Author Topic: Simplistic Answers and Fundamentalism  (Read 23165 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,379
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Simplistic Answers and Fundamentalism
« on: June 06, 2008, 12:12:31 PM »
The Holy Orthodox Church will never give in to feminism.

This comment on another thread got me thinking "what does that have to do with the issue of Ordination of Women"? I almost raised the question in the thread, but didn't for two reasons. Firstly, so as not to derail the thread (especially since I already indicated the existence of a thread about the issue), and secondly, because I think it's pointless trying to discuss issues like this with people who quite clearly bellieve that some issues are not up for discussion (which makes life kind of boring on a discussion forum).
Time and time again, I see posts like this which give simplistic answers based on a simplistic view of the world (in this case, as though the only reason anyone would consider women's ordination is the "cause of feminism". The same poster makes a reference to those who follow the "Meletian Calendar"- as though that "defines" everyone who follows the Revised Julian Calendar:
A look-alike might, possibly from the ranks of those who follow the Meletian Calendar.
And what is the terrible threat such people fear?
progress.
In the simplistic view of the world, we cannot allow anything which even slightly resembles "progress" because that would undermine everything we believe. Advances in scientific knowledge must be ignored in this view, because they challenge the basic understanding of "simple faith". For example, such a view holds that people don't have Schizophrenia or Bipolar Affective Disorder, but rather, are affected by demons.  But in my opinion, this is not "simple faith", but rather "simplistic faith".
Such people seem to "know" what Orthodoxy should "look like", and don't hesitate to tell us:- women wearing floor-length skirts and the equivalent of a banquet tablecloth on their heads, bearded men in suits and ties with severe looks, women not speaking, men ruling the house, the Old Calendar only, no Trinity Icons other than the Hospitality of Abraham (and even that's questionable), the highlight of Orthodoxy Sunday being reading the anathemas with a resounding "Anathema!" shouted by the congregation in response to each one (which those "progressive" Greeks no longer do), and most poignantly, anyone who disagrees with such a view is "wrong" because they are a "liberal" and a 'progressive innovator".
Is there any point to discussion with someone with such views if yours do not agree with theirs? Probably not. My experience is that such discussion is fruitless. But there is a point, I think, in presenting an alternate view in that if no one does so, then Orthodox discussion boards like OCnet will all be reduced to a narrow view of Orthodoxy resembling what these people insist it "should" look like.
Any thoughts?

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline ytterbiumanalyst

  • Professor Emeritus, CSA
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,785
Re: Simplistic Answers and Fundamentalism
« Reply #1 on: June 06, 2008, 01:38:46 PM »
My experience is that such discussion is fruitless. But there is a point, I think, in presenting an alternate view in that if no one does so, then Orthodox discussion boards like OCnet will all be reduced to a narrow view of Orthodoxy resembling what these people insist it "should" look like.
Any thoughts?
This is exactly the reason I post on such threads. I don't want those reading to think that Orthodoxy is one of those religions where people get together to decide whom to hate. I really doubt those who want to hate are going to be swayed by what I write, but at least those who are investigating Orthodoxy will get a better picture, at least as good a picture as they can get from the Internet.
"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens

Offline Asteriktos

  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,926
Re: Simplistic Answers and Fundamentalism
« Reply #2 on: June 06, 2008, 02:12:54 PM »
I would agree that it's good to articulate divergent views when such exists.  But fwiw, I also think it is possible to change someone's mind on a forum, even someone who is entrenched in a certain position. I think that because I am such a person, and have changed my mind a number of times, (at least partially) because of discussions on internet forums. For example, it was on a fundamentalist Protestant forum that I came to reject certain Protestant doctrines (sola scriptura, etc.). This cleared the way for me eventually becoming Orthodox. I'm sure at the time that those debating with me never would have imagined that I'd change my mind--I was too strident in my delivery, too sure of my views. And I did write to persuade others that they were wrong. But beneath the surface, I was listening to every word that was being said, and was ready to change my position if necessary.

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,379
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Simplistic Answers and Fundamentalism
« Reply #3 on: June 06, 2008, 02:35:22 PM »
But beneath the surface, I was listening to every word that was being said, and was ready to change my position if necessary.

