women as priests obse
Elizabeth T. Knuth
On Sat, 21 Dec 1996, John Medaille <joh...@MAIL.AIRMAIL.NET>
wrote:
>>: >: Does the male-female relationship image the god-man
>>: >: relationship.
>>: >It can. It doesn't always, because of sin.
>>: Cop-out. How does it? When it does that is.
>>When it is a relationship of self-giving love. When it is
>>life-giving.
> But one doesn't need sexuality for self-giving love, does one?
No.
> What is there about sexuality that is peculiar to the god/man
> relationship?
Beats me. Plants and animals have sex too. God does not. Why don't
you enlighten us all?
>> You still haven't answered. Where is it that Christ tells us that
>> he is feminine in relation to the Father? Where is it that Jesus
>> Christ says that all creatures are "feminine" in relation to God?
> I will answer this question one more time. (BTW, I have not said
> that "Christ tell us that he is feminine"
No, you refuse to provide even one example. And yes, you did so say
that Christ insists that he is feminine vis-a-vis the Father, and
that Jesus also says that we are all feminine in relation to God.
Sherman, turn on the Way Back machine.
> X-Sender: joh...@mail.airmail.net
> Message-ID: <3.0.32.19961219...@mail.airmail.net>
> Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 09:02:30 -0600
> From: John Medaille <joh...@MAIL.AIRMAIL.NET>
> God is revealed as both masculine and fiminine in Genesis. Aspects
> of God are spoken of uder the imagery of the female. Christ insists
> that God (in relationship to himself and to us) is masculine and we
> are feminine.
So put up or shut up. The Our Father, Isa. 65, or the Song of Songs
do not prove your point. Since you claim that Jesus says that he himself
and all of us are feminine in relation to God, why can't you furnish even
one verse wherein Jesus asserts this?
> Also I am wounded by the charge of subordinationism without the
> least hint of supporting evidence. As this is a heresy, such a
> charge is serious and should not be made lightly and without
> compelling proof.
I did not say that you were subordinationist in the Trinitarian
sense. I merely pointed out that you pick and choose subordinationist
texts (all women as a class are and should be inferior to any man) as
more important than a baptismal text which insists that in Christ
there is no superiority of one or the other sex (Gal. 3:28).
Liz
--
http://www.users.csbsju.edu/~eknuth .::7777::-. The only things in the
ekn...@tiny.computing.csbsju.edu /:'////' `::>/|/ middle of the road
Elizabeth T. Knuth .', |||| `/( e\ are yellow stripes
art: Seal; quip: J. Hightower -==~-'`-Xm````-mr' `-_\ and dead armadillos.
John Medaille
At 09:36 AM 12/22/96 -0600, Liz complained:
>> relationship?
>
>Beats me. Plants and animals have sex too. God does not. Why don't
>you enlighten us all?
Certainly God does not have sex in the way we do. Nonetheless the Bible
says "As a young man marries a virgin, so shall your maker marry you" God's
relationship with us will be an exstatic one and a complimentary one. He
will fill us completely and we will be pregnant with every possibility. We
will have live abundant, participating in the exstatic comminity of the
trinity.
But when you say "beats me", surely you are being disengenuous? Because if
a person didn't know, they would argue less and listen more. So tell me,
what is the sexual analogue, in your view? Or is there none? Is exuality
spiritually barren?
Then you enter a bizzare sequence. You charge me with saying something
peculiar, and say that I haven't provided one example even while taking
issue with 3 examples I did provide. How you can take issue with examples I
didn't provide is a mystery. Pur that aside for the moment. You make this
bizzare charge:
>No, you refuse to provide even one example. And yes, you did so say
>that Christ insists that he is feminine vis-a-vis the Father, and
>that Jesus also says that we are all feminine in relation to God.
Based on this bizarre evidence:
>Sherman, turn on the Way Back machine.
>
>> X-Sender: joh...@mail.airmail.net
>> Message-ID: <3.0.32.19961219...@mail.airmail.net>
>> Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 09:02:30 -0600
>> From: John Medaille <joh...@MAIL.AIRMAIL.NET>
>
>> God is revealed as both masculine and fiminine in Genesis. Aspects
>> of God are spoken of uder the imagery of the female. Christ insists
>> that God (in relationship to himself and to us) is masculine and we
>> are feminine.
