![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
silveradeptThe 'Net is Vast, the 'Net is biiiig, and the 'Net holds many, many curious and wonderful things. I like the place, what can I say?
I was either feeling inspired or particularly argumentative today, I did a lot of posting on the very-high-volume forum that I've been at for two days now. I'm beginning to settle into my niche market quiet well, and I think I will be abandoning much of the forum to its own devices, wandering around here and there to see if there's anything actually worth having a look at. Things will be good, that much is true. Although it does still add one more forum to my already Internet-saturated life.
That being said, I think I had a couple of posts worth mentioning to my regular crowd. Whether they are of any interest to you or not is uncertain. Topics vary greatly from post to post.
1) Topic: Women in the Catholic priesthood - S.A. tries to explain why historically, there have been no women priests...
Tradition is thought to be a good answer to the question. It's accurate and factual.
It's also unhelpful. Let's try this on for size:
Jesus of Nazareth was a Jew. The sect of Judaism called Christianity was in flux for a very long time, and only came to crystallization with the adoption of an official creed nearly three hundred years after Jesus is said to have walked the earth. That means that the writers of the books in the canon were also Jews.
Remember the laws of kashrut? They tend to be very aggravated by blood of all sorts. There is one unfortunate difference between the male and female biological workings that would really cause problems.
Yep. The menstrual period generally involves blood, often discharged from the body. There are rules in the Old Testament about how everyone should avoid women that are menstruating because they are unclean. (Leviticus 15:19-23)
[A reply given - Once Jesus died, Leviticus no longer applied. My response: Yes, the supercession argument. When did that become part of tradition? I do not believe it was that quick, especially if you count the Thomas/John over who had a true Gospel. While it may be tradition now, I don't think it was then. Only recently, I would guess, has the Catholic Church encountered a worldview that pushed the question somewhat insistently at them. Before, they could always declare them anathema and the problem was solved, at least for the Catholic Church.]
So why are there no women priests in Judaism? The uncleanness of women would be considered an affront to Yahweh, who required a pure priesthood at all times. And since, at their core, all of the writers of the canonical Christian books were Jews as well, there are no women priests in Catholicism. [Reply: There are women rabbis now. Response: Quite true. There are, however, no women priestesses. Priests were charged with the keeping of the Temple. Since there has been no Temple after 70 C.E., there have been no priests or priestesses since then, and I doubt that there were any before that time. Rabbis held a different position, being teachers of the Law, not performers of the sacrifices. The worship still mourns the loss of the Temple in some of the prayers.] Even though Jesus had women followers, none of them are ever elevated to the priestess status, at least that I can recall, after the Edict of Milan. (Last sentence added because of a reply] It would have been unthinkable.
Mary was a virgin as well. That makes me wonder if her Immaculate Conception meant that she had no menstrual periods at all, thus she could give birth to Jesus, a pure and sinless Godling.
It is not sexism, really. It is tradition and the laws of kashrut. That's my case, anyway.
That said (and if you've read down this far, bravo), I, while no longer Catholic, would not be adverse to granting holy orders to women. So don't waste your breath on me. I'll only give you the Staff of Zot in return.
-----------------------------
2) Topic: Living By the Book - Why do it if it's unjustifiable?: S.A. produces an inspired answer. (Inspired by whom, we have no idea)
Original Post: What I have to say is this: People who blindly follow a BOOK, and you have no real proof that its true, are foolish. You live based on a piece of fiction.
S.A.'s Retort: While it is not a book, you live under a great fiction as well. Its name is money. Perhaps you've heard of it?
That, to some degree, also answers the topic's question: It's a very convenient fiction, especially if you want to use a common medium of exchange.
S.A. gets One-Upped: If everyone was that obsessed with money, we all would have become televangelists.
But He Gives As Good As He Gets: You're saying we're not? Think humourously before you respond...
If that's not your stuff, then maybe A Bedtime Story?
Well, there's also this other site that tries to explain why authors and artists claim their characters are in their heads. Quite well-written, which is why I reference it. (![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
jamiecotc, you might like this one a lot.) I'm exploring the rest of the site, and it also seems to be well-written and likeable.
