That's probably for the best. Your comments thus far have made it abundantly clear you weren't really open to what it had to say in the first place. You didn't even try to engage what I actually said, after claiming you were open to discussing it. Not my problem. Have a nice day.
yeah no, you’re actually the one not open to changing your mind. I never implied you were a schismatic, which you definitely did to me. I didn’t call you any names whatsoever. I didn’t call you a heretic even though some would say you’ve crossed that line. I’m not fond of being talked down to in the same manner some misogynists do when talking down to people like yourself. You’re a bad representative of your position and you should feel bad.
@DixieDriver What would you say to yourself during the bad years, that would bring you over? Or was it simply impossible until you had the life changes that you did? Would you appeal to something like apologetics from reason and history? Or something from the aesthetics; Dostoyevsky, "beauty will save the world" kind of stuff? I'm into apologetics so I love this kind of stuff.
It was a combination of both reason and beauty, but I'd say beauty was more important. The thing that kept catching my attention was the beauty of typology in the Old Testament, how Jesus could be found in every story in profound and deep ways. I couldn't just brush that aside. And the beauty of the creator of the universe coming into creation knowing full well He would be tortured and killed by the ones He was saving was too much to reject forever. On the side of reason, the argument that really hit me was the argument from contingency. That I couldn't work my way out of, and I still consider it the strongest argument for God's existence. But for arguing Christianity specifically, beauty is vital.
I too came out of an atheist tradition, an long-term extremely militant background, and the argument from contingency is simply unanswerable. Also the moral argument, and yeah the argument from beauty. Also the manifest centuries of Christians engaging in science disproved the #1 talking point of the two worldviews as mutually exclusive. Once that last prop falls away, the biggest reason for 'scientism' dissolves into nothing. Also something I've been getting a lot into is Jordan Peterson's apologetic. He speaks exclusively from a scientific perspective, and the arguments he makes are incredible, unique, and unanswerable.
Personally I haven’t really looked into the Jordan Peterson phenomenon, but I’ve heard a lot of people say that his videos on the Bible are specifically what jogged them out of their atheistic mindset and made it possible for them to consider Christianity a live option again. So for that I think he’s wonderful.
As you can tell, this is very much a hot-button issue for Invictus. We've had some set-to's on this subject in other threads (easily searchable). You are not alone (far from it). I would not feel comfortable sitting under the headship of a female priest, either.
It is a moral issue for me, yes. The difference in this thread, of course, is that I raised rational objections to some of the standard arguments - in what was intended to be, and what I sincerely thought (at least at first) was, a friendly exchange, I might add - rather than relying on slogans, vitriol, and emotional arguments from way out in left field (which of course had nothing to do with you personally @Rexlion, lest there be any misunderstanding). So far, there has been no substantive reply to them, or even an attempt just to engage them thoughtfully. I'll repeat them here: Simply put, my own view is that the arguments against WO all fail for one reason or another, therefore there is nothing preventing a diocese (or group of dioceses) from adopting it. On a more fundamental level, it seems clear from the Reformation-era confessions that the Church makes the Ministry, not the other way around. (Such a framework is also assumed by Arts. 19, 20, & 34.) There is no slam-dunk argument for or against it that can be drawn from the Scriptures, so the arguments have to be evaluated on their own merits, and it is the Church which ultimately has the authority to decide the matter for its members (and indeed already has so decided, making this exercise largely academic). That leaves us with arguments from Tradition and Reason, and their rebuttal: If episcopal succession doesn't make the Church, then the presence of female bishops cannot unmake it. Even if we assume the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox view that Holy Orders is both a sacrament and that its invisible grace is to leave an 'indelible mark' on the soul, gender can have nothing to do with this, since souls are by definition without gender and cannot be distinguished by it (only bodies can be so distinguished). The fact that the OT priesthood was all-male is irrelevant: the Christian Ministry is in no sense a continuation of the OT priesthood. Arguments from tradition (e.g., "all the disciples were male!") don't get past the Is/Ought dichotomy, and are thus tantamount to arguments from silence. Arguments based on Reason, i.e., empirical evidence, favor equality of the genders and nondiscrimination. Anglicans of prior ages may have disagreed with this conclusion, but that doesn't mean that the principles they enunciated and defended cannot have results which they didn't anticipate. One can be an 'originalist' and a 'progressive' (of sorts) at the same time. For the sake of convenience, we can call these points the following: Argument from Constitution Argument from Spirit/Body Dichotomy Argument from Typology Argument from Induction Argument from Social Science The success of any one of these arguments creates serious problems for the anti-WO position, and the likelihood that all five fail seems quite low. Anyone who wants to take a crack at them, be my guest. Iron sharpens iron, and all truth is God's truth. I, too, at one time was opposed to WO. Engaging the arguments from Scripture, history, philosophy, science, etc. afresh, and with an open mind, is what convinced me to alter my view then. Rational inquiry works. It didn't spur me to embrace heterodoxy. I am as committed to upholding the orthodox Trinitarian and Christological teaching of the Creeds and the first 4 Councils - which are the only real dogmas Anglicans have historically claimed to have - as anyone here.
