Women Priests

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Thomas

I am obliged to correct the errors of ignorance

Fortunately you're gracious about it!

The term was coined by Tertullian (155–222) in defense of the doctrine of the Logos. The Latin trinitas means 'threeness' ... and Tertullian goes on to speak of "three Persons, one Substance" (tres Personae, una Substantia) which he received from tradition, in the Greek treis Hypostases, Homoousios, so in fact he was writing about a doctrine that was already in existence.

Here you are citing someone for authority who was officially separated from the Church of Carthage around 212. Tertullian may indeed have been among the first to develop the concept of the Trinity as theological contract, but he does not seem to have been instrumental in advancing the concept to the level of church doctrine. In fact, Tertullian left the church long before the Nice creed was finalized. Moreover, there is some question as to whether he was ever ordained as a priest, making his qualifications as an official spokesman for the church rather dubious.

Of course the theology of Irenaeus (d 202), the first of the great Patristic authors, is thoroughly Trinitarian ... a doctrine he received from Polycarp, who received it from St John the Apostle.

"Of course"? You have a way of glossing over things, Thomas.

For your interest, both Irenaeus and Tertullian advanced concepts of the Trinity that were substantially different from the notion of the Trinity as we know it now. Their views were NOT of the Trinity as consisting of uncreated, co-eternal and co-equal persons. Accordingly, both Irenaeus and Tertullian were "accused of teaching that the theophanies were incompatible with the essential nature of the Father, yet not incompatible with that of the Son."
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Blessed Trinity.

Irenaeus and Tertullian had evidently not been able to help the church settle the matter. In this connection, I might add that the Catholic Encyclopedia's discussion of the Nicean Creed makes no mention at all of either Tertullian or Irenaeus. It seems their positions did not influence the creed on any final sense. Yet you would cite them as principal sources.

... you speak almost exclusively from the position of a self-opinionated and uninformed bias.

What I can say in my defense is that I don't adopt the attitude that there is no controversy about core church doctrine, as though everything is settled and everyone can agree on the truth of the matter.

The fact is, Trinity doctrine was not finalized hundred of years after the founding of the Church. A look at church history reveals that the Trinity concept was still being debated when it was finally included in the Church creed. In fact, this was a time of internal dissension within the church on a variety of matters. Doctrinal disagreements persisted within the Church over hundreds of years. Any suggestion that these concepts are written in stone would seem rather misleading.

Now, for the real shocker. Let's take a look at wat the concept of the Trinity looked like just before it was made official doctrine. Importantly the First Council of Constantinople actually banned the term "substance" (ousia). As a result, it becomes impossible to argue that the three Persons are of the same substance!!


The Counsel apparently didn't know what to do about the Holy Spirit. But it did resolve one thing: Jesus was declared to have been "like" the Father. This resolution implies that the Father and the Son are not the same. For your interest, not the Biblical grounds invoked in connection with the Council's line of reasoning:

But since the term ousia [substance or essence], which was used by the fathers in a very simple and intelligible sense, but not being understood by the people, has been a cause of offense, we have thought proper to reject it, as it is not contained even in the sacred writings; and that no mention of it should be made in future, inasmuch as the holy Scriptures have nowhere mentioned the substance of the Father and of the Son. Nor ought the "subsistence" of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit to be even named. But we affirm that the Son is like the Father, in such a manner as the scared Scriptures declare and teach. Let therefore all heresies which have been already condemned, or may have arisen of late, which are opposed to this exploitation of the faith, be anathema.

In case you didn't notice, this position is substantially different from the Church's view of the Trinity as consisting of uncreated, co-eternal and co-equal persons. Implication: It seems the Church chose to ignore the reasoned views of the First Council of Constantinople with regard to the Trinity concept.

One might reasonably speculate that the Church didn't like the idea of backpedaling on the its prior position because that would mean that it had persecuted heretics for nothing, which in turn might adversely affect the Church's public image of being infallible. And so they went and re-asserted their position even though the First Council of Constantinople had declared it to be incompatible with scripture!!

Mmm, would it be fair to say this was an instance of bringing doctrine into conformity with Church policy!