It sounds like what you are saying here is that you were open to the possibility of an alternate view. I don't think that this is true of everyone though. I can agree that we can never know who is or isn't open to seeing things differently, which is why alternative viewpoints are good in that they allow the possibility, but I really think that some people are incapable of seeing things differently. An example: I was once in a taxi and got talking to the driver. In the course of the conversation, the taxi driver, on seeing a police car said that they were lazy because they were'nt booking the drivers in front of him for speeding. As far as he was concerned, he was doing the speed limit, and anyone in front of him must be speeding. No matter how much I tried to explain that they were travelling the same speed as he was, he couldn't get it and insisted that if they were ahead of him, they must be travelling faster. I gave up and changed the subject, although I became a little apprehensive at the thought that my life was in the hands of a driver who couldn't get what seemed to me a basic principle!. However, we arrived safely at our destination. Somehow, people like this seem to get through life OK, and therefore see no reason to change.
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline jnorm888

  • Jnorm
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,517
  • Icon and Cross (international space station)
    • Ancient Christian Defender
Re: Simplistic Answers and Fundamentalism
« Reply #4 on: June 06, 2008, 04:14:59 PM »
What's wrong with Fundamentalism? Fundamentalism isn't wrong in and of itself. There is nothing wrong with safe guards.

It shouldn't matter how simple or complex the answer is. Women Ordaination is wrong, and it's not what Christ intended.


Why do you want Orthodoxy to be like the ECUSA? Why do you want it to be like England?

I have no problem with arguing about the issue of women ordaination. I argue it all the time. I argue it with my own mother who wants to be a pastor.

I was arguing about this at the conference I went to last week. We had a Protestant woman at the conference who goes to Union Theological Seminary, and we were up arguing about Women priests.

But why do the ORthodox want to talk about it? It shouldn't even be an issue with us, yet we want to be like England....we want to do what she does......why?


The problem, is not "well reasoned" arguments. The issue is alot deeper than that. Feelings are involved, and no matter how good one's reasons are for rejecting Women ordaination. Those who are for it will still push for it, until they have what they want. It has nothing to do with reason. It has nothing to do with arguments.






JNORM888
« Last Edit: June 06, 2008, 04:25:40 PM by jnorm888 »
"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/

Offline EofK

  • Mrs. Y
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,976
  • lolcat addict
Re: Simplistic Answers and Fundamentalism
« Reply #5 on: June 06, 2008, 04:24:08 PM »
The point is, though, why is it wrong?  I'm not disagreeing, I'm pointing out that sometimes fundementalism ignores why something is done and settles for "it's always been that way."  That is one reason why Orthodoxy, and any other church with traditions, is criticized for their traditions.  Once we lose a sense of why traditions are held then you get into people thinking that women absolutely must wear long skirts or whatever other arguments there are.  There are Traditions that have very good reasons for being a long-held practice and there are some things parishes, ethnicities, or individuals have always done which are immutable to them but inconsequential to someone else.  To me, it boils down to the purpose behind the practice.
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so. -- Douglas Adams

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,379
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Simplistic Answers and Fundamentalism
« Reply #6 on: June 06, 2008, 04:42:33 PM »
What's wrong with Fundamentalism? Fundamentalism isn't wrong in and of itself. There is nothing wrong with safe guards.
Fundamentalism is wrong in and of itself because it is a distortion of the whole Truth. Fundamentalism started in Protestant Christianity with the publication of the 4 volume work "The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth" which outlined Protestant Evangelical theology. Those who followed it's teachings were called "Fundamentalists", those who questioned it's teachings (such as sola scriptura) were branded heretics.

It shouldn't matter how simple or complex the answer is.
Well, actually it does matter. Especially in Christianity. The "simple" answer to the woman caught in adultery which a Fundamentalist would hold was that she should be stoned to death in accordance with the Law. The "complex" answer was: "let him who is without sin cast the first stone". The complex answer was right and the simple answer was wrong.

Women Ordaination is wrong, and it's not what Christ intended.
A simple answer, and unprovable. How can we tell "it was not Christ's intention", when Christ himself broke His own cultural tradition by having women disciples?


Why do you want Orthodoxy to be like the ECUSA? Why do you want it to be like England?
Simplistic comments unworthy of response.

