@philokalia said
Now, in a community which wants people to play out their gender roles and believes that God created them male and female, you are setting a weird precedent.

You seem to be resorting to an "argument" here that's adjacent to 'It's the role of a man to be a religious and spiritual leader because it's the role of a man to be a religious and spiritual leader' and 'It's not the role of a woman to be a religious and spiritual leader because it's not the role of a woman to be a religious and spiritual leader'.

@fmf said
So what? Why do "the distinctions" require women to be forbidden from assuming a leadership role?

And just above this you state that I am only saying that men are different because they are different.

But here you acknowledge them?

What, exactly, is your stance on gender differences?

@fmf said
You seem to be resorting to an "argument" here that's adjacent to 'It's the role of a man to be a religious and spiritual leader because it's the role of a man to be a religious and spiritual leader' and 'It's not the role of a woman to be a religious and spiritual leader because it's not the role of a woman to be a religious and spiritual leader'.

You know that the argument is actually that men and women have fundamental differences in temperament.

Lol, how come you cannot keep this part of the argument straight?

@philokalia said
You know that the argument is actually that men and women have fundamental differences in temperament.

Lol, how come you cannot keep this part of the argument straight?

How is it an "argument" in support of preventing women from taking on leadership roles?

I can see how it explains differences between who is leading and who isn't leading in a given situation, and can also see how it is a self-perpetuating state of affairs, but it does not explain why it is right to ban women from leadership roles.

@philokalia said
What, exactly, is your stance on gender differences?

My stance is that none of the differences you have described amounts to a justification for men to use their institutional power to preclude women from having leadership roles.

@fmf said
How is it an "argument" in support of preventing women from taking on leadership roles?

I can see how it explains differences between who is leading and who isn't leading in a given situation, and can also see how it is a self-perpetuating state of affairs, but it does not explain why it is right to ban women from leadership roles.

I am sure I have covered it before, perhaps in the other thread where this was discussed, but it involves the temperament necessary for church leadership. The church needs certain qualities that are present more in the male temperament for these specific roles.

@fmf said
My stance is that none of the differences you have described amounts to a justification for men to use their institutional power to preclude women from having leadership roles.

This position is not supported by institutional power.

It's a decree in the very foundations of Christianity that supports it. It's literally in the New Testament.

@philokalia said
I am sure I have covered it before, perhaps in the other thread where this was discussed, but it involves the temperament necessary for church leadership. The church needs certain qualities that are present more in the male temperament for these specific roles.

'Men have the temperament for church leadership because the temperament needed for church leadership is the temperament that men have' is pretty much undisguised circular logic, probably marinated in Appeal to Tradition and served in an Appeal to Authority sauce.

And you're still not addressing the only point/question I have: how is this perspective a justification for barring women from leadership roles?

Your "scientific reasons" explain why, because of your psychological makeup, you don't want to be led by a woman in spiritual and religious matters, but it doesn't explain why men must arrange their corporate church environments in a way that prevents women from becoming leaders.

@philokalia said
This position is not supported by institutional power.

You said that, in the Greek Orthodox Church, women are barred from attending councils where scripture is discussed and governance is decided, or words to that effect. Do you really not know what the term "institutional power" means?

@philokalia said
It's a decree in the very foundations of Christianity that supports it. It's literally in the New Testament.

So what was all the question-dodging waffle about "scientific reasons" then?

You are effectively instructed by your God figure not to oppose women from being forbidden to lead men in religious and spiritual matters, is that right? Just say so.

It's just an allegedly supernatural thing you happen to believe. Just say that.

Don't try to lubricate your superstitious belief with some old flannel about psychology. It makes you sound insecure.

@fmf said
'Men have the temperament for church leadership because the temperament needed for church leadership is the temperament that men have' is pretty much undisguised circular logic, probably marinated in Appeal to Tradition and served in an Appeal to Authority sauce.

And you're still not addressing the only point/question I have: how is this perspective a justification for barring ...[text shortened]... must arrange their corporate church environments in a way that prevents women from becoming leaders.

LOL,:

'Men have the temperament for church leadership because the temperament needed for church leadership is the temperament that men have'

Obviously, there are more parts to the argument, but you are distracting from the debate by pretending the argument is actually that simplistic.

We have to spell absolutely everything out for FMF -- not because he is so stupid that he doesn't see how things connect together, but because he is so purposefully frustrating to everyone he interacts with so he pretends that his opponents arguments are assembled in a stupid manner.

Here are the characteristics that the report I cited says are quite different between males and females:

Women scored much higher than in men in Sensitivity, Warmth, and Apprehension, while men scored higher than women in Emotional Stability, Dominance, Rule-Consciousness, and Vigilance.

Those traits that men have are inherently beneficial for the leadership of the Church that seeks to have unbroken continuation across time, are they not?

The results match up so beautifully it is almost like the results of this psychology study were made to illustrate exactly why the clergy is the way that it is.

@philokalia said
Those traits that men have are inherently beneficial for the leadership of the Church that seeks to have unbroken continuation across time, are they not?

Maybe women would have been more beneficial in terms of the spiritual mission of the church and its governance, but we don't know, because men have excluded them from positions of leadership.

@philokalia said
We have to spell absolutely everything out for FMF -- not because he is so stupid that he doesn't see how things connect together, but because he is so purposefully frustrating to everyone he interacts with so he pretends that his opponents arguments are assembled in a stupid manner.

If your belief is 'God said so', then just say so. Enough with the evasive attempted intellectualization.

@fmf said
You said that, in the Greek Orthodox Church, women are barred from attending councils where scripture is discussed and governance is decided, or words to that effect. Do you really not know what the term "institutional power" means?

They are not barred. They simply are not Bishops.

Why?

Because of something that was written before councils were even standardized in any way, though the assembly recorded in Acts could theoretically be recorded as the first council ever. But, generally speaking, this is a rule that predates any canon law.

I think you are being obtuse here just to try to shoehorn in a point that doesn't fit. And a very SJW take on it -- "institutional power," lol. As if a bunch of celibate men in charge of administering the Church on earth, who did so for much of their history while being explicitly persecuted by the Romans, the Muslims, and the Communists is necessarily tantamount to power.

@fmf said
If your belief is 'God said so', then just say so. Enough with the evasive attempted intellectualization.

If you don't want to discuss the points that I have brought up which are rooted in science, then just say so. You don't have to make half a dozen embarrassingly elusive posts.

Now, FMF, I'll give you one more guaranteed response.

Do you have any point you want to make -- do you have any argument with any backing, or are you just going to make the same accusations over & over again, and provide tiny soundbytes & bad takes?