Notices
Results 1 to 74 of 74
Like Tree15Likes
  • 1 Post By Phlogistician
  • 1 Post By John Galt
  • 1 Post By John Galt
  • 1 Post By John Galt
  • 2 Post By John Galt
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 2 Post By Harold14370
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By John Galt
  • 1 Post By Ascended
  • 1 Post By pavlos
  • 1 Post By Ascended
  • 1 Post By Strange

Thread: Women Bishops

  1. #1 Women Bishops 
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,388
    Didn't quite know where to place this thread, politics or religion seemed appropriate, so I've plumpted for religion.

    I was watching a television program this morning discussing the recent decision by The Church of England not to allow the ordaining of women bishops. I found this to be quite an interesting program as it was like a talk show with lots of guests in support of the decision and even more against. I say interesting because it was, though in fairness I was pretty disinterested in the topic I was more curious about the arguments for and against as the issue had already been raised on "Question Time", the BBC's premier political debate program.

    One of the things that was coming across loud and clear is that there seemed to be some genuine anger over the way the decision turned out. With most politians clearly in favour of the ordination of women bishops seeming to set the tone of the debate.
    Whilst I have to say listening to some of the debate it did seem like some of the supporting arguments of this decision seemed pretty silly to me. They have, and have had for quite a while now, female vicars so why can't or shouldn't there be female bishops? Just daft really. How can they support a decision that means half of the population can't do a job because of their gender, during the debate it was suggested that being a bishop isn't actually a job but rather a calling from God, but ok fine if that's what they want to call it, I just wonder though why God would be any less likely to call upon a women. I mean really I honestly don't care who is or isn't a bishop, or any other church position for that matter, but on a fairness point of view I do believe in equal opportunities.

    Seriously though some of these arguments were just silly. One of the problems though that we have with the Church of England in the UK is role the church plays within Government. Bishops sit within the second chamber (House of Lords), so they play a role in government. Which is again a bit of a problem in terms of equality, it doesn't seem right that any part of government should just be restricted to one gender. What was really interesting though was the points raised about this issue.

    Firstly it was suggested that there should be a seperation of the church from the state, something I happen to think would certainly be a good idea, though this said it certainly doesn't solve the immediate problem of all those unhappy at the church rejecting women bishops.

    Then there was a suggestion that the government should and could force the church to accept women bishops, now whilst on the debate there was a Labour MP (currently opposition to the government) who seemed most in favour of this option members of the church from both sides of the argument certainly were not, one member in favour of women bishops even went so far as to suggest that the politicians had been just waiting for this opportunity to get their hands on the church.

    But another interesting point was also raised on the idea of equality about this, he asked if the Government were to go ahead and force gender equality upon The Church of England what about all the other religions in Britain. The discussion then turned to the idea of transgendered imams at which the idea seem to die out, as if suddenly it had become completely unworkable.

    As I said ealier I'm not massively interested in the religious aspects of this discussion, but I think I do have a strong view on the wider ramifications for society in general and indeed the direction in which it is and should be heading.

    What I think is that yes religion should be seperated from the government, it's out dated and there just isn't a place for it there any longer, we criticise other states whose governments have religious interference or undue influence, so it's about time we stopped being hypocrites.
    Also the government should bring the church into line under the existing gender equality legislation, to ensure equality for all so that both men and women have equal opportunities. Furthermore they should bring all religions within the UK under the same legislation to ensure fairness and equality not just for men and women but also equality between all the religions and set the precedent that all religions are subservient and subject to the laws of the land.


    Last edited by Ascended; November 25th, 2012 at 10:20 PM.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Sophomore Phlogistician's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Mars
    Posts
    156
    It is a daft situation, the Church was given an exemption under the 1975 law that prevents sexual discrimination in the work place. This was to give them time to adapt and change, but it seems the CofE thought this meant they were a special case, and so, have failed to adapt in the intervening 30+ years. Society now requires equality, for the C0fE to be relevant in modern society, it too must adopt equality. The other daft thing is that the Synod requires a 2/3 majority to pass a change, a system that empowers naysayers, and robs the majority of progressives of their cumulative power. The legislation failed to pass by just 6 votes.

    Thing is, this has no highlighted the problem, and places the church in a potentially litigious situation, the ECHR might be used to force them to make all roles open to both sexes, and it perhaps should be. That would take power from the Synod, so the naysayers trying to protect their traditions may just have begun their own dismantling process. I think this makes a good case for dis-establishment, I don't think such a bigoted organisation should have any association with Government, nor be given any special treatment.


    Ascended likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,388
    One of the problems in particular with the CofE and indeed in general with many of the religions in the UK is they are imbedded into our society which makes them hard to regulate, and probarbly really all the more reason why they should. The church controls schools and orphanages throughout the country, so just what sort of messages are they sending to people just starting out in life.

    Ok fine if we were all still living in the middle ages and most of our waking lives were still dominated by church laws and doctrine, but this is the 21st century so I just can't any reasons why they should be given exemptions to laws the the rest of us all have to live by.

    Also you've got to feel that this problem was at least particially of the church's own making, I mean when you have some church parishioners, of both genders, demanding they should have a male vicar, nevermind bishop, you've got to at least think the church's own teaching's has played a big part in this. They didn't exactly just come up with it off their own bat. Also with all the problems in the world I don't think images of female vicars on tv crying about the decision got them much sympathy, it looked like all they cared about was their careers.

    No this whole situation is just making us all look daft in the eyes of the rest of the world, I mean come on surely about time we had a proper secular society anyway. Also it might help turn back the tide of the wave of support for the introduction of sharia law, because that's the last thing we need is even more religious interference.

    I think as Brits we sometimes just put with things just ignore there is a problem and don't think it's always healthy, I really can't imagine what this debate would look like in other countries but I'm pretty sure though they wouldn't just put up with it.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    From my point of view the principal benefit of this thread is that it allows me to introduce what is I believe the longest non-technical word in the English language. Antidisestablishmentarianism: opposition to the removal of the Church of England from the Establishment, or governing bodies of the United Kingdom.
    Ascended likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Could you use it in a sentence?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,388
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    From my point of view the principal benefit of this thread is that it allows me to introduce what is I believe the longest non-technical word in the English language. Antidisestablishmentarianism: opposition to the removal of the Church of England from the Establishment, or governing bodies of the United Kingdom.
    I remember as a kid having to use that word in a homework project.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Could you use it in a sentence?
    The antidisestablishmentarianism viewpoint is becoming less common with the secularisation of British society.
    Neverfly likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,788
    People who attend church will themselves determine the outcome of their destiny within their own walls. It is up to them to see the truth and only in time they will, that time is when many leave that church due to it being wrong with its way of teaching its religion to others.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Antidisestablishmentarianism: opposition to the removal of the Church of England from the Establishment, or governing bodies of the United Kingdom.
    What an amazing word.

    How does it differ from establishmentarianism?

    Surely two negatives become a positive and cancel themselves out?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    One of the most interesting comments I heard so far from a female preist, is that being a member of the church should not be considered as being in a work place.
    I agree. It's not supposed to be a business. The people who are involved should be willing to do it for God... and should have no concern nor personal desire to rise up in the heirachy.