[aside]Now do you see what I mean Asteriktos?[/aside]
« Last Edit: June 06, 2008, 04:46:38 PM by ozgeorge »
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline jnorm888

  • Jnorm
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,517
  • Icon and Cross (international space station)
    • Ancient Christian Defender
Re: Simplistic Answers and Fundamentalism
« Reply #7 on: June 06, 2008, 04:53:34 PM »
The point is, though, why is it wrong?  I'm not disagreeing, I'm pointing out that sometimes fundementalism ignores why something is done and settles for "it's always been that way."  That is one reason why Orthodoxy, and any other church with traditions, is criticized for their traditions.  Once we lose a sense of why traditions are held then you get into people thinking that women absolutely must wear long skirts or whatever other arguments there are.  There are Traditions that have very good reasons for being a long-held practice and there are some things parishes, ethnicities, or individuals have always done which are immutable to them but inconsequential to someone else.  To me, it boils down to the purpose behind the practice.


I know how ROme defends it, but I don't think we use the same line of reasoning as her.

To be honest, it all depends on the argument of the one who embraces it.  Last week it was about the struggle of women in this country, and how women should have the right to do what men do. And how it gives women hope, and motivation to see a woman on the alter. So that was more of an emotional argument.

I responded with: It's not about being physicaly able to do what men do. That isn't the reason for women to be excluded. In the Old Testament the Levites were the onlyones allowed to cary the Ark of the Covenant. It wasn't because they were the only ones physicaly able to cary the Ark. God has certain roles and rituals in place for a reason.

I also spoke about how, no matter how much a man wants to bear children, he will not be able to naturally. It is his role not to bear children. God has certain roles in place and it doesn't mean that the man is infearer because he can't bear kids, nor does it make the woman superier, because she can bear children.



She spoke about the Patriarchal society and how we no longer live in that type of society. She spoke about how we once believed in slavery and how we don't believe in slavery anymore.

I told her that the modern Work force is a moderate form of indenchard servitude. And that all forms of slavery isn't wrong.

I also said that "what right does the modern World have to make an older culture change?" What right does it have to do such a thing? Why can't an older christian tradition be left alone?

I also brought up the fact that God chose to be incarnate in the form of a man. And I asked her if she was offended by God's choice in being incarnate as a male? I asked her if it would motivate her, and make her feel good if God was incarnate as a woman.

She said no, to that one, but I'm sure other Liberal women will say yes.


And she said that there were women priests in the Bible.

I said, no there wasn't. She wouldn't let me speak after that.


It didn't matter what my rebuttals were for she was emotional. She just wanted to be heard, she was hurt, but at the end of the day, I told her that I apprecaite you speaking your mind, but I disagree.



I personaly like the Roman Catholic argument. It's alot stronger.

They base it on the fact that the 12 Disciples were men.

And I always bring up the issue of the Old Testament. Was the highpriest in the Old Testament male or female?





JNORM888
« Last Edit: June 06, 2008, 05:06:28 PM by jnorm888 »
"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/

Offline jnorm888

  • Jnorm
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,517
  • Icon and Cross (international space station)
    • Ancient Christian Defender
Re: Simplistic Answers and Fundamentalism
« Reply #8 on: June 06, 2008, 05:02:29 PM »
Fundamentalism is wrong in and of itself because it is a distortion of the whole Truth. Fundamentalism started in Protestant Christianity with the publication of the 4 volume work "The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth" which outlined Protestant Evangelical theology. Those who followed it's teachings were called "Fundamentalists", those who questioned it's teachings (such as sola scriptura) were branded heretics.
Well, actually it does matter. Especially in Christianity. The "simple" answer to the woman caught in adultery which a Fundamentalist would hold was that she should be stoned to death in accordance with the Law. The "complex" answer was: "let him who is without sin cast the first stone". The complex answer was right and the simple answer was wrong.
 A simple answer, and unprovable. How can we tell "it was not Christ's intention", when Christ himself broke His own cultural tradition by having women disciples?

Simplistic comments unworthy of response.

[aside]Now do you see what I mean Asteriktos?[/aside]


I maybe wrong, but I don't think SOla scriptura was one of the 4 or 5 things on the list.

Do you believe in the virgin birth? If you say yes then you are a Fundamentalist.

Do you believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ? If you say yes then you are a Fundamentalist

Do you believe in the "miracles" of the Bible? IF you say yes to that then you are a Fundamentalist.

