to a women preacher. The faith can be entertaining.
Jon,
ReplyDeleteThe discussion in the comment section of the linked article confirmed for me once again that my atheism is morally justified.
hi Ardy, the "amateur" philosopher is back. providing an opportunity for another good sneer. that said, I can't help but wonder what you mean when you state that your atheism is "morally justified". don't you really mean intellectually justified? or are we to believe that atheists have a "higher" morality than we poor unenlightened dolts that you seem to think that we are? if so, precisely what is that higher morality? Nietzsche's ubermensch perhaps? or perhaps some kind of super post-human being? and in what way is your higher morality "higher" than the classical morality that, it seems, you have dismissed out of hand? I await your response.
Deletetsm "hi Ardy"
DeleteArdy can reply if he chooses to do so. I'll jump in because I mentioned the comments about women from the link. Some Christian posters called female pastors lesbians. There is nothing wrong with a lesbian pastor. In that way atheists or liberal Christians are morally superior to conservative Christians. The Bible refers to wives as property. Atheism has no such declaration. In that way, as well, atheism is superior to Christianity or at least equal in moral standards. As I said in a previous comment, "If someone thinks he is going to find higher moral values in Christianity, good luck."
PS I'll add to that. It is laughable for anyone to think the average Christian has a higher moral standard than the average atheist. Further, it is laughable to conclude Christianity in its entirety holds a higher moral standard than atheism in its entirety. Do we want to run through our usual exchange where you point to Hitler and Communist Russia and I reply to the butchering by Christians during the Crusades? Please do not waste our space here with your superior amateur philosophy from Christian sources.
Deleteoh dear, the old Crusade canard once again. and Stalin and Hitler. I didn't mention them in my comment: maybe you are just a bit sensitive on that point? anyway here's a little tidbit that speaks to the question of higher moral standards. it's from After Virtue: "....that the language- and therefore the practice to some larger degree -- of morality today is in a state of grave disorder. That disorder arises from the prevailing cultural power of an idiom in which ill assorted conceptual fragments from various parts of our past are deployed together in public and private debates which are notable chiefly for the unsettled character of the controversies thus carried on and the apparent arbitrariness of each of the contending parties....". I wonder what this quote has to say to the moral ramblings of Jon and his partner Ardy? something to think about. and if you would like me to elaborate I would be more than happy to oblige. have a good evening.
Deletetsm "that the language and therefore the practice to some larger degree--of morality today is in a state of grave disorder. That disorder arises from the prevailing cultural power of an idiom in which ill assorted conceptual fragments from various parts of our past are deployed together in public and private debates..unsettled controversies thus carried on the apparent arbitrariness of each of the contending parties."
DeleteI wonder what this quote has to say about the moral ramblings of tsm.
It is folly to debate the morale superiority of one point of view over another, as the concept of morality tends to lie in the eye of the beholder.
Delete"tends to lie in the eye of the beholder"? maybe you need to think through the implications of that assertion. that said, it appears to be the view du jour of Jon et al. anyway, lots of luck with moral relativism when evil turns on you.
Delete"It is folly to debate the morale superiority....."
DeleteGood morale can be so important. It is not folly at all to strive for superior morale. Low morale can be a downer.
@tsm: nice attempt to use a scare tactics rather than an actual strategy for your rebuttal. It almost worked.
Delete@Henry: I deserved that.
Ardy B "...the comment section.."
ReplyDeleteI agree. If someone thinks he is going to find higher moral values in Christianity, good luck.
Hi Jon
DeleteWith which or who's moral values do you compare yours?
Etienne "With which or who's moral values do you compare yours?"
DeleteThey come from centuries of human experience. Humans have learned they must behave in certain ways in order the humans to survive. To behave outside those rails is to place humans at risk of extinction. That is why certain customs and practices were followed hundreds of thousands of years before Christianity but Christians claimed they originated them. Before Christianity did everyone steal from everyone else, kill everyone else. That the Ten Commandments "came from God" is funny.
"The discussion in the comment section of the linked article confirmed for me once again that my atheism is morally justified."
ReplyDeleteOnce again, the atheists confirm their external locus of control is dependent on third parties they do not even know, certainly a shaky basis for their proclaimed higher moral superiority.
Henry, March 8, 2021 at 8:42 PM.
Delete“Once again, the atheists confirm their external locus of control is dependent on third parties they do not even know, certainly a shaky basis for their proclaimed higher moral superiority.”