    I'm not infavour of governments telling people what faith to have... but this is the church of england... the establishments religion. Therefor it might possibly need to be alliagned with the policies within society (one way or... the other). Either the church's policy is valid or the government's policy is valid.
    One is invalid.

    We either change the church's policy which goes against the word of God (which is impossible to do and maintain any credibility)... Or we stop giving women equal rights in all things, in society in general.

    Or we do as has been done for the past thirty years and have a state at odds with the church... Which when considering they are two sides of the same coin, seems to be hypocracy/contradiction or paradox that seems... wrong.

    This is not a pretty situation for the church or state in my opinion. But they will get through it, they always do. The plans are already in place i'm sure.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    31
    hi, please...consider...the...answer...to...this
    ...simple...question...carefully...because...in...
    a...funny...kind...of...way...its...as...plain...t o...
    see...have...you...ever...known...a...happy...
    woman...who...did...not...know...her...place?

    peace&love...vern
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,151
    To me asking for Women to be Bishops is like asking for the right to go on the highway with a BMW pulled by a horse (because they use to pull wagons with horses in the old days).

    Its anachronistic, women should almost say "thank god women aren't allowed to be Bishops, it helps make clear just how archaic, backward, disconnected from reality and invalid the religion was in the first place"

    (almost)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,388
    Quote Originally Posted by vernpeace View Post
    hi, please...consider...the...answer...to...this
    ...simple...question...carefully...because...in...
    a...funny...kind...of...way...its...as...plain...t o...
    see...have...you...ever...known...a...happy...
    woman...who...did...not...know...her...place?

    peace&love...vern
    Well I've tried and tried but cannot make head nor tail of this, I don't believe in anyone having a 'place', we all have or should have what we aspire to be if we work hard enough and our cause is just.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Antidisestablishmentarianism: opposition to the removal of the Church of England from the Establishment, or governing bodies of the United Kingdom.
    What an amazing word.

    How does it differ from establishmentarianism?

    Surely two negatives become a positive and cancel themselves out?
    How so? Establishmentarianism is the philosophy of being in favour of the Established Church. Antidisestablishmentarianism is the condition of being opposed to the removal of the Established Church. The first can exist without the latter. The reverse is likely not true.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    31
    hi Chris, we...all...have...our...place
    ...both...men...and...woman...just...humour
    ...vern...for...a...minute...i...really...do
    ...mean...well...by...this...must...we...live
    ...by...fleating...opinion...or...timeless...princ iples
    ...men...as...a...rule...have...a...God...given... ability
    ...to...put...their...opinions(emotions)...to...on e...side
    ...in...favour...of...a...time...honuored...princi ple...we
    ...live...in...a...world...of...opinion...driven.. .by...a
    ...very...unhealthy...attitude...to...the...time.. .honoured
    ...wisdom...of...God...who...makes...our...place.. .very...clear
    ...for...goood...reason!


    F+O=E

    F=Fact
    O=Opinion
    E=Emotion



    peace&love...vern


    p.s...Marvelousness...is...a...Foot!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    vern, i do hope all your posts are not going to be formatted in that way. You may feel it is smart, or effective, or attention grabbing, or some other very positive thing. It isn't...it's silly and bloody annoying.

    Thanks
    JG
    Strange likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,207
    I heard a CofE spokesman on TV last night say that the bible gives a clear direction on why there should be no women bishops. It is an obscure verse in Timothy 2:12.
    I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.
    It continues in the next verse
    For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
    I think this says everything about the CofE when they can cherry pick this nonsense and use it to defend their stance against women bishops. I'm afraid the CofE is institutionally sexist and I am aware of the resentment that has existed ever since they first allowed women priests.
    On the other hand they choose to ignore Galatians 3:28
    ...there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    I'm afraid the CofE is institutionally sexist
    That seems slightly unreasonable as the vast majority (72%) of votes were in favour of allowing women bishops (and 90% of bishops voted in favour).
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    31
    hi ox, surely...a...general...statement...like...Galatian s 3:28
    ...can...never...be...compared...to...a...specific ...point...made
    ...in...Timothy 2:12...it...always...seems...to...come...back...to
    ...structure...over...content...if...the...structu re...does...not...
    mirror...the...content...the...what...we...may...b e...forgiven...
    to...ask...is...what`s...inside?

    peace&love...vern

    p.s...marvelousness...is...a...foot!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    31
    hi JG, vern...finds...it...curious...no
    ...opinions(emotions)...about...the
    ...content...of...my...post...only...the
    ...structure...it...seems...regard...less
    ...of...the...marvelousness...in...side...

    peace&love...vern

    p.s...marvelousness...is...indeed...a...foot!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,388
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    I think this says everything about the CofE when they can cherry pick this nonsense and use it to defend their stance against women bishops. I'm afraid the CofE is institutionally sexist and I am aware of the resentment that has existed ever since they first allowed women priests.
    Spot on, religion of all denominations have been cherry picking religious texts for millenia to support whatever it is they wish to convince us all of at any particular time. Both sides of this debate have been coming up with things from the bible that are supposedly relevant, just silly nonesense the lot of it, everybody can see it's clearly sexism and that there really is any good reason against women bishops. What really amazes me though is how they managed to actually convince that many parishioners to support their no campaign, I mean seriously how does it matter to anyone what gender their Bishop is, heck a doctor is far more intimate with us and yet do care whether they are man or women? No of cause not, when I have to rely on someone I just want to know they are the best at that job, that's it.

    As for women priests/vicars you are also correct, there was resentment then and it's still festering. Stupid really as these people are supposed to be about doing the right thing, morals and caring, seems to be in very short supply over this debate though.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,388
    Quote Originally Posted by vernpeace View Post
    hi JG, vern...finds...it...curious...no
    ...opinions(emotions)...about...the
    ...content...of...my...post...only...the
    ...structure...it...seems...regard...less
    ...of...the...marvelousness...in...side...

    peace&love...vern

    p.s...marvelousness...is...indeed...a...foot!
    Sadly your posting style is somewhat distracting from the message, a kind of metaphor I suppose for this whole mess over women bishops and how it affected the message of the church in general.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by vernpeace View Post
    hi JG, vern...finds...it...curious...no
    ...opinions(emotions)...about...the
    ...content...of...my...post...only...the
    ...structure...it...seems...regard...less
    ...of...the...marvelousness...in...side...

    peace&love...vern

    p.s...marvelousness...is...indeed...a...foot!
    Stop posting in this stupid format. It makes whatever content you might be contributing pretty much unintelligible (I doubt it is "marvelous").

    If you carry on, I will assume you want to be taken for a dick.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    I've seen people do that when their space bar is broken. If he's using a laptop and the space bar is not working, it can be tough to replace (Although a USB keyboard is about ten dollars).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Copy and paste a space. Here you go vernpeace:

    . . . . . . . .