The other was believing in the Inerrant word of God. I know both Rome and Protestants are suppose to believe in Scripture as being without errors.




now, how is this a "a distortion of the whole Truth"?


What was stated was not "The whole Truth", but what was stated was true. What's not true about Jesus's Resurrection?

What's not true about His Virgin Birth?

What's not true about a belief in the supernatural?



Fundamentalism isn't wrong in and of itself. Yes, you might find something wrong with something they did or believed, but you can't call what I just said above "a distortion of truth".


Did they have "all the truth"? no, but everything they believed and fought for wasn't "WRONG" either.






JNORM888
« Last Edit: June 06, 2008, 05:03:10 PM by jnorm888 »
"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,379
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Simplistic Answers and Fundamentalism
« Reply #9 on: June 06, 2008, 05:10:38 PM »
Do you believe in the virgin birth? If you say yes then you are a Fundamentalist.
No. It just means that I believe in the Virgin Birth. What does the fact that I question whether Christ had the same DNA as the Theotokos make me?

Do you believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ? If you say yes then you are a Fundamentalist
No. It just means that I believe in the Bodily Resurrection of Christ. What does the fact that I give the Bodily Resurrection a different meaning in the role of Salvation to someone who is an atonement-substitution believer make me?

Do you believe in the "miracles" of the Bible? IF you say yes to that then you are a Fundamentalist..
No. It just means that I believe in the Miracles recorded in the Bible. What does the fact that I hold they have a different level of meaning make me?

now, how is this a "a distortion of the whole Truth"?
See above. Beware- they are complex answers. ;)

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,455
Re: Simplistic Answers and Fundamentalism
« Reply #10 on: June 06, 2008, 09:15:50 PM »
Fundamentalism is wrong in and of itself because it is a distortion of the whole Truth.

So's liberal Protestantism. Your point?

Quote
Well, actually it does matter. Especially in Christianity. The "simple" answer to the woman caught in adultery which a Fundamentalist would hold was that she should be stoned to death in accordance with the Law. The "complex" answer was: "let him who is without sin cast the first stone". The complex answer was right and the simple answer was wrong.

The complex answer of calling it "qorban" is wrong and the simple answer of honoring thy father and mother is right.  Not so simple.

 
Quote
A simple answer, and unprovable. How can we tell "it was not Christ's intention", when Christ himself broke His own cultural tradition by having women disciples?

You have a point, though I don't know if it is unprovable.

Quote
Simplistic comments unworthy of response.

Only if no specifics to back it up.

[aside]Now do you see what I mean Asteriktos?[/aside]
[/quote]
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,379
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Simplistic Answers and Fundamentalism
« Reply #11 on: June 06, 2008, 09:49:00 PM »
The complex answer of calling it "qorban" is wrong
Ain't nothing "complex" about that.

the simple answer of honoring thy father and mother is right. 
Try and tell St. Barbara and St. Markella that "honour thy father and thy mother" is "simple"....but what that has to do with the woman caught in adultery is a mystery to me.
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,455
Re: Simplistic Answers and Fundamentalism
« Reply #12 on: June 06, 2008, 09:56:41 PM »
Ain't nothing "complex" about that.
Try and tell St. Barbara and St. Markella that "honour thy father and thy mother" is "simple"....but what that has to do with the woman caught in adultery is a mystery to me.
You portrayed it as complex.  It was quite simply takikng the bull by the horn.  Like the coin and rendering unto Caesar.
The pharisees made the quetion I mention complex, and the Lord was rebuking them for doing so.  Giving to parents was straightforward: making the goods sancrosanct complicated things.
And yes, for SS Barbara and Marcella, things were hard, but not complex.  They thought the answer quite simple.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,379
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Simplistic Answers and Fundamentalism
« Reply #13 on: June 06, 2008, 10:02:13 PM »
You need to calm down a bit I think.
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline GiC

  • Site Supporter
  • Merarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,487
Re: Simplistic Answers and Fundamentalism
« Reply #14 on: June 06, 2008, 10:03:08 PM »
You need to calm down a bit I think.

Don't tell him that, him getting all worked up is turning into a lot of fun. ;)

Offline SolEX01

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,576
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Metropolis of New Jersey
Re: Simplistic Answers and Fundamentalism
« Reply #15 on: June 07, 2008, 12:57:28 AM »
A simple answer, and unprovable. How can we tell "it was not Christ's intention", when Christ himself broke His own cultural tradition by having women disciples?