The last piece of the night - A Quizilla that's, well, scarily accurate for me.sporklord, who I yoinked it from, said his was quite accurate as well.
I do find normal people interesting, normal people probably do think I'm satanic, I have a marked fondness for chocolate, I do understand slang (usually on both sides of the geek divide). The only one I might think isn't true is the very high IQ entry.
I was either feeling inspired or particularly argumentative today, I did a lot of posting on the very-high-volume forum that I've been at for two days now. I'm beginning to settle into my niche market quiet well, and I think I will be abandoning much of the forum to its own devices, wandering around here and there to see if there's anything actually worth having a look at. Things will be good, that much is true. Although it does still add one more forum to my already Internet-saturated life.
That being said, I think I had a couple of posts worth mentioning to my regular crowd. Whether they are of any interest to you or not is uncertain. Topics vary greatly from post to post.
1) Topic: Women in the Catholic priesthood - S.A. tries to explain why historically, there have been no women priests...
Tradition is thought to be a good answer to the question. It's accurate and factual.
It's also unhelpful. Let's try this on for size:
Jesus of Nazareth was a Jew. The sect of Judaism called Christianity was in flux for a very long time, and only came to crystallization with the adoption of an official creed nearly three hundred years after Jesus is said to have walked the earth. That means that the writers of the books in the canon were also Jews.
Remember the laws of kashrut? They tend to be very aggravated by blood of all sorts. There is one unfortunate difference between the male and female biological workings that would really cause problems.
Yep. The menstrual period generally involves blood, often discharged from the body. There are rules in the Old Testament about how everyone should avoid women that are menstruating because they are unclean. (Leviticus 15:19-23)
[A reply given - Once Jesus died, Leviticus no longer applied. My response: Yes, the supercession argument. When did that become part of tradition? I do not believe it was that quick, especially if you count the Thomas/John over who had a true Gospel. While it may be tradition now, I don't think it was then. Only recently, I would guess, has the Catholic Church encountered a worldview that pushed the question somewhat insistently at them. Before, they could always declare them anathema and the problem was solved, at least for the Catholic Church.]
So why are there no women priests in Judaism? The uncleanness of women would be considered an affront to Yahweh, who required a pure priesthood at all times. And since, at their core, all of the writers of the canonical Christian books were Jews as well, there are no women priests in Catholicism. [Reply: There are women rabbis now. Response: Quite true. There are, however, no women priestesses. Priests were charged with the keeping of the Temple. Since there has been no Temple after 70 C.E., there have been no priests or priestesses since then, and I doubt that there were any before that time. Rabbis held a different position, being teachers of the Law, not performers of the sacrifices. The worship still mourns the loss of the Temple in some of the prayers.] Even though Jesus had women followers, none of them are ever elevated to the priestess status, at least that I can recall, after the Edict of Milan. (Last sentence added because of a reply] It would have been unthinkable.
Mary was a virgin as well. That makes me wonder if her Immaculate Conception meant that she had no menstrual periods at all, thus she could give birth to Jesus, a pure and sinless Godling.
It is not sexism, really. It is tradition and the laws of kashrut. That's my case, anyway.
That said (and if you've read down this far, bravo), I, while no longer Catholic, would not be adverse to granting holy orders to women. So don't waste your breath on me. I'll only give you the Staff of Zot in return.
-----------------------------
2) Topic: Living By the Book - Why do it if it's unjustifiable?: S.A. produces an inspired answer. (Inspired by whom, we have no idea)
Original Post: What I have to say is this: People who blindly follow a BOOK, and you have no real proof that its true, are foolish. You live based on a piece of fiction.
S.A.'s Retort: While it is not a book, you live under a great fiction as well. Its name is money. Perhaps you've heard of it?
That, to some degree, also answers the topic's question: It's a very convenient fiction, especially if you want to use a common medium of exchange.
S.A. gets One-Upped: If everyone was that obsessed with money, we all would have become televangelists.
But He Gives As Good As He Gets: You're saying we're not? Think humourously before you respond...
If that's not your stuff, then maybe A Bedtime Story?
Well, there's also this other site that tries to explain why authors and artists claim their characters are in their heads. Quite well-written, which is why I reference it. (
jamiecotc, you might like this one a lot.) I'm exploring the rest of the site, and it also seems to be well-written and likeable. The last piece of the night - A Quizilla that's, well, scarily accurate for me.
sporklord, who I yoinked it from, said his was quite accurate as well. I do find normal people interesting, normal people probably do think I'm satanic, I have a marked fondness for chocolate, I do understand slang (usually on both sides of the geek divide). The only one I might think isn't true is the very high IQ entry.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
interesting
Date: 2004-08-08 02:15 pm (UTC)Re: interesting
Date: 2004-08-08 05:18 pm (UTC)Re: interesting
Date: 2004-08-08 05:22 pm (UTC)I've been trying to figure out why women can't be priests and pastors for the last little while. It frustrates me. (However, I have no interest in becoming one.)
Re: interesting
Date: 2004-08-08 05:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-08 07:01 pm (UTC)Hofstadter has an interesting take on this that I, with a few changes, tend to agree with - it boils down to the view of the brain as a symbol processing and matching system where symbols within the brain map isomorphically (there's that word again...) to objects the senses detect. This includes a "self" symbol that is a representation of the mind (which provides the selfreferrentiality required for conciousness) and symbols for friends, acquaintences and so on. Basic symbols for complex objects draw on other symbols to assist in modelling the world to fill in details but as you learn more about the object the symbol relies less and les on those "stubs", making itself bigger and more detailed (I can give Hofstadter's example here if that makes no sense - it's sort of analogous to objets in programming using the default values for a class on instantiation and then changing from those defaults as time goes on. In a way) When you are thinking about your friends, what they do and how they may react to something your symbol for them, along with any shared or assumed memories connected with that symbol, their symbols can draw on your other symbols - effectively they're smaller "self" symbols: they don't give you a complete picture of your friend's mind, you have to fill in bits using your own self, but as you get to know friends better and better the isomophism with the friend's mind grows. When you invent a character it's almost like making a new friend symbol which doesn't actually map to a real friend - it has some basic attributes maybe and draws on many symbols from the other parts of your mind. As it grows, as you think about it more and use it more, many of those temporary "stubs" can be removed and the character grows - eventually you end up with almost another self symbol. Not a real self symbol, because it can not achieve true selfreference, but something that in your imagination can almost seem to be making its own decisions - in a way it is, your self symbol can see this other symbol using your brain to make its decisions. (This probably won't make sense because I'm trying to squeeze around 450 pages of stuff, especially chapter 11, of Godel, Escher, Bach into a paragraph)
And..
It is not sexism, really. It is tradition and the laws of kashrut.
Which assumes that the laws of kashrut are not sexist. Which IMO is false. Every religion ever invented has been invented by people, even if there is some god or goddess that being did not invent the religion - they inspired it at most. And the direction and content of the religion will have been shaped by humans (who will inevitably bring up the "guided by the hand of God", a good escape clause for talking to people who believe that god exists). Humans almost always have an agenda, especially if they've survived to get to the point where they can modify a religion. The question to ask is what environment did the people who created the kashrut grow up in? What society did they live in? What laws were they drawing on when they made it - those are where you'll find the answers to why women were treated specially. Everything since then has been preserved because it suited those in charge to keep it that way - "Tradition" is a good way to stop people thinking, questioning and demanding real answers.
Mm-hmm.
Date: 2004-08-08 10:07 pm (UTC)With dealing with kashrut, you're right - humans make religions based upon their social situations. I was just pointing out that the likely origin of no priestesses in Catholicism is the kashrut laws in Judaism. You can continue backwards to find the reason why the kashrut laws are like that in Judaism, but that would be the next logical step. Considering a lot of the forum-goers there might not grasp this first step, giving them the next would be fruitless.