On the contrary Henry I’m confirming an internal locus of control and proclaim an independent moral grounding, not superiority. There may very well be a moral dimension beyond the theist/atheist dichotomy. When I find time and am so inclined, searching for an alternate moral dimension is an intellectual exercise. They say we old folks must exercise the gray matter to maintain neuroplasticity. Pinochle helps too.
"....I’m confirming an internal locus of control...."
DeleteRighhhht. Your 6:34 stated you are looking outward at Christians, which that comparison resulted in your confirmation of your moral justification in atheism. It wasn't stated as a product of your inward thought and introspection, which would better reflect an internal locus of control. Now, you are backpedaling and double-talking. I love the "logic" of atheism. Keep studying, son.
Henry at 6:36 AM,
DeleteThanks for your critique Henry.
Theism for many is surrendering control to a mysterious source with the supernatural power to direct their destiny in a manner contingent on obedience to an externally determined moral prescription. Perhaps that is not a textbook definition of an external locus of control. On occasion the behavior of professed theists, in this case ardent Bible based Christians, reaffirms my preference to retain wholehearted local control of my personal sense of right and wrong, a product of my inward thought and introspection, and permits me to calibrate my moral compass as I see fit. That may not be a textbook definition of an internal locus of control. However, this bias has served me well.
"However, this bias has served me well."
DeleteDefinitely. You will be able to meld out with your double nines. Good plan.
Henry "..atheists confirm their external locus of control is dependent on third parties they do not even know..."
ReplyDeleteSounds like QAnon code language.
While you continue to dabble in your conspiracy theories, you may want to take a little time to read APA resources concerning "locus of control", then apply this potential new found knowledge with a little introspection of yourself and your previous words.
DeleteBoy!!!! has this gone off topic. "Can you go to Heaven if your preacher is a woman?"
ReplyDelete1. It's not the messenger, it's the message.
2. More often than not these days, the "message" is also off topic. (feel good, life coach, social benefits, prosperity, politics, etc. The new American religion. Nothing to do with Justification by Grace through Faith, (the Gospel).
little helper, Mar 9, 2021 at 11:10 AM: “It's not the messenger, it's the message.”
DeletePerhaps my question is too far afield. In your opinion, does the means of communication affect the fidelity of a Gospel message. Let us assume the message in question is a verse from scripture and it’s the recipients first exposure to the content.
The message:
“Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” — John 6:28–29 ESV.
Three scenarios:
1) At home In the quiet of the evening prior to turning in after a long day of yard work, reading for the first time John 6:28–29 from an ESV Bible.
2) At home sitting in the living room recliner on Sunday morning watching a Lutheran service on TV, hearing for the first time John 6:28–29 ESV as it is read from the pulpit by the officiating minister with the scents and muted sounds of the Mrs. preparing Sunday brunch in the background.
3) At Sunday morning church service, the pews full of parishioners, the morning sun beaming through stained glass windows, a faint scent of aged hardwood and a hint of incense (perfume) in the air, when for the first time you hear John 6:28–29 ESV as the verse is read by the officiating minister from the pulpit.
As a cleric might you agree that scenario number three enhances the meaning of the message to the faithful? I reckon I’ve talked my way into revealing a real example of the loss suffered to the mission of spreading the Gospel by dwindling membership and empty pews.
Ardy; It's not complicated. You have revealed a complete ignorance of the topic.
DeleteArdy; Here's another; Eph. 2;8-9; "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. not as a result of works that no one should boast.
DeleteNot one person, male, female, preacher, teacher or saint has EVER "saved anyone" nor is one place or timing more beneficial.
Sooooo-- Take your handy dandy portable radio out to your out-house, sit down, and tune in Paula White, Benny Hinn, or Joel Osteen and be prepared for whatever.
Yours is a "dead reckoning".
little helper Mar 10, 2021 at 9:14 PM, “It's not complicated. You have revealed a complete ignorance of the topic.”
DeleteThe simplicity of the message is why the Word of God is thriving in America, right? It helps the true believers feel good about themselves, navigate difficult moral dilemmas, acquire a modicum of social privilege, network for financial stability, and have a voice politics.
And yes, I am [almost] completely ignorant of this topic, whatever it is, but dare to reveal my ignorance by trying to participate in discussions perhaps far beyond my capacity to understand. It’s the transcendental stuff I have difficulty with. Sometimes I query, often in vain, specialists in the super natural space. You answered my question.
First of all, yours wasn't a question, it was a comment on observed "Me first" thought.
DeleteRe. ""feel good about themselves... acquire a modicum of social privilege, network for financial stability and have a voice in politics." that's the new American religion, ( philosophy) via Joel Osteen and others. This is truly simple. If that's what you believe, you could be their poster boy.