Women disciples who are "equal to the Apostles" like St. Mary Magadalene, St. Helena, St. Olga, et al. were never ordained as deaconesses, priestesses, bishopesses or even patriarchesses.  ;D  Why should they be in 2008 if there was never any historical or canonical precedent for doing so?

Ordination of female priests would be another one of those "man made" innovations that would never gain superiority over God's Commandment of a male priesthood.

Offline Ebor

  • Vanyar
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,492
Re: Simplistic Answers and Fundamentalism
« Reply #16 on: June 07, 2008, 08:00:10 AM »
I have no problem with arguing about the issue of women ordaination. I argue it all the time. I argue it with my own mother who wants to be a pastor.

Is part of the discussions the reasons *why* she would like to be a pastor? 

It can be very useful to find out what a person thinks and believes, their reasons for things.

Ebor
"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,379
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Simplistic Answers and Fundamentalism
« Reply #17 on: June 07, 2008, 08:04:50 AM »
Women disciples who are "equal to the Apostles" like St. Mary Magadalene, St. Helena, St. Olga, et al. were never ordained as deaconesses, priestesses, bishopesses or even patriarchesses.  ;D  Why should they be in 2008 if there was never any historical or canonical precedent for doing so?
St. Nina Equal-to-the Apostles was ordained a Deaconess.
St. Phoebe (mentioned by St. Paul in Romans 16:1-2) was ordained a Deaconess.
St. Olympia was a Deaconess.
The Church of Greece is ordaining Deaconesses in 2008.
You see, this is the problem with simplistic answers. They ignore facts.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2008, 08:28:44 AM by ozgeorge »
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline Ebor

  • Vanyar
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,492
Re: Simplistic Answers and Fundamentalism
« Reply #18 on: June 07, 2008, 08:13:17 AM »
I told her that the modern Work force is a moderate form of indenchard servitude. And that all forms of slavery isn't wrong.

And what forms of slavery aren't wrong?  Also, how do you equate the "modern Work force" with some kind of indentured servitude please?  The persons in the early decades of the North American colonies who were indentured servants were counted as property and some where sent over because they'd been found guilty of crimes. One example of that was Benjamin Banneker's grandmother.

Quote
And she said that there were women priests in the Bible.

I said, no there wasn't. She wouldn't let me speak after that.

The information of what examples the lady in question had in mind would be interesting and perhaps helpful in understanding.

Quote
They base it on the fact that the 12 Disciples were men.

And part of the discussion that fact is how far in making priests like the disciples does it go?  Obviously in history it hasn't been limited to only males of Jewish ancestry for example.

Ebor
"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,455
Re: Simplistic Answers and Fundamentalism
« Reply #19 on: June 07, 2008, 08:31:37 AM »
You need to calm down a bit I think.

Quite calm. Do this during the commercial breaks.  Watching Foxx. ;D

St. Nina Equal-to-the Apostles was ordained a Deaconess.
St. Phoebe (mentioned by St. Paul in Romans 16:1-2) was ordained a Deaconess.
St. Olympia was a Deaconess.
The Church of Greece is ordaining Deaconesses in 2008.
You see, this is the problem with simplistic answers. They ignore facts.

A fact I've yet to see explained by the women ordination crowd: although the OT confined the priesthood to men, all the other societies of the day did not.  And if Christ broke Jewish taboo by having women disciples, He could have had women Apostles as well.  Yet no laying on of hands mentions any woman's hand, though the NT mentions many ministering women.  Fact also remains that the gnostics did ordain women, and their literature supports the idea (of course, they denied Christ had been incarnated, a problem for the Orthodox).

Oooh! Oooh! Oooh! the millenium has come.  But still no stars.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2008, 08:39:11 AM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,379
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Simplistic Answers and Fundamentalism
« Reply #20 on: June 07, 2008, 09:45:13 AM »
Quite calm. Do this during the commercial breaks.  Watching Foxx. ;D

A fact I've yet to see explained by the women ordination crowd: although the OT confined the priesthood to men, all the other societies of the day did not.  And if Christ broke Jewish taboo by having women disciples, He could have had women Apostles as well.  Yet no laying on of hands mentions any woman's hand, though the NT mentions many ministering women.  Fact also remains that the gnostics did ordain women, and their literature supports the idea (of course, they denied Christ had been incarnated, a problem for the Orthodox).