Now what in that says that I said that christ says that he is feminine?
Turn it sideways, upside down, read left to right, right to left, back to
front, top to bottoem and bottom to top --- how do you get your reading????
Further, had I identified Christ with the feminine, it would have ended the
argument -- in your favor; a feminine Christ can certainly have a priestess.
>
>So put up or shut up. The Our Father, Isa. 65, or the Song of Songs
>do not prove your point. Since you claim that Jesus says that he himself
>and all of us are feminine in relation to God, why can't you furnish even
>one verse wherein Jesus asserts this?
>
Odd. You say put up or shut up and then take me to task for putting up?!?
But for all that, you do not share with us your objection. How does it not
prove the point? What is your reading? I take it there is not disagreement
that Christ identifies God as Father. Certainly the words of Isaiah 62:5
are clear. To which you may add Is 26:17, 66:8-10, 49:18. And was not the
prophet commanded to marry a prostitute as a sign and symbol of God's
unconditional acceptance of the wayward daughter Israel? If you do not like
them, perhaps you will state your objection and give your own reading? Or
perhaps not.
>I did not say that you were subordinationist in the Trinitarian
>sense. I merely pointed out that you pick and choose subordinationist
>texts (all women as a class are and should be inferior to any man) as
>more important than a baptismal text which insists that in Christ
>there is no superiority of one or the other sex (Gal. 3:28).
I have handled the texts in question, and many other texts as well,
including all the one's you have cited. But you have only dealt with texts
you feel support your point. Others are consigned to the academic flames
("must be an interpolation; it disagrees with our interpretation"). As I
said before, anyone can read anything they like into a bowlderized bible.
The test is how you handle the contrary passages. Want to give it a try?
>: I do not find in your ideas a well constructed theology,
>
>I'm not a systematician. So sue me.
That comment is not worthy of you Liz. If your ideas don't hang together,
then they need to be examined further. You claim the mantle of academics,
but eschew the necessity for choherent thought.
>
>: I gather you consign analogy to an inferior form of communication,
>: while I place it as a superior form.
>
>Well, la-de-da. Inferior or superior to what?
In relationship to each other, obviously. Why the La-de-da? Is there a point?
>
>: No, he is not "like" a person. He *is* a person. Or a community of
>: persons, actually. We are persons also, hence we are in his image.
>
>If God *is* a person, then we are persons only by analogy.
>
Really? Perhaps you would share your non-personal Christology with us. Or
is it non-personal humanity? One or the other, right. No, certainly you
cannot mean what that seems to say.
>
>: You would prefer it, I gather, if he would begin "Technically..."
>: followed by a string of philospophical jargon.
>
>I would prefer it if you would stop speculating on what I do or do
>not believe, and would stop assuming all sorts of nefarious motives on
>my part.
I don't think I have ever ascribed motives, nefarious or otherwise, to you.
I have said that your arguments don't hold together, or that they lead to
the unpleasant consequences cited above. Especially in the example cited
above which is in fact a quote form you. Since you like the way back machine:
"If Jesus
talks about God as personal, loving, etc., it goes down easiest for us
if he picks one or the other for purposes of illustration. Better
than prefacing every single story with, "Technically, God transcends
sexuality, but God is like a father who had two sons..." (Liz Knuth, Sun,
22 Dec 1996 02:42:09 GMT)
Obviously, although you think the "technically" is a stylistic question,
but should be there. Certainly, you mean for it to be there from an
exigetical point of view. And if you do not mean it to be there, your
arguement collapses. So it seems to me, you are in a lose-lose situation;
you either re-write the line or lose the case. Your witness, counselor.
>
>: Implicily, you are elevating your own mode of speech over the speech
>: of the Palestinian peasants of his day. An easy thing for us to do; we
>: have all been raised to be cultural snobs.
>
>Get off it, John. That dog won't hunt. You are wrong.
Really, how? You say that Christ can't tell them "Technically....". Why
not? This is the heart of the question about audience. Who really makes the
better audience? Them or us? I assert that dog hunts well indeed. Sniffs
into the heart of modernism (which is no more then snobery on universal
scale) and grabs the pseudo-science of biblical criticism in a most
uncomfortable place. That dog hunts well indeed. If I am wrong, you show me
where.
