May 11, 2012 -- 2:02PM, jlb32168 wrote:

May 11, 2012 -- 12:40PM, JeanneD wrote:

Yeah, definitely a possibility. Your words [jlb is a misogynist and bigot].

Okay.

The rest of the post after "words" sounded like angry feminist theology and that can be best summed up with, "It's just so darn cute".

LOL! Avoid the factual issue (nothing about women priests in the creed), make angry assertions  and follow up with a petty little put-down - all meant to deflect attention from your apparent discomfort with women who aren't passive? A tad sensitive in being called out too.

May 11, 2012 -- 12:40PM, JeanneD wrote:

Yeah, definitely a possibility. Your words.  BTW, there is nothing in the creed about women priests. 

You don't need to be a shrink to get the message from some people.  Someone who is OK with women in leadership in the abstract and at a safe distance from his personal life - President, CEO, Mayor etc but can't handle a woman in his personal life in a 'superior" position to him on Sunday may not "hate" women, but they have some growing up to do. Need a little more self-confidence too probably so that women don't scare them so much - the pope and the men in Rome seem to be absolutely terrified of women.

 "I want my bishops and priests to be men" sounds a lot like the little boys who build a fort and then say "no girls allowed.'  They want their boys' club to be a boys' club. There are still little boys in men's bodies in the Catholic church who haven't grown up yet.  They live in Rome and chanceries around the world and wear a lot of crimson (their leader wears white most of the time though), but their fear of women still infects some in the pews too and they think they are justified in their prejudices because of it. That makes it sin on the part of the authorities, not just a misguided teaching.

I write some of this on another board. I think it fits here as well. I have added to it somewhat.

"I have always found patriarchal monotheism a strange system, since it has men worshipping a male figure.

It is easier for a women to love and yield to a male figure. At least heterosexual females. It really is not natural for heterosexual males to love and yield to another male.

Which is why I suppose so many fungelical (misogynist) males, force their females to practically worship them. Thus restoring some of the dignity they think they have to forfeit to be Christians.

Which ends up as women being considered not quite human, Not as bright, and inferior in spiritual matters, thus not allowed full human rights, such as decent affordable healthcare, fair and equal wages etc.. Further not permitted to become leaders of the Church ie: Priests, Bishops, even a female Pope.
 
That may also be why so many right wing, conservative men, fear homosexuality so much. They see it as a main point of their own religion on a subconsciousness level."

If they do not force females to be in subservient rolls, they feel threatened. They feel their manhood is threatened. They must feel they are  on the top of the pecking order, or they are not real men. It is silly, but it is how it appears, and how it is played out.

May 11, 2012 -- 4:02PM, mainecaptain wrote:

subservient rolls

Gotta love it!

jlb: 

". . which is why people of my opinion hear "dialogue" ... when a progressive says the term,(I)... find it comical."

I would never expect someone who states his opinion as "The ECUSA is Christianity optional..." and "It's hard ...to distinguish between (views of Progressive Christians) and the views of agnostics and soft atheists" to be capable of meaningful dialog.  I think most posters here have figured that out already.

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

"But because I actually believe the tenets of the Creeds as intended to be interpreted by its writers, and also want my bishops and priests to be men, I'm a "misogynist and bigot"."

I agree with you, couldn't have said it better.

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

You make no distinctions between people of Fred Phelps' ilk and people of my theological opinion so you're no less narrow-minded and intolerant than those you condemn; therefore, I have concluded that any interest in dialogue is feigned. ..."

The  distinction between you and Phelps is a matter of degree, not of principle. He's just as convinced of his interpretations as you are of yours. Phelps is so convinced that he's willing to put himself and his family at risk, while you seem satisfied with hurling insults on the internet...which I guess makes Phelps  the winner on commitment and you winner on the tolerance scale, as compared to Phelps.  I've had no interest or expectation of meaningful dialog with you for some time, your conclusion comes as no big disappointment.

May 11, 2012 -- 4:50PM, SeraphimR wrote:

May 11, 2012 -- 4:40PM, happygardener wrote:

jlb: 

". . which is why people of my opinion hear "dialogue" ... when a progressive says the term,(I)... find it comical."

I would never expect someone who states his opinion as "The ECUSA is Christianity optional..." and "It's hard ...to distinguish between (views of Progressive Christians) and the views of agnostics and soft atheists" to be capable of meaningful dialog.  I think most posters here have figured that out already.

So dialog is only possible between Progressive Christians?

If you have read out Traditionalists from the get go, what is all this handwringing about dialog?

I think you mean not dialog, but negotiations.

Do you think you have enough power to negotiate the surrender of the Traditionalists?  Could you ber satisfied with anything less than an unconditional surrender?

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

Probably.  "Conservare"  means to 'preserve'.  Most of us know what you are attempting to 'preserve'.  Progressive means discussing 'new things'';  new ideas, new approaches.  Obviously, a conservative, traditionalist, would not be interested in such a conversation from the very basis of what s/he believes. 

How can one have a 'dialogue' in that way?