Oooh! Oooh! Oooh! the millenium has come.  But still no stars.
Please read Canon 15 of the Council of Chalcedon.
You're making simplistic claims without examining the facts.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2008, 09:46:38 AM by ozgeorge »
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,455
Re: Simplistic Answers and Fundamentalism
« Reply #21 on: June 07, 2008, 10:21:12 AM »
Please read Canon 15 of the Council of Chalcedon.
You're making simplistic claims without examining the facts.

You should read more carefully:

Canon XV of the Council of Chalcedon:

A woman shall not receive the laying on of hands as a deaconess under forty years of age, and then only after searching examination.  And if, after she has had hands laid on her and has continued for a time to minister, she shall despise the grace of God and give herself in marriage, she shall be anathematized and the man united to her.

I said:
A fact I've yet to see explained by the women ordination crowd: although the OT confined the priesthood to men, all the other societies of the day did not.  And if Christ broke Jewish taboo by having women disciples, He could have had women Apostles as well.  Yet no laying on of hands mentions any woman's hand, though the NT mentions many ministering women.  Fact also remains that the gnostics did ordain women, and their literature supports the idea (of course, they denied Christ had been incarnated, a problem for the Orthodox).

Perhaps I should make it clear, gnostics ordaining women as priests (and even bishops).  Our parish on occasion has been led by a deacon in the priest's absence.  The difference between the order of the deaconate (including the deaconesses) and the priesthood, let alone the episcopate, is palpable.

I think his only claim is that women were not performing the ordinations (when he says, "Yet no laying on of hands mentions any woman's hand") - so they weren't in the counil of elders (presbyters) or bishops.
Correct.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2008, 10:33:38 AM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Fr. George

  • formerly "Cleveland"
  • Administrator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,286
  • May the Lord bless you and keep you always!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Re: Simplistic Answers and Fundamentalism
« Reply #22 on: June 07, 2008, 10:25:28 AM »
Please read Canon 15 of the Council of Chalcedon.
You're making simplistic claims without examining the facts.

I think his only claim is that women were not performing the ordinations (when he says, "Yet no laying on of hands mentions any woman's hand") - so they weren't in the counil of elders (presbyters) or bishops.
How in Mor's good name
one hundred fifty four posts
No Rachel Weisz pic

Selam

Offline Pravoslavbob

  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,415
  • Out for a stroll...
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Antioch
Re: Simplistic Answers and Fundamentalism
« Reply #23 on: June 07, 2008, 12:15:29 PM »
Could everyone please try and remember that this is not a thread about female ordination,  but rather about ways of thinking about and living the Orthodox Way.  It is fine to use the example of female ordination as an example of how we think about the faith, but by getting into particularities concerning the viability of this practice, we are deviating from the original purpose of this thread as defined by the OP. If you want to discuss female ordination please seek out extant threads on this subject.

Thank you.

Pravoslavbob, Religious Topics Moderator
« Last Edit: June 07, 2008, 12:48:42 PM by Pravoslavbob »
Atheists have noetic deficiencies.


Don't believe everything you think.


The more I know, the less I know.   ;)

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,379
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Simplistic Answers and Fundamentalism
« Reply #24 on: June 07, 2008, 12:36:15 PM »
^And this is part of the problem. If people can't think outside the square, they get stuck on single issues and follow a single track:
"I'm not being simplistic, it's just that women must never be ordained to the priesthood."
"I'm not being simplistic, it's just that the Revised Julian Calendar is heretical."
"I'm not being simplistic, it's just that you have no right to question or to ask 'why?'."
"I'm not being simplistic, it's just that you're a liberal."

So of course, what can one do but answer these simplistic comments?
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,455
Re: Simplistic Answers and Fundamentalism
« Reply #25 on: June 07, 2008, 12:43:29 PM »
^And this is part of the problem. If people can't think outside the square, they get stuck on single issues and follow a single track:
"I'm not being simplistic, it's just that women must never be ordained to the priesthood."
"I'm not being simplistic, it's just that the Revised Julian Calendar is heretical."
"I'm not being simplistic, it's just that you have no right to question or to ask 'why?'."
"I'm not being simplistic, it's just that you're a liberal."