    Take your pick
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by vernpeace View Post
    hi JG, vern...finds...it...curious...no
    ...opinions(emotions)...about...the
    ...content...of...my...post...only...the
    ...structure...it...seems...regard...less
    ...of...the...marvelousness...in...side...

    peace&love...vern

    p.s...marvelousness...is...indeed...a...foot!
    Vern, someone who chooses to disregard the convenience of his readers and who deliberately behaves in a superior manner towards them, as you have done and continue to do with this posting style, does not deserve to have any attention paid to the content of their posts.


    However, let's just take a look at "the marvelousness inside". (By the way, using a contrived word like marvelousness when marvel is wholly adequate is another unattractive affectation.)

    Vern asks: Hi, please consider the answer to this simple question carefully, because in a funny kind of way its as plain to see. Have you ever known a happy woman who did not know her place?

    For a first post in a thread this is unfortunately riddled with ambiguity. The two major interpretations that come to mind are:

    1. Women's place is subservient to man. In the old words, "Keep her barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen." Only then will she be happy.

    2. We all have aptitudes and desires that are best filled by having a particular place in society. "Have you ever known a happy man or woman that did not know his or her place?"

    The first option is associated with the worst kind of deluded patriarchal thinking and merits vigorous rejection. The second is a rational, respectful and appropriate way of viewing the issue. Which did you mean Vern? Let's have a look at your reply.
    (By the way, are you familiar with the concept of the sentence, or of punctuation? It seems not. I've done my best to render your stream of consciousness writing intelligble. The responsibility for any errors lies with you for exposing us to such opaque writing.)

    Verns says: Hi Chris, we all have our place, both men and woman. Just humour Vern for a minute, I really do mean well by this. Must we live by fleeting opinion or timeless principles? Men as a rule have a God given ability to put their opinions(emotions) to one side in favour of a time honuoredprinciple. We live in a world of opinion driven by a very unhealthy attitude to the time honoured wisdom of God who makes our place very clear for goood reason!

    The best sense I can make of this is that you think we should be governed by the wisdom of God in relation to women's place. And it further appears that you do indeed think that women should be subservient to man. If this is not your intent, then you need to learn to write with greater clarity.

    And, which particular God are we to heed the wisdom of? Is is Jaweh, or Kali, or Thor? Or any of a thousand other deities various men (and women) have worshipped at various times.


    Vern, if this post seems hostile to you then I congratulate you on your perception.
    You are very welcome on this forum. Your posting style and what appears to be your antediluvian, mysoginist views are not.
    Quantime and Strange like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    31
    hi JG, subservient...not...at...all...just...different...roles!
    ...is...this...so...difficult...to...accept...look ...please...just
    ...observe...over...the...coming...weeks...the...w omen...
    you...encounter...along...your...way...and...then. ..and...only
    ...then...will...you...see...the...truth...in...th e...statement...that
    ...is...as...true...to...as...many...woman...as... it...is...to...men...
    a...universal...truth...you...could...say!

    " Have...you...ever...met...a...happy...woman
    ...who...did...not...know...her...place!"

    peace&love...vern

    p.s...marvelousness...is...a...foot!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    31
    hi John, we...marvel...at..the...Marvelousness!

    peace&love...vern

    p.s...how...marvelous...is...marvelous?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by vernpeace View Post
    hi JG, subservient...not...at...all...just...different...roles!
    And who decides which roles women are allowed to have?

    .is...this...so...difficult...to...accept
    Yes. Especially from one who is incapable of communicating like a normal human being. Presumably you think it is clever rather than immature.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Antidisestablishmentarianism: opposition to the removal of the Church of England from the Establishment, or governing bodies of the United Kingdom.
    What an amazing word.

    How does it differ from establishmentarianism?

    Surely two negatives become a positive and cancel themselves out?
    How so? Establishmentarianism is the philosophy of being in favour of the Established Church. Antidisestablishmentarianism is the condition of being opposed to the removal of the Established Church. The first can exist without the latter. The reverse is likely not true.

    It seems to me that an establishmentarian is by default an antidisestablishmentarian. A antidisestablishmentarian is an establishmentarian by default. It's two words for the same thing as far as I can tell. It also features a double negative prefix(?) which cancels itself out.

    It seems strange to me that the churches alone have been refered to as establishment, the establishment is also the state.
    To be anti-establishment is against the church and state, not just the church.

    Antidisestablishmentarianism
    Antidisestablishmentarianismist
    Antidisestablishmentarianist
    Antidisestablishmentarian

    =

    Establishmentarianism
    Establishmentarianismist
    Establishmentarianist
    Establishmentarian
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    One of the things said is that women are more susceptible to being duped, that they can be misled more easily than men.

    What science has been applied to this hypothesis over they ages? is it possible to test men and women and find out what differences we have in this area of psychology?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    What an amazing word.

    How does it differ from establishmentarianism?

    Surely two negatives become a positive and cancel themselves out?
    Two negatives do not (necessarily) cancel each other out in English. They more commonly provide reinforcement; e.g. "I ain't got no money" doesn't mean that the speaker is complaining that they have some money.

    It seems strange to me that the churches alone have been refered to as establishment, the establishment is also the state.
    I haven't noticed the church being referred to as the establishment. Do you have an example?

    Antidisestablishmentarianism
    Antidisestablishmentarianismist
    Antidisestablishmentarianist
    Antidisestablishmentarian
    One of those is not a real word.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    One of those is not a real word.
    No it's not real... I just made it appear as if it was real. Like a magic trick.

    That word made up of letters on your screen or printed out on paper isn't real, but all the other ones ares 'real'.

    It was real enough for Duke Ellington so it's real enough for me. Oxford dictionary... who are they?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Not "real" as in, not conforming to the rules of English grammar and morphology.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Two negatives do not (necessarily) cancel each other out in English. They more commonly provide reinforcement; e.g. "I ain't got no money" doesn't mean that the speaker is complaining that they have some money.
    So if it's good enough for a victorian cockney street urchin then it's good enough for the Oxford dictionary?

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    I haven't noticed the church being referred to as the establishment. Do you have an example?
    Well yes many of the words we'r speaking about have definitions specificly and exclusicely relating to the church, from what I can gather. The part of the word relating directly to the church is 'establishment'.
    Definition of antidisestablishmentarianism
    noun

    [mass noun] rare
    opposition to the disestablishment of the Church of England.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Not "real" as in, not conforming to the rules of English grammar and morphology.
    But antidisestablishmentarianism does? Don't answer unless you take up the guanlet of explaining fully to me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,207
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    ...how does it matter to anyone what gender their Bishop is, heck a doctor is far more intimate with us and yet do care whether they are man or women? No of cause not, when I have to rely on someone I just want to know they are the best at that job, that's it.
    My sentiment exactly, and why is the CofE un undemocratic institution? The majority do not win. The vote was obviously loaded if a minority can block the majority. The top man, the Archbisop of Canterbury is a strange man. He is both a pagan and a christian. It gets weirder. The second in command, the Archbishop of York is a bongo playing skydiver. I am also dubious about the newly elected Arch of Cant. He is an ex oil executive who has changed his name to obscure his jewish background.
    The resentment against women priests is largely based on the assumption that they have undermined the male authority The male dominated priesthood do not want to be made accountable by women.
    At least the Anglican community have made some inroads into equality. It is still sadly lacking in the Catholic church. A woman cannot distribute the communion bread and wine unless it has been blessed by a male.
    It all reminds me of an instrument which was apparently invented in Scotland for sealing the lips of a woman - the Branx.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    So if it's good enough for a victorian cockney street urchin then it's good enough for the Oxford dictionary?
    Well, dictionaries document usage. As "haven't [ain't] got no" is widely used, I would be pretty confident it will be in there (I'm not at home so I can't check).