Thanks. I should’ve handled myself better and been more calm, I just went a bit crazy after the implication of being schismatic. Whether that was Invictus’ intention or not, I shouldn’t have gotten angry. I said I was open to having my mind changed because it’s true, I’ve had my mind changed on so many huge issues, like theism and Christianity itself, that I can’t rule anything out from convincing me in the future. But I didn’t mean it as an invitation to debate here and now on the subject, which I probably should have stated. But yeah, for now, I’m still in the male priests camp.
fascinating thread... If you know florida overall, do you have a sense of where it is going as a state? I know that in the northeast where I live, everything is getting more secular and more politicized, but I gather that other states in the Union are going in the other direction?
I’m not too involved/aware politically other than I’m probably gonna vote red in the next election. Florida has always felt conservative and religious to me but that could just be Desantis and the legislature.
I wish I could state things as clearly and yet as completely as you do @Invictus . You state things without all the emotional drama that seems to affect so many people. For me, the issue isn't a make or break one as far as being a Christian and an Anglican, because I was RCC before this and had to accept that they were never going to ordain women. On the other hand, I am very grateful that I do live in an Anglican diocese that supports WO. And I really appreciate all your logical and explanatory arguments about it. I can't see the future of Christianity without WO in the long run because let's face it, once something has progressed to a certain point, it is very difficult to return to the past. But I also accept that it might take a long time, and there will always be divisions and differing opinions about this issue, as well as many others.
I have been pondering on the impression that it seems to be more so in those directions in recent years… i remember back when Bush and Gore had their dispute and Florida was clearly a purple state (neither too left nor too right) But nowadays it seems to be a solidly right state, I hear that even Miami got a republican governor…. Anyway didn’t mean to turn this political lol the other thing I’m noticing is that younger people (ie. under 30) don’t really entertain evangelicalism… on Youtube it is all the liturgical churches (even E. Orthodox), anyone with a history, that is getting the huge amounts of viewers
I appreciate that. It pains me to see people divided over things that shouldn't be divisive in this day and age.
I’ve definitely noticed that as well. On Twitter it’s always people converting into Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy or a liturgical Protestant church, almost never the other way around, at least from what I see. I think it’s a positive shift of course, though I do wish some of them would be less triumphalist about their conversion.
Hmm, well. God manages to work with and utilize many different denominations to bring His children into His Kingdom. After all, not everyone is disposed to starting out in Anglicanism. Some folks require decades of nudging. Some others never get there. But Jesus is the head sheepherder, and He looks after all of them.
the eastern orthodox have some online successes mostly because most people don't know much about them... I have seen a lot of people jump in and then OUT of E.Orthodoxy six months later And yeah we need to up our game on social media, a lot of conversions can take place from online witness and apologetics; I believe we have an incredible apologetic case as a historic church, and now we just need good people to make that case