So of course, what can one do but answer these simplistic comments?

Buried in there somewhere George has a point (except being liberal).

As to the ordination of women, often the what is offered is a poor argument of a valid point.

Should I start another thread on Simplistic Answers and Liberalism? because a lot of what we got here is the old you're-just-a-Neanderthal response.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2008, 12:45:33 PM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Heracleides

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 390
  • Kona-Kai
Re: Simplistic Answers and Fundamentalism
« Reply #26 on: June 07, 2008, 12:55:00 PM »
Buried in there somewhere George has a point (except being liberal).

As to the ordination of women, often the what is offered is a poor argument of a valid point.

Should I start another thread on Simplistic Answers and Liberalism? because a lot of what we got here is the old you're-just-a-Neanderthal response.

Well said.
"And having found Heracleides there again, we instructed him to proclaim the Gospel of God..."  ~Acts of Barnabas

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,379
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Simplistic Answers and Fundamentalism
« Reply #27 on: June 07, 2008, 12:59:20 PM »
Buried in there somewhere George has a point (except being liberal).
Why is the accusation of being liberal an exception? It's just as simplistic as anything else.

Should I start another thread on Simplistic Answers and Liberalism? because a lot of what we got here is the old you're-just-a-Neanderthal response.
Feel free. In fact I encourage it rather than waste this thread with more simplistic responses that do nothing to address the OP.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2008, 01:00:19 PM by ozgeorge »
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline Rosehip

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,755
Re: Simplistic Answers and Fundamentalism
« Reply #28 on: June 07, 2008, 01:00:32 PM »
I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a great lover of simplicity and that I actually at times miss the "simplicity" of a church which places a heavy emphasis on the Bible.  I suppose it's not "cool" to make such a confession on a forum such as this, but I'll be honest about it.

Having said that, I was taught to search for answers, to ask questions, in my former church- even though it was almost (not quite) "Sola Scriptura" and "fundamentalist". Curiously, one of the first things I noticed (and somewhat resented) in Orthodoxy was the fact that no one around me was questioning *anything*! In fact, I once had some questions about Orthodoxy which I directed to my priest. His answer? "Stop reading-it's bad for you." I found this somewhat insulting, especially as in other areas the Orthodox seem so proud of all their university degrees and education. How to explain this seeming contradiction?
+ Our dear sister Martha (Rosehip) passed away on Dec 20, 2010.  May her memory be eternal! +

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,379
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Simplistic Answers and Fundamentalism
« Reply #29 on: June 07, 2008, 01:10:29 PM »
I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a great lover of simplicity and that I actually at times miss the "simplicity" of a church which places a heavy emphasis on the Bible.
There is a world of difference between "simplicity" and "being simplistic".
Simplicity is a virtue, it is guilessness, it is honesty.
Being simplistic is not a virtue, it is prejudice (pre-judging), dishonest.
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,455
Re: Simplistic Answers and Fundamentalism
« Reply #30 on: June 07, 2008, 01:13:25 PM »
Why is the accusation of being liberal an exception? It's just as simplistic as anything else.

Just pointless.

Quote
Feel free.

Done:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,16338.msg234438/topicseen.html#msg234438

Quote
In fact I encourage it rather than waste this thread with more simplistic responses that do nothing to address the OP.

The OP has been addressed.  You just don't like the answers. To wit:

Fundamentalism is wrong in and of itself because it is a distortion of the whole Truth.

So's liberal Protestantism. Your point?
« Last Edit: June 07, 2008, 01:27:09 PM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Rosehip

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,755
Re: Simplistic Answers and Fundamentalism
« Reply #31 on: June 07, 2008, 01:18:25 PM »
There is a world of difference between "simplicity" and "being simplistic".
Simplicity is a virtue, it is guilessness, it is honesty.
Being simplistic is not a virtue, it is prejudice (pre-judging), dishonest.

"'Tis a gift to be simple, 'tis a gift to be free..." The lines of the old Shaker hymn go 'round in my head...Yes, George, I realize there is a difference between simplicity and being simplistic, BUT can you address the later half of my post as well? I still haven't found answers to that.