Originally Posted by Thomas

...you'll never understand the full depths of written word — the letter — without the tradition — the spirit.

Say a little more, Thomas.

[AndrewX]

Ah bugger, I specifically flagged this thread so I could catch up on it (which I have done), and since it was in Belief & Spirituality I had not the slightest reservation about making my humble opinion known. I'll be darned if I'm going to walk on eggshells now, just because the discussion has degraded into scripture-picking, casuistry and an all-out defense of tradition, willy-nilly.

The best I can do, in light of the fact that the thread has been moved, twice, is to T.H.I.N.K. before I post.

(thanks, wil)

I notice that in all this discussion no one has made reference to even the least of the Mysteries of Christian teachings, in terms of actual content, by pointing out that the TWELVE whom and which came to constitute Jesus' immediate Apostles historically, have a far greater significance in terms of the Heavens above!

What do I mean by this? First off there are the Twelve Astrological Houses, known and studied for thousands of years before Christian times, but equally accepted then as now as factoring significantly in all earthly events. And of what do these Twelve Houses consist? Four sets of THREE (signs) on the one hand, or three sets of FOUR, depending. The latter are three crosses, known as the mutable (or earthly) cross, the fixed cross (or that of the Soul), and the cardinal cross (or that of the Spirit).

Esoteric Christianity, especially of the Gnostic variety, will also make reference sometimes to 12 sets of Aeons, or Syzygies, one of the latter consisting of Jesus and Sophia ... though other schemes will admit of as many as 30 Aeons, or as few as 20. Whom and what are the Aeons? They are the great PAIRS of Masculine-Feminine POWERS, or Potencies, the `Powers that Be' as we sometimes term Them, Whose responsibility is the governance and guidance of all affairs in the more mundane spheres of existence ... to wit, the earthly realms.

And if we wish to explore a bit more, we will find in Esotericism a recognition of the same Primoridal Masculine-Feminine Potency as shown through the Syzygies, acting upon or within all twelve of the Spiritual Schemes (or Planetary Evolutions) of our solar system. The fact that science has yet to detect life beyond Earth notwithstanding, these Schemes have been known for thousands of years even in many exoteric religious teachings.

What is the point? That the Divine masuline and feminine are to be found everywhere in Cosmos, though not necessarily in quite the same form(s) (or in form at all) as we might be led to expect ... based on our geocentric or anthropomorphic tendencies. (see below)

Just as there is a central triplicity of spiritual powers, or aspects, which Christianity calls the `Holy Trinity,' and which other religions equally recognize (name me a religion and I will show you its `Holy Trinity'), this same Heavenly Archetype -- Universal and all-pervasive -- finds its mirror accordingly and directly in Christ's central three disciples, Peter, James and John.


Of course originally the Christian understanding of the Trinity did not proceed in the same order as is currently accepted. The order, until shifted by the Roman Catholic Church, was Father, Mother (or Holy Spirit, accepted de facto as Feminine) and Son. Cosmogonically, the Holy Spirit consists of the mother, wife and daughter of the Son (An Encylopedic Theosophical Glossary). To continue:

In Christianity, the Son is said to be God made manifest in a particular man; the Holy Ghost is the divine spirit which works in all men and brings them into conformity with the image of the Son or Christ. (ibid)

And to paraphrase, again from the Theosophical Glossary --

The Holy Ghost is the spiritual ray proceeding as from the Cosmic Christ, passing down from the most spiritual to the most material of worlds and penetrating all hierarchies of beings [both Angelic and `human'] in its course, therefore likewise influencing and guiding the human mind when [the Holy Ghost is] accepted into the soul.

"[The Holy Ghost] is equivalent to the Light of the Logos, daiviprakriti, the Gnostic Sophia, the Qabbalistic Shechinah (or perhaps Sephirah), the Mother of the Ogdoad, and in Indian thought the feminine sakti." (ibid)

What else, from the Heavens above, is mirrored upon our Earth, directly into the ORIGINAL Christianity -- untainted by tradition (which necessarily interprets what it does not understand, thus imposing its own meaning and interpretation), or by the rulings of a quorum?

Notice that Christ has a Beloved Disciple, who is closest to Him and in whom He is able to confide moreso than in all the rest. In esoteric symbolism this Disciple represents the Logos in its very earliest manifestation, BEFORE the initial Trinity had yet come into expression in the as-yet-uncreate(d) Cosmos, or Pleroma. This Beloved was one of the central three (the Trinity) and in Christ's own day would have thus signified, to some, the Father.

As mentioned above, the Apostles can be viewed as sets of three, sets of four, perhaps even sets of two ... as well as in terms of their Individuality. As to the latter, Christian commentators have not failed to pick up on the symbolism, and fortunately have ventured into the world of Virtue as they point out some of the Soul qualities which each of the Twelve supposedly displayed. It almost does not matter whether any of these historical men (assuming, for the moment, that they actually existed) were truly as they have been described. To understand and accept that they were a) quite human, as are we all, and b) quite capable of becoming more than human, again as are we all, is perhaps what matters most. And what better way to try and grasp more about this latter process of Becoming than to try and imagine the potential which Christ Jesus was able to see within each disciple ... and to recognize how the same humanity which He shared with them, also overlapped (as it does within each of us) with their greatest spiritual Potential, or Divinity?

As I was typing up this post, I came across dozens of Wiki articles, and as many entries from more esoteric sources, but because I find this one, rather brief article most relevant to the topic at hand, I would like to link it, here: Heavenly Mother - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

You see, this post really is about why women, both within Roman Catholicism as well as within other branches of Christianity should be - not simply allowed to become priests, but WARMLY ACCEPTED and EMBRACED as one of the most VITAL, yet missing elements which some of these Traditions have need for, if they are to continue. I have tried to show (briefly even) that the Divine Feminine is something which originated even prior to `DAY ONE' ... considering the implications of this statement from a mainstream Christian perspective. Narrow thinking may not recognize or understand GOD, the supposed INVENTOR of all Potential and thus of all ... as containing - even from MOMENT ONE - both the SEED, the growth and the OUTCOME of all possible future `gendering' ... but this does not change things even for a moment. It merely means that a future AHA! has yet to dawn.

The same Creative Spirit that hovered upon these proverbial waters (Earth's), producing in time from non-gendered and androgynous stock, a gradually gendered and physically distinct SINGLE RACE of beings ... will one day, far into our future, resolve the present distinctions -- both physically and psychologically ... though I daresay this will not be to the satisfaction of those who currently hold to misogynistic or misandrist tendencies and lines of thinking.

When all is said and done, I find it rather embarrassing - even quite humiliating - that the staunch defense of supposedly traditional Christianity (with its built-in misogyny, supersitition, creedalisms and emphasis on a male power-structure & earthly hierarchy) ... all stems from a dead-letter rendering of the purely SYMBOLICAL or symbological tale of Adam, Eve and the Garden of Eden. If it weren't for the creative yet wily imaginations of MEN, dating especially to the times of Hypatia of Alexandria, though both before and afterward, we might otherwise have a reasonable understanding of the actual intent of the whole Garden of Eden myth. Instead, we have such foolishness as the actual notions, as literal as can be, of ONE MAN, ONE WOMAN, ONE pretty much MASCULINE GOD-FIGURE, ONE SNAKE, ONE TREE and one, all-condemning act of disobedience (yes, that theme does figure in rather heavily, doesn't it?) ... whereby EVE SOLD HUMANITY SHORT, and pretty much fubar'd us all here on Planet Earth, FOR ALL TIME!

Only owing to God's great Mercy and Powers of Forgiveness, expressed via the sacrifice of Jesus of Nazareth (bloodily stoned, nailed to a cross, or what-have-you ... each death story again being interpreted in the dead-letter, not surprisingly), does it become possible for the faithful believer to take steps toward a vicarioius atonement and one day return -- to the Eden-like conditions of innocence and heavenly Grace.

Nevermind what is wrong with the latter mangling of Christianity's original teachings, message and methodology for attaining Salvation ... this thread is about WHY WOMEN SHOULD (perhaps) BE ALLOWED TO BE PRIESTS. Why should they? Pretty simple, actually. If it's good enough for God, it seems it oughtta be good enough for us! If WOMAN, in her Heavenly status (as an original PERSON of the Holy Trinity) was good enough to be paired up with the Father, along with the Son, then you'd better come up with a pretty convincing argument for bumping her down a notch once the original androgynous races of Earth humanity came to be divided.

And the Roman Catholic Church has done just that. Change the teachings, change the assumptions, dump the alternate versions and label them taboo, heretical, blasphemy ... and you can pretty much make woman into a devil and a demon if you want, or anything in between. And thus it has been done ...

When we ask the question WHY we proceeded from a much earlier androgyny to gender division, I find a long, interesting list of reasons ... not the least of which includes a scientific response about the method of reproduction of the species (which still, currently pertains), but which moves on to include mention of perhaps THE MOST BASIC interpersonal relationship here on Planet Earth, and which also has a fair bit to do with aesthetics, the discovery and definition of Beauty, and certainly also the true, Heavenly Bliss.

Amazing the short-sightedness of those early, Catholic missionaries who, upon beholding the most sublime Yab-Yum of Hindu and Buddhist sacred artistic depictions, understood (because they PROJECTED) only pornography, blasphemy and sacrilege. In fact, what greater evidence of our gross misunderstanding of the sacred function and mystical significance of sexuality (and thus also of gender-disctinction as a Divinely-ordained development) ... than Puritanism (stemming from the Cathari, with their focus on the dark underbelly of Gnosticism), MALE-controlled prostitution (brothels, `pimping') and the current obsession with pornography, in every form imaginable, yet catering overwhelmingly to the MALE?

Hmm, methinks that somewhere, somehow, the Heavenly Perfection got bent a little on its way down into even an approximate reflection upon Earth!

Yes, this goes without saying, but what many folks continue to deny is that the greater disservice has been wrought, for thousands of years upon women, yet justified - of all things - because it is GOD'S WILL!?!

Oh yes, back to the Bible to prove and underscore such ignorance! Yet this, they will one day find is the greatest Catch-22 of all! How quick to run to a `holy' scripture for a defense of tradition, while never questioning the possibility that all those suppressed `heretical' teachings, all of the Gnostic groups numbering in the dozens during the early days of Christianity ... never questioning that EVEN ONE of these alternate interpretations of Christ's Teachings might contain some tiny portion of Light to shed on the very wishes of Christ Himself for the future of His Church!!!

What a shame that many people still choose (consciously, intentionally, obstinately) to close a blind eye, turn a deaf ear, to the Wisdom that predates Christianity, that co-existed with Christ Jesus, and which has been given to Humanity since the times of Christ, via other religions, other systems of belief! True, these folks are none the wiser for this choice, but the greater sorrow is the divisiveness which continues, and the not-so-holy wars which still claim lives by the thousands, all stemming back to a stubborn insistence that "only my view is the (most) accurate one."


Please note, for those of you who did read the original article (dated July 18th), a survey accompanying the article queried whether readers felt women should or shouldn't be priests, or were unsure. The response?

70% voted YES - 3544 votes
26% voted No - 1342 votes
4% voted unsure - 180 votes

Inasmuch as numbers decide, the yeas outnumber the nays by 3 to 1. And in the last analysis, though some of the Bible-thumping may make a few folks feel better about their scriptural awareness, one, resounding message is being communicated to the Catholic Church, IRRESPECTIVE of tradition, convention and status quo:

EVOLVE ... or crumble.

Thank GOD people are finally seeing the Light!

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by wil

It rang true, today we can't imagine using the bible to oppress people...or can we??

We used all kinds of things to justify oppression (including the Bible), but I think one of the overarching themes of the Bible is that oppression can't be justified.

Maybe it's a matter of recognizing oppression?

On the one hand, the Catholic Church is not a police state. It is joined voluntarily and people are free to leave, so I don't think that denying women the priesthood qualifies as 'oppression.' Also, it seems to me that it is not the business of people outside the RCC to try to dictate what should go on in that church.


On the other hand, in many religions, not just Christianity, the prescribed roles of women can end up creating conditions which are oppressive within the religion and in the greater society where that religion is dominant. Therefore, I don't think we can fully ignore what goes on inside church walls. Dialogue is in order.

Above all, I think the tone of the conversation should be one of respect and loving-kindness in both directions.

[AndrewX]

To sum up then?

The Divine Order, existing as it always has in the Heavens, still seeks to manifest on Earth. That Order, which must include women in an EQUALLY IMPORTANT ROLE (if not slightly superior) to that of men, in religious or spiritual matters as in all others, is working itself out now, all around and within us ... individually, collectively, holistically.

We may either cooperate, consciously, Intelligently, Lovingly ... or we may yet choose to resist. This, as always, is our prerogative. Some insist on clinging to the least manifestation of our greater Potential(s), yet feel that they are thus exercising their free will. Not recognizing that only by relinquishing may we gain - and gain in greater measure - entire institutions may have to go through some fairly hard times ... as does each of us, in order to grow in Christ.

That seems an appropriate summary, now that this is on Christianity.


And in the spirit of what you just posted, lunamoth, surely it would be wrong for women to try and take their God-given right with brute force, correct? Hmm, didn't stop the male-dominated Church? Oh, nevermind that ... certainly, that would not be appropriate.

It would be equally wrong for women to obstruct the working out of the Divine Plan upon the Earth. Those who recognize it, and who also know that now is the time, are right to choose to seek ordination. That the official response may be excommunication ... may be, termporarily, unavoidable. Should they therefore give up the Cause altogether?

There are the Mother Teresas (countless hundreds, perhaps thousands of women like her, in that they have been moved by the same Spirit, seeking to serve the same Holy Purpose) ... of a bygone era. There was a time, not so very long ago, when a woman not only couldn't become a priest, she could not get the same kind of job as a man, she could not vote, she could not serve in the armed forces, and she could not work for change from within the government. In many places, some or even all of these same restrictions still apply.

To defend ANY of these in the name of tradition, would be extremely short-sighted. What we might observe, however, is that in a society or a culture in which women still do not have a particular right, as do men (or vice versa, for that matter) ... it is STILL possible for women to work, powerfully, actively and effectively as force for change, serving the Divine Plan, even while not claiming the same rights, roles and responsibilities as men. Almost ironically, it is in precisely this way that some of the greatest change, does come from women ... while to all outward appearance it is the men who are "in control," or in positions of greater influence. Things are not always what they seem. The Revolution will not be televised!

You don't have to recognize the current position maintained by the Catholic Church as oppression, but you can also play good diplomat all day long and refuse to call a spade a spade. If women are not second class citizens to the Vatican, or before the eyes of God (yes, according to the aforementioned Adam & Even myth, literally rendered), then let the Church be the first ones out the gate to affirm and CELEBRATE this OBVIOUS fact. It is nothing short of embarrassing, disgraceful, that in the end, I'm afraid that Catholicism will be the greatest holdout to an acceptance of women's status upon this planet as EQUAL to men.

Can some men lift more than women, or prove greater feats of physical exertion? Sure. And some women can bench press the rest of us. Can some women intuit better than men, or remain in tune with their feelings, when many men retreat and escape either to the intellect or to the flesh, with its appetites? Certainly ... but there are sensitive men, and there are women who do not fit this sterotype.

A more encompassing discussion might explore just how it is that the Heavenly duality, or polarity of masculine and feminine, reflects itself (in both obvious, or intuitive ways, as well as surprising, or `reverse' ways) into the earthly genders. My point, however, is that women have EVERY RIGHT to serve as priests, because they have EQUAL CAPACITY.

Shoot yourself in the foot if you like ... but please don't argue solely in the name of diplomacy.

LORETTA: I want to have babies.

REG: You want to have babies?!

LORETTA: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.

REG: But... you can't have babies.

LORETTA: Don't you oppress me.

REG: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!

LORETTA: [crying]

JUDITH: Here! I-- I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.

FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.

REG: What's the point?

FRANCIS: What?

REG: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?!

FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.

REG: Symbolic of his struggle against reality.
[trumpets]
[clap clap clap]

[Dondi]

I haven't read through all these repsonses, but I stumbled across this website forum while researching something totally unrelated:

Women priests website

I wonder how much influence they had in this decision.

[Dream]

Hey AndrewX, that is really fascinating. Actually its going to take some time for me to absorb the things that have been discussed in this thread, but I wanted to especially request if you know what the gnostics thought about the number 13? Does that also have a masculine/feminine concept going for it? I'm asking, because you could actually count 13 apostles if you included both Iscariot and Matthias, plus with all the other extra apostles you can get an even larger number. There are 13 constellations - not twelve, and you could say there are 10, 11, 12, or even 13 sons of Jacob / Israel, if you wanted to count them that way.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Dondi

I haven't read through all these repsonses, but I stumbled across this website ....
Women priests website

Hi Dondi,

The site was previously cited for this conclusion:

(T)here is simply no historical grounds for regarding the Twelve as the first priests, for maintaining that Jesus ordained them, or for considering them as the exclusive

You may be interested in the reaction that follows...
http://www.comparative-religion.com/...tml#post153877

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by AndrewX

Of course originally the Christian understanding of the Trinity did not proceed in the same order as is currently accepted. The order, until shifted by the Roman Catholic Church, was Father, Mother (or Holy Spirit, accepted de facto as Feminine) and Son.

The Hebrew term for spirit (Ruach) apparently is feminine. However, the greek (Pneuma) is not (it's neutral). In other words, spirit had different genders in the OT and the NT.

So who do you blame for the shift ? The Catholic Church or the Greek language?

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

The Hebrew term for spirit (Ruach) apparently is feminine. However, the greek (Pneuma) is not (it's neutral). In other words, spirit had different genders in the OT and the NT.

So who do you blame for the shift ? The Catholic Church or the Greek language?

Hmmm, I'm not sure about this one, Netti-Netti. I think there may be several factors involved. For starters, if you're not familiar with the Greek pantheon of Gods & Goddesses, and also with the cosmology which informs (and substands) this pantheon, you might take a look at two short sections in this Wikipedia article:

Greek mythology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice that in terms of cosmology, as with so many of the ancient religions, a completely transcendent, utterly unknowable and certainly non-gendered CHAOS first produces a feminine expression (or Deity) -- Gaia. This is the Virgin Egg of Cosmos, the true Mother Mary of Immaculate Space (prior even to dimensionality), the Egyptian Isis (or Neith) and the Buddhist Hiranyagarbha, with Brahma emerging as Light.

According to Hesiod, Gaia gives birth to Uranus (the Sky) who then fertilises her without male assistance ... just as the Egyptian Nut was understood to give birth, cyclically to all heavenly bodies.

I think it's an interesting study the gradual evolution of Egyptian and Greek mythology, whereby Deities that occupy a sublime and inviting symbology become gradually transformed into the much more anthropomorphic conceptions which were popular later, and which we generally encounter in superficial treatments of these ancient religions.

We might say that the Wisdom which was carefully concealed from the profane has been a bit too well concealed, almost to the point that people forget to use the imagination to understand what life was like ... thousands of years ago, before the Internet, before planetariums (with modern electronic technology), and even before television or easy access to the public library.

Certainly, in a place like the Library of Alexandria, or if one were so lucky in a Mystery School such as Pythagoras' Krotona or Plato's Academy, one could study the Wisdom Teachings without immediate fear of persecution. But things changed in the centuries to come, as the Innocents (read Initiates) were slaughtered or driven underground, to make way for new & different ... ideologies.

The imagination, however, can never be supressed; only discouraged, and genuine insights challenged when they differ from the status quo. We may now typically think of Zeus as the Father of the Gods when it comes to Greek mythology, yet I would suggest this is not much different than picturing a wrathful Jehovah-figure instead of approaching what is actually presented by the mystical and occult teachings of Judaism and Christianity.

I believe the ruah of Kabbalistic teachings should indeed be understood as feminine, and any masculine associations that are picked up in translation to the Greek should probably be discarded. Considering that these two words are apparently intended to signify the exact same principle both in Cosmos and in the human being, I'd have to hear a pretty good argument for the shift from a feminine principle (and Person of the Trinity) to a masculine before I adjusted my ways of thinking.

Esoterically, the Soul is often spoken of as feminine in relation to our earthly personality (that is, the true Ego or Self in relation to little ego), though in another sense you might say we must be receptive to impression as we seek the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and that relationship could be considered positive/masculine (Soul/Holy Spirit/ruah/pneuma) vs. negative/feminine (personality).

There can be confusion, because while ruah can equate to Holy Spirit, either microcosmically or macrocosmically, the Soul itself is certainly not gendered as we usually think of the term (just as being negative or receptive to Inspiration is obviously not a bad thing ... in a more `pop' connotation of the word negative). Further, there is a teaching that the Soul serves a higher purpose as a vehicle, or means of expression (a living, loving and intelligent one) for Spirit, on a higher turn of the spiral, in much the same way that personality is vehicle to the Soul. This necessarily requires a reorienation for many folks, including consideration that we might be the incarnation of something greater (Soul) ... instead of the primary party (ontologically & metaphysically speaking) with soul as some sort of an appendage.

Somehow, I feel certain that getting women officially accepted as part of the Catholic clergy will eventually contribute to the right understanding of this and a zillion other important and/or interesting spiritual matters ... though granted, the social order on Earth might not snap into perfect bliss & harmony the self-same moment that the Pope issues said proclamation, nor on the inauguration day of the first female, African-American, left-handed Pope or U.S. President. Ya know? lol

Peace ... andrew

[mee]

While some religions are at war with one another, others are beset by internal squabbles.

For instance, in recent years the churches of Christendom have been split by ongoing debates on matters of doctrine.

Clergy and laity alike ask: Is birth control permitted? What about abortion? Should women be ordained as priests? How ought the church to view homosexuality? Should a religion sanction war? In view of such disunity, many wonder, ‘How can a religion unite mankind if it cannot unite even its own members?’
Clearly, religion in general has failed to be a force for unity. But are all religions marked by divisions? Is there a religion that is different—one that can unite mankind?

seek and you will find mee has found it

ITS JEHOVAHS WITNESSES

[BlaznFattyz]

any religion is full of people that ask why? this can cause division, no one is exempt, because we are all people. People like to ask why and like to have answers and when someone is against their ideas that they came up with it can get personal. For all christian denominations this is not a matter of salvation or the nature of God, so it should never cause division, but just schools of thought. Let's talk common sense for a second. Do not women raise our children? Women also can be full of life experiences, and be given the ability to teach lessons from the bible, and they may also have a spiritual gift, so they should teach. It would be foolish to miss out on any opportunity that could help others find Christ or strengthen their walk with Christ. However, it is not the woman's role to bring the Spirit into the home, this is a responsibility of the man to be the head of the household. This doesn't mean that women can't, it means that men need to.

[wil]

Originally Posted by mee

Clearly, religion in general has failed to be a force for unity. But are all religions marked by divisions? Is there a religion that is different—one that can unite mankind?

seek and you will find mee has found it

ITS JEHOVAHS WITNESSES

While it is obvious from the number of ex JWs that they leave the fold and unity amongst them is not as you indicate. I do find it interesting that JW is no longer part of Christendom but a religion unto itself as you state, quite interesting mee.

[mee]

Originally Posted by wil

While it is obvious from the number of ex JWs that they leave the fold and unity amongst them is not as you indicate. I do find it interesting that JW is no longer part of Christendom but a religion unto itself as you state, quite interesting mee.[/left]

yes some are not into unity they like it their way .

but those who stay by the flock are not outside in the spiritual darkness ,they are in the protection of the most high.


And yes Jehovahs witnesses are no part of christendom , Jehovahs people stick to what the bible REALLY teaches.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by mee

yes some are not into unity they like it their way .

but those who stay by the flock are not outside in the spiritual darkness ,they are in the protection of the most high.


And yes Jehovahs witnesses are no part of christendom , Jehovahs people stick to what the bible REALLY teaches.

Yep your faith is a perfect example of failure to get into 'unity', and you like it your WAY.

Guilty as the rest of us...

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by mee

yes some are not into unity they like it their way .

but those who stay by the flock are not outside in the spiritual darkness ,they are in the protection of the most high.


And yes Jehovahs witnesses are no part of christendom , Jehovahs people stick to what the bible REALLY teaches.

Thank you. Get off the Christian forum. now.