Are female pastors a good thing?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-09-2013, 01:24 PM (This post was last modified: 25-09-2013 01:28 PM by cjlr.)
RE: Are female pastors a good thing?
(25-09-2013 01:18 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  I'd disagree with D. Increase in female representation in the clergy (in some denominations, an increase from 0) won't NECESSARILY result in an increase in the size of the organization. It could easily be a shift rather than an expansion. Expansion wouldn't be unexpected, but I'm not prepared to accept it unanalyzed as a premise.

A could do with some analysis as well. Part of what makes many religious organizations awful is hierarchical structure that ignores or actively denigrates women, in their own religion and in society at large, and it would not be totally irrational to suppose that empowering women in these organizations could reduce the degree of awful. This improvement might serve to more than offset the awful that would come from hypothetical growth, depending on the degrees involved.

(I'd also say that there exists exceptions to A anyway, but these are largely liberal institutions that don't bar women from their clergy in the first place, so not an issue for this discussion.)

Just to clarify, that's not my reasoning. That's my (admittedly reductive, but deservedly so) interpretation of the OP's comments. "I ... believe more pastors are a bad thing", and all that.

With respect to A, one might recall Hitchen's comments: is there any good which might be done by religious organisations which cannot be done by non-religious organisations?

With respect to D, you are correct, insofar as one would not expect a decrease, even if the result is schismatic. Your qualification is that it isn't NECESSARILY so... Tongue

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2013, 01:25 PM
RE: Are female pastors a good thing?
(25-09-2013 01:18 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(25-09-2013 10:05 AM)cjlr Wrote:  A: religious organizations are bad.
A→B: growth of religious organizations is bad.
A→C: more people within religious organizations is bad.
D: equality within religious organizations will lead to more people within religious organizations
(A∧D)→E: therefore equality within religious organizations is bad.

Shit, that's almost logical! You both said it was a non-issue and then gave an opinion, mind, which is less so. Baby steps, I and I. Baby steps.

Most systems of secular morality would begin from the assertion that equality a good thing in an of itself. Realistically one must assess [what one perceives to be] the good and bad consequences of the premises.

I'd disagree with D. Increase in female representation in the clergy (in some denominations, an increase from 0) won't NECESSARILY result in an increase in the size of the organization. It could easily be a shift rather than an expansion. Expansion wouldn't be unexpected, but I'm not prepared to accept it unanalyzed as a premise.

A could do with some analysis as well. Part of what makes many religious organizations awful is hierarchical structure that ignores or actively denigrates women, in their own religion and in society at large, and it would not be totally irrational to suppose that empowering women in these organizations could reduce the degree of awful. This improvement might serve to more than offset the awful that would come from hypothetical growth, depending on the degrees involved.

(I'd also say that there exists exceptions to A anyway, but these are largely liberal institutions that don't bar women from their clergy in the first place, so not an issue for this discussion.)

This is a rare Win-Win situation for us (meaning those opposed to the influence of religion on modern culture) where on the one hand The Church either becomes more liberal (a win) or becomes more irrelevant (a bigger win). Looking long term I want the Church to go back to Pre-Vatican II simply because that will cause the fall quicker but I'll take the church becoming a watered down hollow shell of it's former evil.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
25-09-2013, 01:42 PM
RE: Are female pastors a good thing?
(25-09-2013 12:53 PM)Shawnzy Wrote:  they can't produce a singe shred of evidence

Penises. Duh. Rolleyes

I AM he who is called... cat furniture.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes I Am's post
25-09-2013, 02:43 PM
Re: Are female pastors a good thing?
Less women subjugation is a good thing.

Pastors... Eh not good, but this would be less harmful to many humans than the status quo.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2013, 02:48 PM
RE: Are female pastors a good thing?
It might just be that the more literal minded believers do not want to be told to repent by the "origin" of sin. (you know the whole eve thing). The church has shown how far its head has been shoved up its ass before so this would be a breeze for them.

When you are courting a nice girl an hour seems like a second. When you sit on a red-hot cinder a second seems like an hour. That's relativity.

You cannot successfully determine beforehand which side of the bread to butter.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2013, 04:01 PM
RE: Are female pastors a good thing?
(25-09-2013 01:42 PM)I Am Wrote:  
(25-09-2013 12:53 PM)Shawnzy Wrote:  they can't produce a singe shred of evidence

Penises. Duh. Rolleyes

The word "penis" should never follow the word "shred". Just sayin'. Sadcryface

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Impulse's post
25-09-2013, 04:14 PM
RE: Are female pastors a good thing?
(25-09-2013 01:24 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(25-09-2013 01:18 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  I'd disagree with D. Increase in female representation in the clergy (in some denominations, an increase from 0) won't NECESSARILY result in an increase in the size of the organization. It could easily be a shift rather than an expansion. Expansion wouldn't be unexpected, but I'm not prepared to accept it unanalyzed as a premise.

A could do with some analysis as well. Part of what makes many religious organizations awful is hierarchical structure that ignores or actively denigrates women, in their own religion and in society at large, and it would not be totally irrational to suppose that empowering women in these organizations could reduce the degree of awful. This improvement might serve to more than offset the awful that would come from hypothetical growth, depending on the degrees involved.

(I'd also say that there exists exceptions to A anyway, but these are largely liberal institutions that don't bar women from their clergy in the first place, so not an issue for this discussion.)

Just to clarify, that's not my reasoning. That's my (admittedly reductive, but deservedly so) interpretation of the OP's comments. "I ... believe more pastors are a bad thing", and all that.

With respect to A, one might recall Hitchen's comments: is there any good which might be done by religious organisations which cannot be done by non-religious organisations?

With respect to D, you are correct, insofar as one would not expect a decrease, even if the result is schismatic. Your qualification is that it isn't NECESSARILY so... Tongue

Yeah, it wasn't yours, but your summary was too neat not to grab. I should have said that I questioned D and A, rather than disagreed.

And Rev, I'd prefer the watered down variety. It's the same destination either way, long-term. But short term, it makes a big deal in places like, oh, I dunno, Sub-Saharan Africa.

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2013, 04:45 PM
RE: Are female pastors a good thing?
(25-09-2013 04:14 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(25-09-2013 01:24 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Just to clarify, that's not my reasoning. That's my (admittedly reductive, but deservedly so) interpretation of the OP's comments. "I ... believe more pastors are a bad thing", and all that.

With respect to A, one might recall Hitchen's comments: is there any good which might be done by religious organisations which cannot be done by non-religious organisations?

With respect to D, you are correct, insofar as one would not expect a decrease, even if the result is schismatic. Your qualification is that it isn't NECESSARILY so... Tongue

Yeah, it wasn't yours, but your summary was too neat not to grab. I should have said that I questioned D and A, rather than disagreed.

And Rev, I'd prefer the watered down variety. It's the same destination either way, long-term. But short term, it makes a big deal in places like, oh, I dunno, Sub-Saharan Africa.

I'm a bit pessimistic about Sub-saharan africa when it comes to the RCC. The brand of crazy they sell there is centuries behind what they peddle to the rest of the world. Education has eliminated most of the truly crazy claims in the western world but there Witchcraft is a capital offense. But as I said anything to weaken their grip is a good thing.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2013, 05:33 PM
RE: Are female pastors a good thing?
As much as I enjoy watching the RCC fold in on itself like an empty juice box in the hands of an overzealous child, the church will not disappear in our lifetime, or maybe ever. Religion as a whole definitely isn't coming to an end. The next best thing is to foster the development of the more progressive religious mindset, and subdue the backwards orthodoxy that is still present in most religions. Many religious people have managed to adopt an attitude that doesn't necessitate judging others arbitrarily or condemning them based on their own morals, i. e., accepting homosexuality, female independence, and birth control. If the other nut jobs would follow suit and stop trying to cram their lifestyle down the throats of the entire planet, the whole world would be better off.

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who has said it- not even if I have said it- unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. - Buddha
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ohio Sky's post
25-09-2013, 06:27 PM (This post was last modified: 25-09-2013 08:07 PM by TheGulegon.)
RE: Are female pastors a good thing?
(25-09-2013 01:25 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(25-09-2013 01:18 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  I'd disagree with D. Increase in female representation in the clergy (in some denominations, an increase from 0) won't NECESSARILY result in an increase in the size of the organization. It could easily be a shift rather than an expansion. Expansion wouldn't be unexpected, but I'm not prepared to accept it unanalyzed as a premise.

A could do with some analysis as well. Part of what makes many religious organizations awful is hierarchical structure that ignores or actively denigrates women, in their own religion and in society at large, and it would not be totally irrational to suppose that empowering women in these organizations could reduce the degree of awful. This improvement might serve to more than offset the awful that would come from hypothetical growth, depending on the degrees involved.

(I'd also say that there exists exceptions to A anyway, but these are largely liberal institutions that don't bar women from their clergy in the first place, so not an issue for this discussion.)

This is a rare Win-Win situation for us (meaning those opposed to the influence of religion on modern culture) where on the one hand The Church either becomes more liberal (a win) or becomes more irrelevant (a bigger win). Looking long term I want the Church to go back to Pre-Vatican II simply because that will cause the fall quicker but I'll take the church becoming a watered down hollow shell of it's former evil.

Because there's no such thing as a female zealot?





That last was a joke, and so is the next, but this one isn't funny.

[Image: ann-coulter-black-pilot.jpg]
Bottomless well of empathy, & understanding, from that specimen of the fairer sex Dodgy

I'm all for equality, but lets not get ahead of ourselves thinking a more inclusive priesthood would necessarily mean less evil. Delusional is delusional regardless of the genitalia that happens to be attached to it!

[edit] and I can always recount tales of my grandmother if you really want stories of harmful treatment of children performed by a woman, over religious beliefs!

(I'm not trying to be rude, Rev; it's just that woman was evil!)

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: