Re: RELIGION: intuition (OT)

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

----------------------------

“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

----------------------------

July 21, 2005

> RE: RELIGION: intuition (OT)

>

>Wanita,

>

>The Virgin is also a HUGE focus in Eastern Orthodoxy. I sometimes

>wonder if she gets almost more attention than Christ himself. LOL

>

>I don't think it's cultural though since the Eastern Orthodox Church is

>worldwide. But was sinless, and without hesitation agreed to do as God

>instructed. As such, she's revered above the angels (who are spiritually

>more elevated than humans) - the *only* human being who was

>spiritually even

>above the angels!

And of course, there's that minor little fact that she was the mother of

God.

LOL

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

----------------------------

“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

----------------------------

July 21, 2005

>And of course, there's that minor little fact that she was the mother of

>God.

>

God has always existed and is beyond the constraints of time, if you'd

like to suppose It. Perhaps God Incarnate is a better term here. For

was born at some point in time of Joachim and .

Deanna

July 21, 2005

> And of course, there's that minor little fact that she was the mother

of

> God.

>

> LOL

Yes, maybe one could add that has been said to be the redemption

of Eve. But I have a question: as the mother of God, was free from

the Original Sin?

José

July 21, 2005

> Re: RE: RELIGION: intuition (OT)

>

>>And of course, there's that minor little fact that she was the mother of

>>God.

>>

>God has always existed and is beyond the constraints of time, if you'd

>like to suppose It.

Well of course! I'm using the term as it's used in common parlance,

especially in the Church.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

----------------------------

July 21, 2005

On 7/21/05, José- s Barbosa <jcmbarbosa52@...> wrote:

>

> > And of course, there's that minor little fact that she was the mother

> of

> > God.

> >

> > LOL

>

> Yes, maybe one could add that has been said to be the redemption

> of Eve. But I have a question: as the mother of God, was free from

> the Original Sin?

>

> José

Actually is referred to as the new Eve, while Christ is referred

to as the new Adam.

As for original sin - what is generally known as the Augustinian view

of original sin is horribly flawed, and Roman Catholics believe she is

free of it while Protestants do not.

The ancient pre-schism, i.e Orthodox view, is that , like every

other human ever to walk this planet, was subject to the consequences

of original sin, i.e. death and corruptibility, but was not guilty of

the actual sin of Adam and Eve. Everyone is guilty of their *own*

sins. There is no general personal guilt for sin.

July 21, 2005

On 7/21/05, <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

> While I understand the point you are trying to make, Mother of God is

> the correct term. is in fact referred to as the Mother of God,

> the Theotokos, throughout the Church's Tradition, not the mother of

> God incarnate. The Church jealously guards that title as a matter of

> Christology, but it is wayyyyy beyond anything I want to get into on

> this list.

Well with all due respect to the outside speculators (not you), who in

fact do have much respect from me, I don't really see the point of

people outside the Church debating the theology and ecclesiology of

the Church. It is useless to discuss the ordination of women without

any familiarity with the orthodox understanding of what the priesthood

is and why it is done the way it is done, and from a humanist

perspective (in this context meaning a perspective that sees humans as

the center of things, and the Church as an institution by humans, of

humans, and for humans).

It is likewise silly to criticize the Church's use of the term

Theotokos or Mother of God or similar variants without an

understanding of the context in which the terms are used and the great

theological debates about them, and their implications. One should

not even begin the discussion without having read, for example,

Cyril's Twelve Chapters and the Tome of Leo. (As a side note, I can

only laugh when I read secular historians claim that these two

documents are irreconcilable, despite them saying the exact same

thing.) It's really necessary to understand that this is not even an

issue about the Virgin per se. It's fundamental root is a

Christological issue, and goes to the heart of the Christian message.

To be for or against the term " Mother of God " is a CHRISTological

position that is precisely about just who CHRIST is, and the nature of

his sacrifice on the Cross, and what the implications of that

sacrifice are for God's love for humanity.

Chris

July 21, 2005

" Well with all due respect to the outside speculators (not you), who in

fact do have much respect from me, I don't really see the point of

people outside the Church debating the theology and ecclesiology of

the Church. It is useless to discuss the ordination of women without

any familiarity with the orthodox understanding of what the priesthood

is and why it is done the way it is done, and from a humanist

perspective (in this context meaning a perspective that sees humans as

the center of things, and the Church as an institution by humans, of

humans, and for humans). "

Useless, perhaps. But most discussions are useless in the respect that there

isn't any expectation of anything actually being accomplished besides

possibly changing the thinking of people. And in that regard, I think it's

perfectly acceptable to call the Church to task for being hopelessly sexist,

and homophobic as well.

July 21, 2005

I think I need to go and lie down. I actually agree with Gene!!

Gene wrote:

>

> I think it's

> perfectly acceptable to call the Church to task for being hopelessly

> sexist,

> and homophobic as well.

July 21, 2005

> I think I need to go and lie down. I actually agree with Gene!!

,

Have a laugh at me over here trying to figure out what other lists

he's on.

B.

July 21, 2005

downwardog7 wrote:

> ,

> Have a laugh at me over here trying to figure out what other lists

> he's on.

> B.

>

Theresa, I truly am laughing! I don't know if I should feel sorry for

the other listmembers or be afraid that they are more like him than we

are. Scary, if you think about it. ....best go and lie down now....

July 22, 2005

>

> It is useless to discuss the ordination of women without

> any familiarity with the orthodox understanding of what the priesthood

> is and why it is done the way it is done, and from a humanist

> perspective (in this context meaning a perspective that sees humans as

> the center of things, and the Church as an institution by humans, of

> humans, and for humans).

>

> Chris

Hi Chris:

I don't know if you are also referring to Deanna's question to me about

ordaining women priests. I gave her my opinion, but I am aware that she

asked me knowing that I am a layman and I gave her my answer as a

layman myself. I don't pretend to know about all the intricacies

(historical or not) that led the Catholic Church (that is the Church I

know best) to demand manhood from her shepherds. From my layman's point

of view, this is not a divine injunction, and as a man-made decision,

it is probably liable to criticism or questioning.

Cheers,

July 22, 2005

>Well with all due respect to the outside speculators (not you), who in

>fact do have much respect from me, I don't really see the point of

>people outside the Church debating the theology and ecclesiology of

>the Church. It is useless to discuss the ordination of women without

>any familiarity with the orthodox understanding of what the priesthood

>is and why it is done the way it is done, and from a humanist

>perspective (in this context meaning a perspective that sees humans as

>the center of things, and the Church as an institution by humans, of

>humans, and for humans).

>

What Church? The Orthodox? Catholic? Anglican? So long as there

aren't secrets kept from outsiders, there is absolutely no reason why an

understanding can not be had and discussion about it made. You and I

had a lengthy debate about the logical soundness of the Trinity way back

(where the logic was failed to be demonstrated), and you didn't pull out

this cop out then. While I will admit I have never been an Orthodox,

there is no reason why I can not learn and discuss basic Christian

principles. Or is it that I have to agree with the dogma and doctrine

in order to keep any cracks in the foundation from showing? By this

logic, you can't discuss women at all (let alone women priests), because

you will never inhabit the body of one ... without major surgeries anyway.

Deanna

July 22, 2005

On 7/22/05, José- s Barbosa <jcmbarbosa52@...> wrote:

> I don't know if you are also referring to Deanna's question to me about

> ordaining women priests. I gave her my opinion, but I am aware that she

> asked me knowing that I am a layman and I gave her my answer as a

> layman myself. I don't pretend to know about all the intricacies

> (historical or not) that led the Catholic Church (that is the Church I

> know best) to demand manhood from her shepherds. From my layman's point

> of view, this is not a divine injunction, and as a man-made decision,

> it is probably liable to criticism or questioning.

I was, but I apologize if that came off as arrogant. I think the

latter point is incorrect, although I'd rather not get too deep into

it. From what I've seen from the pro-women-priests groups, they've

been able to offer some convincing evidence that in some regions

deaconesses practiced a role similar to deacons and were ordained

inside the sanctuary (but not in others) but I've not seen any

compelling evidence at all that there were women priests in the early

church. That Jesus had many women disciples and apostles, but chose

exclusively men as " the 12, " from which were to be derived the

liturgical priesthood (as distinguished from the royal priesthood, of

which all Christians are members), that is generally regarded as the

implicit divine injunction.

Again I apologize if I came across as arrogant. You are in the right

for criticizing or questioning whatever you want. I guess my point

was that people outside the Church see the Church as completely

different than how the Church and her members see itself. If one

rejects the divine nature of the Church's ecclesiology and the

significance of the priesthood as the Church sees it, then one

considers the priesthood a sham, in which case it shouldn't matter who

gets to be part of it.

Chris

July 22, 2005

> Re: Re: RELIGION: intuition (OT)

>

>>Well with all due respect to the outside speculators (not you), who in

>>fact do have much respect from me, I don't really see the point of

>>people outside the Church debating the theology and ecclesiology of

>>the Church. It is useless to discuss the ordination of women without

>>any familiarity with the orthodox understanding of what the priesthood

>>is and why it is done the way it is done, and from a humanist

>>perspective (in this context meaning a perspective that sees humans as

>>the center of things, and the Church as an institution by humans, of

>>humans, and for humans).

>>

>What Church? The Orthodox? Catholic? Anglican? So long as there

>aren't secrets kept from outsiders, there is absolutely no reason why an

>understanding can not be had and discussion about it made.

I don't mean to speak for but perhaps he saw how fruitless it was

when we engaged in a similar discussion in the past both on this list and on

NT politics. Certainly a discussion can be made, but it has been clear from

these previous discussion that an understanding was not had, it seems for

the very reason he describes above.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

----------------------------

July 22, 2005

Chris-

>Well with all due respect to the outside speculators (not you), who in

>fact do have much respect from me, I don't really see the point of

>people outside the Church debating the theology and ecclesiology of

>the Church.

That argument could be used against any criticism by an outsider of a group.

-

July 22, 2005

Suze,

>

>I don't mean to speak for but perhaps he saw how fruitless it was

>when we engaged in a similar discussion in the past both on this list and on

>NT politics. Certainly a discussion can be made, but it has been clear from

>these previous discussion that an understanding was not had, it seems for

>the very reason he describes above.

>

I asked about women priests, not Chris. is free to

disengage from the discussion. Furthermore, I would like to know

that the apparent implication that I (and/or perhaps others) am a

humanist is incorrect and offensive to me. It is similar, in my mind,

to me saying his perspective is sexist or some remark like this,

therefore he is in no position to argue about women priests. But

perhaps he did not mean that. As a former member of the Roman Catholic

Church, I do have some understanding. His argument is akin to saying I

can't talk about abortion because I am a republican and hold republican

perspectives on it.

" Modern humanism has two branches. Religious humanism stems from the

Renaissance-Enlightenment tradition. It contains many artists, mainline

Christians, and scholars in the liberal arts. Their view tends to

concentrate on the dignity and nobility of human achievement and

possibility. Secular humanism reflects the rise of globalism, technology

and the collapse of religious authority. It too acknowleges an

individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through

reason and logic. They see themselves as providing an answer to the need

for a common philosophy that transcends the cultural boundaries of local

moral codes and religions.

" Many people call themselves humanists of one form or another. Some

people consider themselves humanists because their religious beliefs are

moral, and therefore humane. Humanism is also sometimes used to describe

humanities scholars (particularly classicists). "

Deanna

July 22, 2005

> On 7/22/05,

> Again I apologize if I came across as arrogant. You are in the right

> for criticizing or questioning whatever you want. I guess my point

> was that people outside the Church see the Church as completely

> different than how the Church and her members see itself. If one

> rejects the divine nature of the Church's ecclesiology and the

> significance of the priesthood as the Church sees it, then one

> considers the priesthood a sham, in which case it shouldn't matter who

> gets to be part of it.

>

I don't think that any group that considers any aspect of itself divine should

be able to engage in hateful/discriminatory practices, based on the fact that it

has always been done this way. What you have historically is a bunch of old men,

who don't give one hoot about the rights of women, interpreting events as

prohibitive against women priests. But what exactly would happen if there were

women priests? would everyone who went to their services burn in hell? Sorry -

but, personally, I think that it should be illegal job discrimination for the

Church to ban woman priests.

And, of course, the Church is also hateful in its attitude towards homosexuals.

Hateful. I don't see any reason not to use this term.

July 22, 2005

> Re: Re: RELIGION: intuition (OT)

>

>Suze,

>

>>

>>I don't mean to speak for but perhaps he saw how fruitless it was

>>when we engaged in a similar discussion in the past both on this

>list and on

>>NT politics. Certainly a discussion can be made, but it has been

>clear from

>>these previous discussion that an understanding was not had, it seems for

>>the very reason he describes above.

>>

>I asked about women priests, not Chris. is free to

>disengage from the discussion. Furthermore, I would like to know

>that the apparent implication that I (and/or perhaps others) am a

>humanist is incorrect and offensive to me. It is similar, in my mind,

>to me saying his perspective is sexist or some remark like this,

>therefore he is in no position to argue about women priests. But

>perhaps he did not mean that. As a former member of the Roman Catholic

>Church, I do have some understanding. His argument is akin to saying I

>can't talk about abortion because I am a republican and hold republican

>perspectives on it.

I didn't understand it as such. I thought he meant, since you or others have

made comments that would be typical of a humanist (or something along those

lines), that it might be fruitless to engage in a discussion (I assume

largely based on past experiences on these lists) regarding the nature of

the priesthood since it cannot be accurately discussed without an

understanding of what it *means* and *has meant* historically to the Church.

>

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

> " Modern humanism has two branches. Religious humanism stems from the

>Renaissance-Enlightenment tradition. It contains many artists, mainline

>Christians, and scholars in the liberal arts. Their view tends to

>concentrate on the dignity and nobility of human achievement and

>possibility. Secular humanism reflects the rise of globalism, technology

>and the collapse of religious authority. It too acknowleges an

>individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through

>reason and logic. They see themselves as providing an answer to the need

>for a common philosophy that transcends the cultural boundaries of local

>moral codes and religions.

>

> " Many people call themselves humanists of one form or another. Some

>people consider themselves humanists because their religious beliefs are

>moral, and therefore humane. Humanism is also sometimes used to describe

>humanities scholars (particularly classicists). "

I'm not clear on what bearing this has on Chris' post...

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

----------------------------

July 22, 2005

Suze

>I didn't understand it as such. I thought he meant, since you or others have

>made comments that would be typical of a humanist (or something along those

>lines), that it might be fruitless to engage in a discussion (I assume

>largely based on past experiences on these lists) regarding the nature of

>the priesthood since it cannot be accurately discussed without an

>understanding of what it *means* and *has meant* historically to the Church.

>

Well, can certainly speak for himself, last I checked.

Deanna

July 22, 2005

> Re: Re: RELIGION: intuition (OT)

>

>Suze

>

>>I didn't understand it as such. I thought he meant, since you or

>others have

>>made comments that would be typical of a humanist (or something

>along those

>>lines), that it might be fruitless to engage in a discussion (I assume

>>largely based on past experiences on these lists) regarding the nature of

>>the priesthood since it cannot be accurately discussed without an

>>understanding of what it *means* and *has meant* historically to

>the Church.

>>

>Well, can certainly speak for himself, last I checked.

Last I checked too. Although I don't check very often. My point wasn't to

try to speak for but simply to share with you a different

understanding of his comments than you came away with :-)

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics