http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7174630.stm

Not all members of all churches are as open minded as you describe..

Kate P wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7174630.stm

Not all members of all churches are as open minded as you describe..

Indeed, I remember that case. However, in fairness to the Presbyterians, the opinion of the Moderator of the Presbyterian Church should be noted:

Dr John Finlay wrote:

We are quite unequivocal as far as
women are eligible in the same terms as men and our stance on gender
equality is absolutely clear on that one, and nobody is allowed to
frustrate the law of the church, either an individual or a body. So
that's one side of it."

I don't think you can completely legislate against sexists, or indeed those who feel their position is justified theologically. Stafford Carson, the minister in question is somewhat of a controversial figure within the Presbyterian Church from what I gather. However, it seems they are doing a fairly decent job in the round. The nearest Presbyterian Church to me has a female minister and they all seem to get on great down there.

Absolutely - but it's a bit of a problem when one of those sexists is in a position where he influences the opinions of others. It was a very public and unnecessary debacle.

Our local CoI has a woman minister and she's a powerhouse for the church and the community. The Catholic Church has made no moves in the direction of having women priests though they can serve communion and work as lay preachers. Transubstantiation it seems can only happen when men are leading the show

My favourite Transubstantiation moment in recent times was when a priest was interviewed on Newstalk regarding the potential lower blood-alcohol limit for driving. He was highlighting the concern that having celebrated mass he often needs to drive places. The interviewer said to him - but surely it should have no affect because when wine is taken during communion it is the blood of Christ. The priest replied - well it is the blood of Christ, but singularly for the purposes of a breathalyser test, it has all the qualities and characteristics of wine.

Just came across as very ironic at the time.

johnfás wrote:

My favourite Transubstantiation moment in recent times was when a priest was interviewed on Newstalk regarding the potential lower blood-alcohol limit for driving. He was highlighting the concern that having celebrated mass he often needs to drive places. The interviewer said to him - but surely it should have no affect because when wine is taken during communion it is the blood of Christ. The priest replied - well it is the blood of Christ, but singularly for the purposes of a breathalyser test, it has all the qualities and characteristics of wine.

Just came across as very ironic at the time.

I think it merely highlights how many people don't understand exactly what transubstantion is.:-)

The substance changes people, the substance, not the actual physical properties of it (the accidents). Therefore the substance of the wine is blood, but the actual physical properties remain the same. They are still alcoholic and a combination of water and certain hydorcarbons.

How did I believe this for so long?

Substance and accidents are two very different things, if our philosophers are to be believed.

905 wrote:

Substance and accidents are two very different things, if our philosophers are to be believed.

Yes they are. I never said they weren't did I?

Honestly, it's these kind of elements of religion that individuals like Dawkins and Hitchens are able to use as strawman to disprove the validity of the God hypothesis with.

I mean that respectable people, much beardier and cleverer than me and presumably you, have accepted the substance/accident notion, that it is (or was?) acceptable in scholarly thinking.

Just because something's a bit vulnerable that doesn't mean religion should do away with it, define themselves by atheism.

It's not as though Dawkins et al are short of straw men themselves.

905 wrote:

I mean that respectable people, much beardier and cleverer than me and presumably you, have accepted the substance/accident notion, that it is (or was?) acceptable in scholarly thinking.

You always have to watch out for those beardy ones :-)

But indeed, I'm sure the logical progressions in it are very well taught out, and I'm sure they have argued very effectively for it. But I just can't buy it, it's way too up in the air. I don't see it as a reason for believing in god either, nor do I see it as essential to my belief in god.

Quote :

Just because something's a bit vulnerable that doesn't mean religion should do away with it, define themselves by atheism.

Now, in fairness, as much as is possible, religion should use objectivity and rationality to arrive at it's conclusions.

Quote :

It's not as though Dawkins et al are short of straw men themselves.

Given that they decide to disprove religion as a means of disproving god, that statement is definitely true.

riadach wrote:

Now, in fairness, as much as is possible, religion should use objectivity and rationality to arrive at it's conclusions.

D'ya reckon? Many people (well, me) think the Western Church went wrong a long time ago when it started to fight science etc. on science's territory. Orthodox churches don't bother, they see the two as different, as do most people (well, me). Maybe the subject for a different thread though, let's not test Johnfás' wrath?

Carry on... have discovered that I have the ability to split threads so if it goes too much off topic I'll split it and let you know a new topic exists. I'm not one for shouting BACK ON TOPIC!!

I'm not sure that most Western Churches fight science. Perhaps in the renaissance they did, or indeed perhaps people in the Catholic Church feels that it still does - opinions? Maybe just the fact that I grew up both in Church and surrounded by science made me see the value in both?

I got carried away and started a new thread. It's called a pre-emptive strike, compromise is soo last millenium.

johnfás wrote:

Carry on... have discovered that I have the ability to split threads so if it goes too much off topic I'll split it and let you know a new topic exists. I'm not one for shouting BACK ON TOPIC!!

I'm not sure that most Western Churches fight science. Perhaps in the renaissance they did, or indeed perhaps people in the Catholic Church feels that it still does - opinions? Maybe just the fact that I grew up both in Church and surrounded by science made me see the value in both?

I don't either. Indeed many religious philosophers, such as chardin, frequently use science as a starting point when elucidating their impression of God.

Because:
> it is not the gods having problems with woman,
but it is the mostly malepriestcraft projecting their
problems with woman on their gods
> and after this, the priestcraft abuses the gods to
come up with strange ideas and commendments,
made to solve their priestcrafts' problems, at least
some way, doing strange things to women.
The only way out, which I see:
>> get into direct touch with the gods.
This is possible, though modern man, and also
most spiritual people, disbelieve that they can
do it.
It could be done in ancient times, and it can be
done now.
E.g., Maha KALI, the great Mother Goddess of India,
is a very loving godhead in her core, and
she definitely will support anybody, who wants
to get into direct touch with the gods.
GO for direct understanding !
Frank

frank peschanel wrote:

Because:
> it is not the gods having problems with woman,
but it is the mostly malepriestcraft projecting their
problems with woman on their gods
> and after this, the priestcraft abuses the gods to
come up with strange ideas and commendments,
made to solve their priestcrafts' problems, at least
some way, doing strange things to women.
The only way out, which I see:
>> get into direct touch with the gods.
This is possible, though modern man, and also
most spiritual people, disbelieve that they can
do it.
It could be done in ancient times, and it can be
done now.
E.g., Maha KALI, the great Mother Goddess of India,
is a very loving godhead in her core, and
she definitely will support anybody, who wants
to get into direct touch with the gods.
GO for direct understanding !
Frank

Protestant Christians, I understand, also communicate directly with their God ( I'm not sure about Islamic people but I suspect they do ).

johnfás wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Protestant Christians, I understand, also communicate directly with their God ( I'm not sure about Islamic people but I suspect they do ).

Protestant Dogma would hold that the only mediator between (Wo)Man and God is Jesus. It comes from 1 Timothy in the bible - "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus". There are of course however, other verses in the bible which can be used to justify other positions such as where Mary is said to have interceded with Christ on behalf of others at the Marraige in Cana. As often is the case, there is a large element of interpretation.

But don't Protestants pray direct to God? As in "Hi God, this is me, ****? How's it going?"

cactus flower wrote:

johnfás wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Protestant Christians, I understand, also communicate directly with their God ( I'm not sure about Islamic people but I suspect they do ).

Protestant Dogma would hold that the only mediator between (Wo)Man and God is Jesus. It comes from 1 Timothy in the bible - "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus". There are of course however, other verses in the bible which can be used to justify other positions such as where Mary is said to have interceded with Christ on behalf of others at the Marraige in Cana. As often is the case, there is a large element of interpretation.

But don't Protestants pray direct to God? As in "Hi God, this is me, ****? How's it going?"

Yea Protestants would tend to as Christ has brought them together. However, a prayer in a Protestant Church would tend to end with something like "We pray this in the name of your Son, Jesus Christ. Amen."

Let's not forget the Trinity either of course

I think some Catholic prayers - or at least elements of the Mass - end in a similar way.