>
>: >: or is it an ontological category, a constient of our very nature?
>No, it is not materialist to deny ontological status to gender. It is
>also good Christology and soteriology to do so. Personality is not
>determined by genitalia.
That's a rather broad statement, no pun intended. So, you really think
there are no differences in the psychology of men and women? Well, I'm not
a psychologist, but I'll bet that there are many who would disagree with
you. What is more certain is that the mass of mankind living and dead would
diagree with you. Of course, if one is willing to pass off all human
experience as mere cultural determinism, this won't impress. Still, very
few on this planet would agree.
> Last I heard, spirit was an ontological
>category. But souls are not sexually differentiated and are not
>gendered. If souls are pink and blue, this has drastic consequences
>for salvation in Christ. You would have to say either that Jesus
>Christ was not human and did not have a human soul --> therefore we
>are not saved, or that Jesus, having a male soul, cannot save women.
>Because "that which is not incarnated is not redeemed" (a basic
>principle of Christology, formulated by Gregory of Nazianzus).
Oh well, finally, you advance what could be a valid objection. Still, this
doesn't seem right, since both genders are in God (else they couldn't be in
us).
>: Exactly! The alternative is reductionism: Gender is an
>: epi-phenomenon of a purely physical sexual differentiation, which in
>: itself has no meaning. The alternatve is the destruction of meaning.
>
>So, John, are you maintaining the pre-existence of souls?
How does maintaining that gender is an ontological category dictate the
pre-esistence of souls? Does not compute.
John
Lisa K.
At 3:36 PM -0000 12/22/96, Elizabeth T. Knuth wrote:
>> What is there about sexuality that is peculiar to the god/man
>> relationship?
>
>Beats me. Plants and animals have sex too. God does not. Why don't
>you enlighten us all?
>
>>> You still haven't answered. Where is it that Christ tells us that
>>> he is feminine in relation to the Father? Where is it that Jesus
>>> Christ says that all creatures are "feminine" in relation to God?
>
>> I will answer this question one more time. (BTW, I have not said
>> that "Christ tell us that he is feminine"
>
This has been an interesting debate on the subject. It never ceases to
amaze me that this is one of those subjects seem to raise blood pressure.
I do agree that Christ always used male imagary when referring to God.
However, what I have not seen anyone mention is no one in that period and
time would have been able to understand anyother form of imagery where God
was concerned. Judiac images of God had always been male, and I will not
open that can, so to speak. I have heard the view that God had male imagary
because of the place of power that males had in early societies.
NOTE: I am NOT saying that God is female. In my opinion, I do not think
that God HAS a gender, but we have to, in our finite view of the universe
in this life, come up with some sort of imagery of Him, even knowing that
amy image that we may come up with is far from the reality.
Ok there is my .02 cents worth. Back into lurk mode......
******************************************
Lisa Kostyn Pax et Bonum
Chemistry student
Ancient Students R US
University of Tennessee at Martin
******************************************
John Medaille
At 07:03 AM 12/23/96 -0800, Lisa wrote:
>
>
>This has been an interesting debate on the subject. It never ceases to
>amaze me that this is one of those subjects seem to raise blood pressure.
>I do agree that Christ always used male imagary when referring to God.
>However, what I have not seen anyone mention is no one in that period and
>time would have been able to understand anyother form of imagery where God
>was concerned. Judiac images of God had always been male, and I will not
>open that can, so to speak. I have heard the view that God had male imagary
>because of the place of power that males had in early societies.
>
for God, and Christ was was certainly not precluded from doing the same.
The major problem is that it predicates a "cultural" Jesus, locked in 1st
Century norms of a Palestinian peasant and not free in selection of
language to convey the truth. In fact, not in possission of the truth,
because the truth would make him free. This is the God of the scholars, the
domesticated God who posses no threat to anyone (because we decide what he
is) and yet the giver of innumerable topics for impenetrable doctoral thesis.
>NOTE: I am NOT saying that God is female. In my opinion, I do not think
>that God HAS a gender, but we have to, in our finite view of the universe
>in this life, come up with some sort of imagery of Him, even knowing that
>amy image that we may come up with is far from the reality.
The trinity has all genders, has both generativity and receptivity. Michael
K. has written eloquently on this.
>
>Ok there is my .02 cents worth. Back into lurk mode......
Please don't do that. Stick with us.
John
Liz Knuth
John Medaille (joh...@MAIL.AIRMAIL.NET) wrote:
: At 09:36 AM 12/22/96 -0600, Liz complained:
: >On Sat, 21 Dec 1996, John Medaille <joh...@MAIL.AIRMAIL.NET>
: >wrote:
: >
: >> What is there about sexuality that is peculiar to the god/man
: >> relationship?
: >
: >Beats me. Plants and animals have sex too. God does not. Why don't
: >you enlighten us all?
: God's relationship with us will be an exstatic one and a
: complimentary one.
Very lovely idea, John.
: we will be pregnant with every possibility.
What kind of unfulfilled good possibility can there be in heaven?
: We will have live abundant, participating in the exstatic comminity
: of the trinity.
: But when you say "beats me", surely you are being disengenuous?
No, I am serious. Smarter and holier people than I have found
sexuality confusing, have wondered what the image and likeness of God
in us might be, and have not always connected the two. Many of the
Fathers would have ruled out sexuality as the divine image
precisely because plants and animals have sex too, and only humans
are in the image and likeness of God.
: So tell me, what is the sexual analogue, in your view?
I don't know. I suspect it has something to do with persons in
relationship, but if sexuality were to disappear, there could still
be persons in relationship.
: >No, you refuse to provide even one example. And yes, you did so say
: >that Christ insists that he is feminine vis-a-vis the Father, and
: >that Jesus also says that we are all feminine in relation to God.
: Based on this bizarre evidence:
: >> Christ insists that God (in relationship to himself and to us) is
: >> masculine and we are feminine.
: Now what in that says that I said that christ says that he is
: feminine?
Ah, English is such a wonderful language. So ambiguous at times. OK.
Here is where I got my "bizarre" reading, and apparently mistook what
you were trying to say. I thought that Christ was the subject of the
whole sentence. I.e., "Christ insists that God (in relationship to
himself and us) is masculine and Christ insists that we are feminine."
Furthermore I compounded my error by thinking that the sentence was
symmetrical, a masculine-feminine relationship, with Christ being in
the same boat with us in both parts of the sentence. Thus, "Christ
insists that God in relationship to Christ is masculine and Christ is
feminine, and Christ insists that God in relationship to us is
masculine and we are feminine." After breaking my head over this, I
see that you could have meant two separate propositions. "Christ
insists that God (in relationship to himself and us) is masculine. We
are feminine." Note, no authority given for the second assertion, so
you can draw supporting evidence from anywhere at all, not only from
what Christ himself insists upon. Or a more convoluted possibility,
you could have meant, "Christ insists that God in relationship to
himself is masculine. Christ insists that God in relationship to us is
masculine and Christ insists that we are feminine." No gender assigned
to Christ here, but you would still have to show where Christ says
that the divine-human relationship is a masculine-feminine relationship.
Or, a final (I think) possibility, you may have meant, "Christ insists
that God in relationship to himself is masculine. Christ insists that
God in relationship to us is masculine. We are feminine." No gender
assigned to Christ, and for the "feminine" bit you can draw evidence
from anywhere you like.
So which is it? Or have I still missed your drift? It makes a
difference, and it is frustrating to carry on a conversation when I
do not understand what you are arguing.
<snip of John's run through the OT. A response must depend on
his answer as to what he meant to say in the first place.>
: >: I do not find in your ideas a well constructed theology,
: >
: >I'm not a systematician. So sue me.
: That comment is not worthy of you Liz.
Oh, really? What comment would you think so low as to be unworthy of
someone whom you have invited to come clean of imagined modernism,
dualism, snobbery, stupidity, secular feminism, dishonesty, living in
denial, lack of love, materialism, illogic, and dastardly motives?
: >: I gather you consign analogy to an inferior form of communication,
: >: while I place it as a superior form.
: >
: >Well, la-de-da. Inferior or superior to what?
: In relationship to each other, obviously.
But, John, there is no "each other" here. To what is analogy inferior
or superior?
: Why the La-de-da? Is there a point?
Yes, my impatience. I *will* admit that patience has never been my
long suit. Look, you speculate on what I "must" think but am
undoubtedly hiding (in your opinion). Then you say, "The way *I* look
at it is ever so much better." And why? Because. It just is.
: >: No, he is not "like" a person. He *is* a person. Or a community of
: >: persons, actually. We are persons also, hence we are in his image.
: >
: >If God *is* a person, then we are persons only by analogy.
: >
: No, certainly you cannot mean what that seems to say.
Oh, but I can. And do. If God literally *is* a person, then we
must be persons in an analogous sense. We are not exactly the same
as God. We are not persons in the same way that God is a person, if
God is a person.
<snip. John invites me again to repent of nonexistent
snobbishness and modernism.>
BTW, John, you insinuate that I am infected with modernism. A heresy,
you know. Such a serious charge should not be made without
convincing proof.
: the pseudo-science of biblical criticism
The Vatican looks rather favorably on biblical criticism.
: So, you really think there are no differences in the psychology of
: men and women?
Yes, that is exactly what I think. Personality is not carried on
the Y chromosome.
: > Last I heard, spirit was an ontological
: >category. But souls are not sexually differentiated and are not
: >gendered. If souls are pink and blue, this has drastic consequences
: >for salvation in Christ. You would have to say either that Jesus
: >Christ was not human and did not have a human soul --> therefore we
: >are not saved, or that Jesus, having a male soul, cannot save women.
: >Because "that which is not incarnated is not redeemed" (a basic
: >principle of Christology, formulated by Gregory of Nazianzus).
: Oh well, finally, you advance what could be a valid objection.
*Is* a valid objection.
: Still, this doesn't seem right, since both genders are in God (else
: they couldn't be in us).
No, God is not sexual. God is not gendered. Gender is a human
social construct, whereby a particular society takes *human* traits
and divvies them up as supposedly more appropriate to one sex or the
other. Sin is in us. Sickness is in us. Or, more positively,
since both of those are defects, eye color is in us, hair (since we
are mammals) is in our nature. That doesn't mean that those things
are also in God.
: >: Exactly! The alternative is reductionism: Gender is an
: >: epi-phenomenon of a purely physical sexual differentiation, which
: >: in itself has no meaning. The alternatve is the destruction of
: >: meaning.
: >
: >So, John, are you maintaining the pre-existence of souls?
: How does maintaining that gender is an ontological category dictate the
: pre-esistence of souls? Does not compute.
You say that gender is a natural spiritual ontological category which
precedes and causes sexual differentiation. If this spiritual
something at the foundation of personality (and apparently of
physiology as well) is already gendered, comes in two kinds, pink and
blue, does it not come earlier than our embodied life?
John Medaille
At 07:57 PM 12/24/96 GMT, Liz wrote:
>John Medaille (joh...@MAIL.AIRMAIL.NET) wrote:
>
>: At 09:36 AM 12/22/96 -0600, Liz complained:
>
>: >On Sat, 21 Dec 1996, John Medaille <joh...@MAIL.AIRMAIL.NET>
>: >wrote:
>: >
>: >> What is there about sexuality that is peculiar to the god/man
>: >> relationship?
>: >
>: >Beats me. Plants and animals have sex too. God does not. Why don't
>: >you enlighten us all?
>
>: God's relationship with us will be an exstatic one and a
>: complimentary one.
>
>Very lovely idea, John.
>
>: we will be pregnant with every possibility.
>
>What kind of unfulfilled good possibility can there be in heaven?
>
out. I have some speculations about that, but this is not the place.
Suffice it to say that there certainly are "events" in heaven. We know this
from Christian mythology (i.e., stories about things outside of time).
Satan rebels, the battle in heaven, etc. One thing for sure: it will not be
dull -- just the opposite.
>: But when you say "beats me", surely you are being disengenuous?
>
>No, I am serious. Smarter and holier people than I have found
>sexuality confusing, have wondered what the image and likeness of God
>in us might be, and have not always connected the two.
So let me understand this. You have no opinion of your own, your just sure
I'm wrong? Now me, I'm an opinionated SOB, but when I run out of opinions,
I generally fall silent. Pershaps even stopping to listen.
>
>: >> Christ insists that God (in relationship to himself and to us) is
>: >> masculine and we are feminine.
I don't think that statement is nearly as complex as you attempt to make
it. It will bear none of the interpretations you attempted to give it. It
is a compound sentance composed of two very simple sentance phrases. Am I
going too fast for you?
>Note, no authority given for the second assertion, so
>you can draw supporting evidence from anywhere at all, not only from
>what Christ himself insists upon.
Now this is bizzare. Four times I ave cited the OT and four times you claim
its been lost in the mail, or the editor of Christia says you dun hafta
answer (she's your lawyer I guess), or it just gets snipped. And each time,
you ask for the evidence you say you never got. You say you don't like to
be psycholanalysed. Well I don't care for psychoanalysis, but there is
certainly an avoidance strategy here. Whatever you don't like gets sniped,
or you even deny its there. Over and over.
If you don't like my readings of the passages, offer your own. Or ignore
them, of Christa says its ok. But quit claiming you never got them. It
makes you look silly.
>
>: >: I do not find in your ideas a well constructed theology,
>: >
>: >I'm not a systematician. So sue me.
>
>: That comment is not worthy of you Liz.
>
>Oh, really? What comment would you think so low as to be unworthy of
>someone whom you have invited to come clean of imagined modernism,
>dualism, snobbery, stupidity, secular feminism, dishonesty, living in
>denial, lack of love, materialism, illogic, and dastardly motives?
Touchy touchy. But should I run the way back machine for some Knuth-talk.
Or is that a women's prerogative? <G>
But again you avoid the issue. I've never before discussed something with
someone who claims their thought doesn't need to be systematic. Oh I get
it! This is a subtle parody on sterotypes. By acting that way, you're
offering a subtle parady on sexual stereotypes by pretending to think the
way men think women think. I get it.
>
>: >: I gather you consign analogy to an inferior form of communication,
>: >: while I place it as a superior form.
>: >
>: >Well, la-de-da. Inferior or superior to what?
>
>: In relationship to each other, obviously.
>
>But, John, there is no "each other" here. To what is analogy inferior
>or superior?
>
You really ought to read *before* you snip. Two methods of speaking were
being compared, the analogic and the "literal".
>
>Oh, but I can. And do. If God literally *is* a person, then we
>must be persons in an analogous sense. We are not exactly the same
>as God. We are not persons in the same way that God is a person, if
>God is a person.
Out of curiosity, which one is it? God is not *really* persons or we are
not? Or this another of those interminable questions Christia says you
don't have to answer?
>BTW, John, you insinuate that I am infected with modernism. A heresy,
>you know. Such a serious charge should not be made without
>convincing proof.
Infected with moderism isn't being a heretic. Knowingly advocation
modernism is. By your own admission, your thought's not systematic enough
to do that. <g>
>
>: the pseudo-science of biblical criticism
>
>The Vatican looks rather favorably on biblical criticism.
But not the psuedo-science. Not that claim to make definitive statements
based on what is, after all, a minor branch of literary criticism. Not the
claims of say, the Jesus Seminar.
>Yes, that is exactly what I think. Personality is not carried on
>the Y chromosome.
No differences. Oh well, as Olivier might say (but probably won't) vive le
lack of difference!
>No, God is not sexual. God is not gendered. Gender is a human
>social construct, whereby a particular society takes *human* traits
>and divvies them up as supposedly more appropriate to one sex or the
>other
You make these statements without the slightest effort at evidence or
logic. And you draw such sharp distinctions between our "physical" and
"spiritual" parts. I wonder how you do it? What criteria you use? You are
so unwilling to share these things with us. I know your opinions, I haven't
the faintest idea of why you hold them. And you are so shy about it.
>You say that gender is a natural spiritual ontological category which
>precedes and causes sexual differentiation. If this spiritual
>something at the foundation of personality (and apparently of
>physiology as well) is already gendered, comes in two kinds, pink and
>blue, does it not come earlier than our embodied life?
Are you saying that if any onotological category is expressed in the soul
of man, than the soul is pre-created. Or are you saying there are no
ontological expressions in the soul? Or does all of this apply only to
gender; other ontological categories can exist in the soul? Or are you just
making it up as you go along?
>
John