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    I haven't noticed the church being referred to as the establishment. Do you have an example?
    Well yes many of the words we'r speaking about have definitions specificly and exclusicely relating to the church, from what I can gather. The part of the word relating directly to the church is 'establishment'.
    In this context, "establishment" refers to the state; the Church of England is part of the state. Disestablishment would separate the church and the state. (Which could be the only good thing to come out of the current farce.)

    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Not "real" as in, not conforming to the rules of English grammar and morphology.
    But antidisestablishmentarianism does? Don't answer unless you take up the guanlet of explaining fully to me.
    anti-, dis-, -arian, -ism and -ist are all bound morphemes used as productive affixes; in other words they can be stuck on the beginning or end of words to make new words in a predictable way. There are certain rules governing how this can be done [note that these rules do not come from a book; they come from our heads (they may get written down in a book)]. Many of them can be combined but some can't. For example, you can swap the suffix in pessimism and pessimist, but you can't use them both *pessimismist. [The * indicates a non-standard form.]

    Of course, you can use them both. The danger is you may not be understood. Or will be thought illiterate. But, if you are careful, you could do it for humorous effect. If it caught on, and people started to do it with more words, then it might change our "mental rulebook" and would become a standard part of English grammar (and the books would have to be updated).

    Fully enough for you?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Regarding double negatives in English (which is much more interesting than the original thread topic): it nearly always acts as an intensifier, as noted above.

    The only case I can think of where they "cancel" is in litotes; for example, "you have the not inconsiderable disadvantage of being wrong."
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    [QUOTE=Strange;371459]Well, dictionaries document usage. As "haven't [ain't] got no" is widely used, I would be pretty confident it will be in there (I'm not at home so I can't check).

    The Urban dictionary and the Oxford dictionary... different standards and rules.
    Peoples quirky and convenient ways of speaking can happily defy logic but a word specifically invented to describe something as important as whether the church should be part of the state is a different matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    In this context, "establishment" refers to the state; the Church of England is part of the state. Disestablishment would separate the church and the state. (Which could be the only good thing to come out of the current farce.)
    In the context of the word establishment means church as part of state. When they speak of diseatablishment they mean take away the power of the church (according to the dictionary). Disestablish the churches role in society.
    But when people speak of antiestablishment I think they mean the church and state, this is the etablishment.

    Antidisestablishment is a word which disassociates the state from 'the establishment', by suggesting the establishment is the church.

    Though you could say it more accurately understood is the disestablishment (or the disassociation) of the church from the state.

    There is no divide between the church and the state, they are both the same establishment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Not "real" as in, not conforming to the rules of English grammar and morphology.
    But antidisestablishmentarianism does? Don't answer unless you take up the guanlet of explaining fully to me.
    anti-, dis-, -arian, -ism and -ist are all bound morphemes used as productive affixes; in other words they can be stuck on the beginning or end of words to make new words in a predictable way. There are certain rules governing how this can be done [note that these rules do not come from a book; they come from our heads (they may get written down in a book)]. Many of them can be combined but some can't. For example, you can swap the suffix in pessimism and pessimist, but you can't use them both *pessimismist. [The * indicates a non-standard form.]

    Of course, you can use them both. The danger is you may not be understood. Or will be thought illiterate. But, if you are careful, you could do it for humorous effect. If it caught on, and people started to do it with more words, then it might change our "mental rulebook" and would become a standard part of English grammar (and the books would have to be updated).

    Fully enough for you?
    You give it a good go i'll give you that! I enjoyed the reminder on suffixes, affixes and prefixes
    So I think you have explained how ismist cannot be used purely becuase of the rules in side our heads... you've also explained that anti-dis are productive affixes that together do not follow the mental rule book and run the risk of being misunderstood, a key insight there strange.
    So why has such a confusing word been invented to describe political/social 'movement' or counter movement? Don't you not think establishmentarian will suffice? Or did they just make it up for humourous effect? otherwise known as taking the piss I beleive.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    The only case I can think of where they "cancel" is in litotes; for example, "you have the not inconsiderable disadvantage of being wrong."
    Not sure who or what litotes is but this just goes to show... If you're having a debate and you want to be a smartass and confuse you're openent for a second so that they can't think of as good an answer, then it's all very well to use double negatives. They sound clever and baffling. Why they are being used on a matter of importance I do not know.

    I think it's pretentious and unecesary. Anybody who goes against me has the considerable disadvantage of being wrong.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    The Urban dictionary and the Oxford dictionary... different standards and rules.
    Absolutely. But the OED does not attempt to tell you what is "correct". It just documents what is used.

    So I think you have explained how ismist cannot be used purely becuase of the rules in side our heads... you've also explained that anti-dis are productive affixes that together do not follow the mental rule book
    Eh? The rules allow some affixes to be combined but not others.

    Or did they just make it up for humourous effect?
    I think it was made up specifically to be a long word. Of course it has now been beaten by floccinaucinihilipilification, pseudopseudohypoparathyroidism and pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis. People just can't resist a challenge.
    Last edited by Strange; November 29th, 2012 at 01:09 PM. Reason: spelling
    question for you likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Not sure who or what litotes is
    John Major was famous for it.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    So I think you have explained how ismist cannot be used purely becuase of the rules in side our heads... you've also explained that anti-dis are productive affixes that together do not follow the mental rule book
    Eh? The rules allow some affixes to be combined but not others.
    Once you have explained to me satisfactorally why ism/ist in antidisestablishmentarianismist are not combinable but anti/dis are combinable according to the mental rulebook... then you will have fullfilled the original breif outlined in our written contract.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    It seems to me that an establishmentarian is by default an antidisestablishmentarian. A antidisestablishmentarian is an establishmentarian by default. It's two words for the same thing as far as I can tell. It also features a double negative prefix(?) which cancels itself out.
    I think there is definitely a difference in emphasis, if nothing else. An establishmentarian may want to establish a state religion where none presently exists. A disestablishmentarian wants to do away with an established state religion. An antidisestablishmentarian is opposed to a movement to disestablish the religion. An establishmetarian may be inclined to agree with the current policy of establishment, but may not actively oppose the disestablishment movement, in which case he would not be called an antidisestablishmentarian. If there were no such disestablishment movement, the establishmetarian would not be called an antidisestablismentarian because there is no such movement to oppose.
    Strange and question for you like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Once you have explained to me satisfactorally why ism/ist in antidisestablishmentarianismist are not combinable but anti/dis are combinable according to the mental rulebook... then you will have fullfilled the original breif outlined in our written contract.
    Why? Because that's what the rules allow. Why do the rules allow that? Because that is how people use it. Language use is defined by how people use language. Our mental rules are created by our exposure to language (with some innate constraints).