Quote
Having said that, I was taught to search for answers, to ask questions, in my former church- even though it was almost (not quite) "Sola Scriptura" and "fundamentalist". Curiously, one of the first things I noticed (and somewhat resented) in Orthodoxy was the fact that no one around me was questioning *anything*! In fact, I once had some questions about Orthodoxy which I directed to my priest. His answer? "Stop reading-it's bad for you." I found this somewhat insulting, especially as in other areas the Orthodox seem so proud of all their university degrees and education. How to explain this seeming contradiction?
+ Our dear sister Martha (Rosehip) passed away on Dec 20, 2010.  May her memory be eternal! +

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,379
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Simplistic Answers and Fundamentalism
« Reply #32 on: June 07, 2008, 01:33:24 PM »
BUT can you address the later half of my post as well? I still haven't found answers to that.
I can only answer from my own experience which has been that people in my local Church do ask questions, and we are encouraged to do so.
My local Church is actually a monastery, and after Liturgy, the Hegumen (Abbot) leads a discussion forum over coffee. We discuss everything from contemporary issues to the Liturgy to the Fathers to Scripture. One of the points the Hegumen makes time and time again is that ultimately, each one of us is responsible for ourselves and for the Church, and must act as rational beings making solid choices. He also warned us not to take our example from the monastery's dokimoi (novices). The word "dokimoi" means one who is being tested, and part of the test is unquestioning obedience, however, when a novice is tonsured as a monk, he is expected to take up his free will again and make rational choices. I have seen laity who live their lives as though they are "dokimoi" and surrender themselves with absolute unquestioning obedience to guru-like self-proclaimed "Elders". God wants rational servants in His Kingdom, not slaves.
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline Rosehip

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,755
Re: Simplistic Answers and Fundamentalism
« Reply #33 on: June 07, 2008, 01:48:30 PM »
Quote
I have seen laity who live their lives as though they are "dokimoi" and surrender themselves with absolute unquestioning obedience to guru-like self-proclaimed "Elders". God wants rational servants in His Kingdom, not slaves.

Yes! This sounds so familiar! All my friends from church tell me they call the priest up several times a day. In fact, every time they need to make a decision (not even a major one) they call for his advice or to receive his blessing. I have been told we are to constantly call him to let him know our every thought. I don't know...somehow it never seemed quite right to me-but maybe the idea of the "priesthood of all believers" is too firmly entrenched in me. I still can't imagine calling the priest so many times a day. I know he surely wants some free time to breathe and think.

Anyhow, sorry for going off on a tangent here.
+ Our dear sister Martha (Rosehip) passed away on Dec 20, 2010.  May her memory be eternal! +

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Simplistic Answers and Fundamentalism
« Reply #34 on: June 07, 2008, 01:51:14 PM »
Yes! This sounds so familiar! All my friends from church tell me they call the priest up several times a day. In fact, every time they need to make a decision (not even a major one) they call for his advice or to receive his blessing. I have been told we are to constantly call him to let him know our every thought. I don't know...somehow it never seemed quite right to me-but maybe the idea of the "priesthood of all believers" is too firmly entrenched in me. I still can't imagine calling the priest so many times a day. I know he surely wants some free time to breathe and think.

Anyhow, sorry for going off on a tangent here.

My gut level reaction is that by encouraging this kind of behavior, your priest sets himself up to be an authoritarian, controlling despot.  Possibly very unhealthy, IMO.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,379
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Simplistic Answers and Fundamentalism
« Reply #35 on: June 07, 2008, 02:03:07 PM »
I don't think it's a tangent Rosehip, I think it's a very important point.
The reductio ad absurdum of the claim that we are not to question anything is that Orthodox Christianity is no different to the Heaven's Gate cult.
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline Nyssa The Hobbit

  • Used to be OrthodoxFairyQueen
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 396
    • Who is this Nyssa person, anyway?
Re: Simplistic Answers and Fundamentalism
« Reply #36 on: June 07, 2008, 06:20:15 PM »
Several times a DAY?  Wow.  I've only called my priest twice in the past year and a half.  If I had an issue which would take a lot of words, I'd write him a letter so he could read it when he had the chance.  That's only happened twice, too; the first was an introduction.  Other than that, if I have a quick question, I'll save it up for catechism class.  He's never asked for more than that.
Author of "Tojet" (fantasy) and "The Lighthouse" (Gothic), info available at my website URL.