    It may seem a circular argument, but that's just the way language works. Why is language the way it is? Because that's how people speak (and write).
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    words
    Very clearly put.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Basically the establishmentarians can't be seen contending with the 'dis'sidents... they create a new group to do it. A slightly distinct group that they can all support whilst not comprimising the integretity of the establishmentarians.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Once you have explained to me satisfactorally why ism/ist in antidisestablishmentarianismist are not combinable but anti/dis are combinable according to the mental rulebook... then you will have fullfilled the original breif outlined in our written contract.
    Why? Because that's what the rules allow. Why do the rules allow that? Because that is how people use it. Language use is defined by how people use language. Our mental rules are created by our exposure to language (with some innate constraints).

    It may seem a circular argument, but that's just the way language works. Why is language the way it is? Because that's how people speak (and write).
    So these so called rules are made up as we go along.

    In some cases a double nagative might become common becuase people say it for the purposes of irony, or conveinience. Or sometimes it might be deliberately employed to add emphasis or cause confusion and misconception.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    One of the things said is that women are more susceptible to being duped, that they can be misled more easily than men.

    What science has been applied to this hypothesis over they ages? is it possible to test men and women and find out what differences we have in this area of psychology?
    Just thought I'd bring it back to the matter of women being bishops.

    The disestablishmentarians are busy fighting the antidisestablishmentarians whilst the establishmentarians continue to establish. But what of the science of female/male psychological variance?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    So these so called rules are made up as we go along.
    No, they are not made up as we go along. Otherwise you would find people saying things like, "tomorrow, pub me went until beer drinking."

    However, they do change over time. Which is why we no longer say "thou art" and very few people use "whom".

    Thnking about it on the way home, there is a little logic to the -ism/-ist rule (this is language, so there doesn't need to be any logic).

    The suffixes such as anti- and dis- have different meanings: dis- means "not" (disabled = not able); anti- means against. You can be against X and you can be against not-X. Therefore anti- and antidis- are both valid.

    On the other hand, -ism defines a thing (the concept or belief) and -ist defines another thing (the person). A thing can't be both types of thing and so it doesn't make sense to combine them.

    Obviously you can pick logical holes in that argument. But, as I say, this is language, so there doesn't need to be any logic.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    So these so called rules are made up as we go along.
    No, they are not made up as we go along. Otherwise you would find people saying things like, "tomorrow, pub me went until beer drinking."
    In common use this is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Thnking about it on the way home, there is a little logic to the -ism/-ist rule (this is language, so there doesn't need to be any logic).
    What logic? an ism is a thing and an ismist is a follower of that ism. An -arian is for the thing that the ism relates to rather than the ism itself. An ismist is into the ism aspect. For example an establishmentarian approves of establishment but an establishmentarianism is a movement followed by establishmentarianismists. An establishmentarian aproves of establishment but might not be a member of an establishmentarianism movement, therefor a distinction is made between an establishmentarian and an establishmentarianism ist.

    See it can just be made up as and when it suits. Thats blatently what happens.


    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    The suffixes such as anti- and dis- have different meanings: dis- means "not" (disabled = not able); anti- means against. You can be against X and you can be against not-X. Therefore anti- and antidis- are both valid.
    On the other hand, -ism defines a thing (the concept or belief) and -ist defines another thing (the person). A thing can't be both types of thing and so it doesn't make sense to combine them.
    I like all this language stuff! Why do you now call them suffixes? you siad affixes before. I assumed a prefix went at start, suffix at end and affix went at front or end. Could you give me a sumary?


    As I mentioned above the ist is a person of an ism. An ismist is a thing (person/ist) that belongs or holds to a thing (beleif/ism). Seems to make as much sense as antidis and you seem a bit vague on it yourself, I expect you are doing some reseacrh.

    So what were dealing with here is: against-not-establishmentarianism. Sensible.

    Not-establishmentarianism of church is the beleive that the church should NOT be part of establishment. Against-establishmentarianism is beleif that establishments should n't occur?


    Language, what a laugh it is.

    P.S I don't know how you justify the comment 'this is language it doesn't need any logic'.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    What logic? an ism is a thing and an ismist is a follower of that ism.
    No. An X-ism is idea and an X-ist is the holder of the idea. Pessimism/pessimist. Theism/theist. No one would naturally use theismist.

    An -arian is for the thing that the ism relates to rather than the ism itself.
    Actually, -arian is the person as well (contrarian, rotarian). Which is good evidence that antidisestablishmentarianism was made up.

    See it can just be made up as and when it suits. Thats blatently what happens.
    But if you don't use the conventions (or rules) people will not understand or will just think you are odd. You can of course, use the rules to say pessimismist but no one will know what that word means.


    I like all this language stuff! Why do you now call them suffixes? you siad affixes before.
    A mistake.

    I assumed a prefix went at start, suffix at end and affix went at front or end.
    Exactly. An affix can also be infix - go in the middle. We don't have many of those in English. Apart from things like in-fucking-credible.

    I don't know how you justify the comment 'this is language it doesn't need any logic'.
    Because if you try and use logic to define how language "should" work you will often be wrong. Language loves (i.e. people love) idiomatic phrases that make no logical sense (irregardless, I could care less, etc).

    It doesn't need to be logical, it just needs to be understood. And that is defined by how people use it.
    MrMojo1 likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,388
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    ...how does it matter to anyone what gender their Bishop is, heck a doctor is far more intimate with us and yet do care whether they are man or women? No of cause not, when I have to rely on someone I just want to know they are the best at that job, that's it.
    My sentiment exactly, and why is the CofE un undemocratic institution? The majority do not win. The vote was obviously loaded if a minority can block the majority. The top man, the Archbisop of Canterbury is a strange man. He is both a pagan and a christian. It gets weirder. The second in command, the Archbishop of York is a bongo playing skydiver. I am also dubious about the newly elected Arch of Cant. He is an ex oil executive who has changed his name to obscure his jewish background.
    The resentment against women priests is largely based on the assumption that they have undermined the male authority The male dominated priesthood do not want to be made accountable by women.
    At least the Anglican community have made some inroads into equality. It is still sadly lacking in the Catholic church. A woman cannot distribute the communion bread and wine unless it has been blessed by a male.
    It all reminds me of an instrument which was apparently invented in Scotland for sealing the lips of a woman - the Branx.

    The ploblem needs to be sorted out properly and everyone needs to be included and their concerns addressed properly, I do think that for the church to be relevant then they need to keep up with public opinion though, they can't just carry on doing the same things for hundreds of years, people today are not going to put up with it. But it what it require is a solution that doesn't store up problems for the future. What I mean is imagine if the vote had gone the other way and women bishops had been agreed to, then the next major argument would be about having a female Archbishop of Canterbury. So clearly they need to find a way to just accept the principle of equality, then and only then we might start to see an end to all this in fighting.

    It would be really good to the CofE sort things out properly because then they can set a wider principle for other religions to follow suit and adopt equality. Which would help some of the communities in the UK also get used to the idea, if indeed their religion is accepting it. As things stand it seems hard to believe that things like forced marriage are really going to stop if women are still seen as second class citizens within some communities.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    I'm sitting watching jets roll out on the tarmac at Schipol and I read this and think, who really gives a ****, time for another beer. In two hundred years the remains of the CofE will view this as irrelevant compared with their loss of adherents.
    Ascended likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56 Facts&Opinions... 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    31
    hi, here...is...a...simple...but...surprising
    ...fact...ask...any...policeman...or...woman
    ...every...year...the...police...are...called...
    to...more...violent...incidents...involving...
    woman...than...men...yes...it...is...true...and
    ...i...am...yet...to...meet...a...honest...woman
    ...who...has...not...agreed...that...they...are
    ...indeed...more...violent...than...men...drama
    ...rules...where...as...men...after...a...certain. ..
    age...are...interested...only...in...peace...is... this
    ...not...so?

    peace&love...vern


    p,s...marvelousness...is...a...foot!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by vernpeace View Post
    ... ........... ..... .. ..... .... ..... .. ... .... ....... . .... ... ....... ....
    Vernpeace, it seems your account has been compromised and some joker is posting nonsense under your name.

    PLEASE STOP POSTING IN THIS STUPID FORMAT. Is it an attempt to hide the idiocy of your opinions? It doesn't work. It just makes you look even more ridiculous.

    every year the police are called to more violent incidents involving woman than men
    Nonsense. Your "fact" is simple, surprising and WRONG.

    Crimes of violence (gender of offender)
    Total number: 4,074,630
    Male: 75.6%
    Female: 20.1%
    Source: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus0702.pdf

    (the majority of victims are men as well.)

    men after a certain age are interested only in peace is this not so?
    Of course not.
    Last edited by Strange; December 4th, 2012 at 05:35 AM.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by vernpeace View Post
    hi, here...is...a...simple...but...surprising
    ...fact...ask...any...policeman...or...woman
    ...every...year...the...police...are...called...
    to...more...violent...incidents...involving...
    woman...than...men...yes...it...is...true...and
    ...i...am...yet...to...meet...a...honest...woman
    ...who...has...not...agreed...that...they...are
    ...indeed...more...violent...than...men...drama
    ...rules...where...as...men...after...a...certain. ..
    age...are...interested...only...in...peace...is... this
    ...not...so?

    peace&love...vern


    p,s...marvelousness...is...a...foot!
    Moderator Warning: Vern, your posting format is distracting and does not promote effective discussion. As this is a discussion forum that is unacceptable. Please adopt a normal posting style or expect to receive a short ban/suspension. I hope this won't be necessary. The control of the situation lies in your hands. Use them wisely.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    4,380
    At least we have some idea of what to call them. I like these gals. They just took the bull by the horns.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    Didn't quite know where to place this thread, politics or religion seemed appropriate, so I've plumpted for religion.

    I was watching a television program this morning discussing the recent decision by The Church of England not to allow the ordaining of women bishops. I found this to be quite an interesting program as it was like a talk show with lots of guests in support of the decision and even more against. I say interesting because it was, though in fairness I was pretty disinterested in the topic I was more curious about the arguments for and against as the issue had already been raised on "Question Time", the BBC's premier political debate program.

    One of the things that was coming across loud and clear is that there seemed to be some genuine anger over the way the decision turned out. With most politians clearly in favour of the ordination of women bishops seeming to set the tone of the debate.
    Whilst I have to say listening to some of the debate it did seem like some of the supporting arguments of this decision seemed pretty silly to me. They have, and have had for quite a while now, female vicars so why can't or shouldn't there be female bishops? Just daft really. How can they support a decision that means half of the population can't do a job because of their gender, during the debate it was suggested that being a bishop isn't actually a job but rather a calling from God, but ok fine if that's what they want to call it, I just wonder though why God would be any less likely to call upon a women. I mean really I honestly don't care who is or isn't a bishop, or any other church position for that matter, but on a fairness point of view I do believe in equal opportunities.

    Seriously though some of these arguments were just silly. One of the problems though that we have with the Church of England in the UK is role the church plays within Government. Bishops sit within the second chamber (House of Lords), so they play a role in government. Which is again a bit of a problem in terms of equality, it doesn't seem right that any part of government should just be restricted to one gender. What was really interesting though was the points raised about this issue.

    Firstly it was suggested that there should be a seperation of the church from the state, something I happen to think would certainly be a good idea, though this said it certainly doesn't solve the immediate problem of all those unhappy at the church rejecting women bishops.

    Then there was a suggestion that the government should and could force the church to accept women bishops, now whilst on the debate there was a Labour MP (currently opposition to the government) who seemed most in favour of this option members of the church from both sides of the argument certainly were not, one member in favour of women bishops even went so far as to suggest that the politicians had been just waiting for this opportunity to get their hands on the church.

    But another interesting point was also raised on the idea of equality about this, he asked if the Government were to go ahead and force gender equality upon The Church of England what about all the other religions in Britain. The discussion then turned to the idea of transgendered imams at which the idea seem to die out, as if suddenly it had become completely unworkable.

    As I said ealier I'm not massively interested in the religious aspects of this discussion, but I think I do have a strong view on the wider ramifications for society in general and indeed the direction in which it is and should be heading.

    What I think is that yes religion should be seperated from the government, it's out dated and there just isn't a place for it there any longer, we criticise other states whose governments have religious interference or undue influence, so it's about time we stopped being hypocrites.
    Also the government should bring the church into line under the existing gender equality legislation, to ensure equality for all so that both men and women have equal opportunities. Furthermore they should bring all religions within the UK under the same legislation to ensure fairness and equality not just for men and women but also equality between all the religions and set the precedent that all religions are subservient and subject to the laws of the land.
    You have missed the most important point of all!!

    As the church is said to be a representative of the God of The Bible what does The Bibls say?

    1 Timothy 2:11-13
    Let a woman learn in silence with full submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach, or to exercise authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

    1 Corinthians 14:33-35
    As in all the congregations of the holy ones, 34 let the women keep silent in the congregations, for it is not permitted for them to speak, but let them be in subjection, even as the Law says. 35 If, then, they want to learn something, let them question their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in a congregation.


    1 Timothy 3:1
    This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife,

    Only men have the right to take the lead in the any christian congregation.

    This is the only exceptable standard according to The God of The Bible!

    big
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,388
    Quote Originally Posted by BELIEVERINGOD View Post

    You have missed the most important point of all!!

    As the church is said to be a representative of the God of The Bible what does The Bibls say?

    1 Timothy 2:11-13
    Let a woman learn in silence with full submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach, or to exercise authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

    1 Corinthians 14:33-35
    As in all the congregations of the holy ones, 34 let the women keep silent in the congregations, for it is not permitted for them to speak, but let them be in subjection, even as the Law says. 35 If, then, they want to learn something, let them question their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in a congregation.


    1 Timothy 3:1
    This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife,

    Only men have the right to take the lead in the any christian congregation.

    This is the only exceptable standard according to The God of The Bible!

    big
    What I can't understand from that is whether you are suggesting I should accept every word of the bible literally or just the bits you have cherry picked to support your particular point, the reason I don't understand it is because others may cherry pick other bits from the bible but ask me to reject the bits you have quoted so, unless someone is telling me to accept every word of the bible literally why should I accept to believe the bits you have selected and believe to be true over the bits that others deem to be true?

    Perhaps if there was some consensus over which bits of the bible we should accept as true this might be easier, does such a consensus exist? If not how can I or indeed anyone really know which bits of the bible I should accept and which I should reject? and since I can't know the answer to this question would it be honest of me to accept any of it?
    Strange likes this.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    What I can't understand from that is whether you are suggesting I should accept every word of the bible literally or just the bits you have cherry picked to support your particular point, the reason I don't understand it is because others may cherry pick other bits from the bible but ask me to reject the bits you have quoted so, unless someone is telling me to accept every word of the bible literally why should I accept to believe the bits you have selected and believe to be true over the bits that others deem to be true?

    Perhaps if there was some consensus over which bits of the bible we should accept as true this might be easier, does such a consensus exist? If not how can I or indeed anyone really know which bits of the bible I should accept and which I should reject? and since I can't know the answer to this question would it be honest of me to accept any of it?
    I'm not meaning to play devils advocate here...

    A good start would be to highlight any contradictions which connot both be followed or beleived.

    Does the bible contradict the passagges that 'BELEIVERINGOD' has shared?

    Does it in another passage say women should speak in church? it would be good to see a 'religious text contradictions page' to actually see how many contradictions we can find. Then see how many of those can be overcome.


    Don't get me wrong though... I can understand it being a bit annoying in this day and age for a woman to havve to read passages like those. If I was a woman and a thinker, i'd be pretty irratated by those passages.

    Are all those passages from the new testiment? I am wondering what the old testament or the torah has to say on the subject of women teaching. Only becuase I heard about the requirement of being a Jew is that your mother is a Jew. If your father is a Jew but your mother isn't, then your are not... if your mother is but your father isn't, you are a Jew. I'm not sure how true any of that is, it's just what I heard.

    If it is true, and if the old testament or torah speaks against women as teachers, then it strikes me as odd to have this cultural tradition of inheriting faith through the female side.

    Perhaps somebody who knows more about the reality of these things will be able to clear this up for me?

    Cheers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,388
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    What I can't understand from that is whether you are suggesting I should accept every word of the bible literally or just the bits you have cherry picked to support your particular point, the reason I don't understand it is because others may cherry pick other bits from the bible but ask me to reject the bits you have quoted so, unless someone is telling me to accept every word of the bible literally why should I accept to believe the bits you have selected and believe to be true over the bits that others deem to be true?

    Perhaps if there was some consensus over which bits of the bible we should accept as true this might be easier, does such a consensus exist? If not how can I or indeed anyone really know which bits of the bible I should accept and which I should reject? and since I can't know the answer to this question would it be honest of me to accept any of it?
    I'm not meaning to play devils advocate here...

    A good start would be to highlight any contradictions which connot both be followed or beleived.

    Does the bible contradict the passagges that 'BELEIVERINGOD' has shared?

    Does it in another passage say women should speak in church? it would be good to see a 'religious text contradictions page' to actually see how many contradictions we can find. Then see how many of those can be overcome.


    Don't get me wrong though... I can understand it being a bit annoying in this day and age for a woman to havve to read passages like those. If I was a woman and a thinker, i'd be pretty irratated by those passages.

    Are all those passages from the new testiment? I am wondering what the old testament or the torah has to say on the subject of women teaching. Only becuase I heard about the requirement of being a Jew is that your mother is a Jew. If your father is a Jew but your mother isn't, then your are not... if your mother is but your father isn't, you are a Jew. I'm not sure how true any of that is, it's just what I heard.

    If it is true, and if the old testament or torah speaks against women as teachers, then it strikes me as odd to have this cultural tradition of inheriting faith through the female side.

    Perhaps somebody who knows more about the reality of these things will be able to clear this up for me?

    Cheers.
    Well I think my post that you have quoted is more about trying to explain why I am rejecting the use of passages from the Bible to support a particular argument. I was trying to show how the use of the bible can be manipulated to support a particular way of reasoning and that we should look beyond what is actually being quoted to us, also that we don't necessarily have accept any particular interpretation which someone decides to attach to a particular text.

    It is my view that the debate about whether the Church of England should allow the ordination of women bishops is a human debate about the rights and wrongs of discrimination, it is about having a religion in a country where everybody should be allowed the same opportunities in life, not about some lines of text written hundreds of years ago that are being interpreted in a particular way for the purpose of propaganda.

    Let me just give an example of how lines from the bible can and are sometimes interpreted, lets take "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot" and "If anyone slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also", now many people will choose to interpet these lines as being contradictory, suggesting perhaps that one is encouraging restraint and forgiveness whilst the other is telling us retribution is ok. But the is point should we interpet them at all? or should we perhaps just accept them literally?
    You see it is this same question about interpetation about how and when and why we would choose to do so and even our right, ability and justification for doing so that has ramifications for ever using any part, or parts, of the bible to justify a particular argument. So much of it is open to interpretation and there is never really any justification as to why any one persons interpretations should be accepted over those of another. Yet this is without even really touching upon the question of truth, for how and when can any of us really know which if any passages from the bible are true, if we are ourselves are unwilling to accept it all as true, what other than our own need or pedjudices gives us the ability to accurately differeniate?

    So to reiterate I will always reject any attemp to use the bible to substantiate any given viewpoint on this or indeed any issue.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    31
    hi Strange, the...above...statement...is...indeed...true...as. ..you...and...others...have
    ...since...realized...your...statistics...are...in ...relation...to...crimes/convictions...however
    ...the...fact...still...remains...that...the...Pol ice...are...called...out...to...more...incidents.. .
    involving...woman...than...men...but...because...o f...the...nature...of...the...crime...it...rarely
    ...involves...a...charge...woman...rarely...get... physical...but...hitting...and...striking...a...pe rson
    ...is...not...the...only...form...of...violence... covert...hostility...is...what...drives...woman... to...be
    ...Bishops...plain...and...simple!

    peace&love...vern
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by vernpeace View Post
    hi Strange, the...above...statement...is...indeed...true...as. ..you...and...others...have
    ...since...realized...your...statistics...are...in ...relation...to...crimes/convictions...however
    ...the...fact...still...remains...that...the...Pol ice...are...called...out...to...more...incidents.. .
    involving...woman...than...men...but...because...o f...the...nature...of...the...crime...it...rarely
    ...involves...a...charge...woman...rarely...get... physical...but...hitting...and...striking...a...pe rson
    ...is...not...the...only...form...of...violence... covert...hostility...is...what...drives...woman... to...be
    ...Bishops...plain...and...simple!

    peace&love...vern
    d..i..c..k..h..e..a..d..

    If you have something to say that you think is of value, perhaps you would consider communicating like a normal human being. Rather than a spoilt 14 year old. Grow up.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    31
    hi Strange, less...than...covert...hostility
    ...you...must...be...a...honest...man...or
    ...maybe...just...living...in...fear...have...
    courage...my...boy...and...faith...will..surely
    ...follow!

    peace&love...vern
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,785
    Vern annoys me, and I'm a troll, this is sad.
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    31
    hi Shlunka. the...stubboness...of...the...bull...is...always
    ...sad...compared...to...his...strength!


    peace&love...vern


    p.s... F+O=E

    F=FACT

    O=OPINION

    E=EMOTION
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by BELIEVERINGOD View Post

    You have missed the most important point of all!!

    As the church is said to be a representative of the God of The Bible what does The Bibls say?

    1 Timothy 2:11-13
    Let a woman learn in silence with full submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach, or to exercise authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

    1 Corinthians 14:33-35
    As in all the congregations of the holy ones, 34 let the women keep silent in the congregations, for it is not permitted for them to speak, but let them be in subjection, even as the Law says. 35 If, then, they want to learn something, let them question their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in a congregation.


    1 Timothy 3:1
    This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife,

    Only men have the right to take the lead in the any christian congregation.

    This is the only exceptable standard according to The God of The Bible!

    big
    What I can't understand from that is whether you are suggesting I should accept every word of the bible literally or just the bits you have cherry picked to support your particular point, the reason I don't understand it is because others may cherry pick other bits from the bible but ask me to reject the bits you have quoted so, unless someone is telling me to accept every word of the bible literally why should I accept to believe the bits you have selected and believe to be true over the bits that others deem to be true?

    Perhaps if there was some consensus over which bits of the bible we should accept as true this might be easier, does such a consensus exist? If not how can I or indeed anyone really know which bits of the bible I should accept and which I should reject? and since I can't know the answer to this question would it be honest of me to accept any of it?
    The Bible deals with many things so look at what is being spoke of and about; along that theme whatever in might be and texts that relate to it.

    regards
    B I G
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by BELIEVERINGOD View Post
    You have missed the most important point of all!!

    As the church is said to be a representative of the God of The Bible what does The Bibls say?
    I assume from this that you follow the Jewish dietary laws, think a thief's hands should be cut off and people should be stoned to death?

    (And I'm quite sure someone else could cherry-pick some quotes from the Bible to prove that women should be bishops. Or even that men shouldn't be. After all, it says you should take an eye for an eye while turning the other cheek.)
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by BELIEVERINGOD View Post
    You have missed the most important point of all!!

    As the church is said to be a representative of the God of The Bible what does The Bibls say?
    I assume from this that you follow the Jewish dietary laws, think a thief's hands should be cut off and people should be stoned to death?

    NO AS I AM A CHRISTIAN AND HAVE NO NEED TO FOLLOW THE MOSAIC LAW!


    (And I'm quite sure someone else could cherry-pick some quotes from the Bible to prove that women should be bishops. Or even that men shouldn't be. After all, it says you should take an eye for an eye while turning the other cheek.)


    When you read the Sermon on the mount Jesus 'cherry-picked' certian text to make certain points!

    You have mixed Jewish Law with Christian ideas which is not always a good thing to do!

    "Eye for and eye" in relating to the Jewish legal system in that the punishment must fit the crime.

    To trun the other check is a Christian idea; if somone insults you because of your faith etc. do nothing but take your leave in peace, it is an hyperbole.

    regards

    B I G
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by BELIEVERINGOD View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by BELIEVERINGOD View Post
    You have missed the most important point of all!! As the church is said to be a representative of the God of The Bible what does The Bibls say?
    I assume from this that you follow the Jewish dietary laws, think a thief's hands should be cut off and people should be stoned to death?
    NO AS I AM A CHRISTIAN AND HAVE NO NEED TO FOLLOW THE MOSAIC LAW!
    So you don't follow even the ten commandmants. Not much of a christian are you.
    Strange likes this.
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,388
    Quote Originally Posted by BELIEVERINGOD View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by BELIEVERINGOD View Post
    You have missed the most important point of all!!

    As the church is said to be a representative of the God of The Bible what does The Bibls say?
    I assume from this that you follow the Jewish dietary laws, think a thief's hands should be cut off and people should be stoned to death?

    NO AS I AM A CHRISTIAN AND HAVE NO NEED TO FOLLOW THE MOSAIC LAW!


    (And I'm quite sure someone else could cherry-pick some quotes from the Bible to prove that women should be bishops. Or even that men shouldn't be. After all, it says you should take an eye for an eye while turning the other cheek.)


    When you read the Sermon on the mount Jesus 'cherry-picked' certian text to make certain points!

    You have mixed Jewish Law with Christian ideas which is not always a good thing to do!

    "Eye for and eye" in relating to the Jewish legal system in that the punishment must fit the crime.

    To trun the other check is a Christian idea; if somone insults you because of your faith etc. do nothing but take your leave in peace, it is an hyperbole.

    regards

    B I G
    I think you will find then any 'cherry-picking' just means that you are setting yourself above anything that you are using to cherry pick from. You are effectively saying "ignore what is actually written and listen only to what I tell you". This means surely that if what you are using is less important than you it has less value, so if it is indeed so devalued then why use it at all, I mean we already now know that even to you it has less value than your actual words.

    So the very act of cherry picking is to render that which you cherry pick from virtually worthless.
    Strange likes this.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by BELIEVERINGOD View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by BELIEVERINGOD View Post
    You have missed the most important point of all!!

    As the church is said to be a representative of the God of The Bible what does The Bibls say?
    I assume from this that you follow the Jewish dietary laws, think a thief's hands should be cut off and people should be stoned to death?

    NO AS I AM A CHRISTIAN AND HAVE NO NEED TO FOLLOW THE MOSAIC LAW!


    (And I'm quite sure someone else could cherry-pick some quotes from the Bible to prove that women should be bishops. Or even that men shouldn't be. After all, it says you should take an eye for an eye while turning the other cheek.)


    When you read the Sermon on the mount Jesus 'cherry-picked' certian text to make certain points!

    You have mixed Jewish Law with Christian ideas which is not always a good thing to do!

    "Eye for and eye" in relating to the Jewish legal system in that the punishment must fit the crime.

    To trun the other check is a Christian idea; if somone insults you because of your faith etc. do nothing but take your leave in peace, it is an hyperbole.

    regards

    B I G
    OK. So when you said "what does The Bible say?" you didn't really mean it. You meant, "lets see what the bits of the bible I agree with say and ignore the other inconvenient bits." Got it.
    Neverfly likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Are there any women members here?
    By PumaMan in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: October 26th, 2011, 06:40 AM
  2. The moon and women
    By Leszek Luchowski in forum Biology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 21st, 2010, 05:26 PM
  3. Women and computer science
    By gattaca in forum In the News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: December 16th, 2009, 06:19 PM
  4. Women and sex
    By water in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 216
    Last Post: April 29th, 2009, 05:21 PM
  5. When Women Fight
    By zinjanthropos in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: February 15th, 2008, 09:41 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •