Rev. Cosby's PaperCONCEPT
WHY NO WOMEN PRIESTS
Reverend I.P.S.G. COSBY
IV. NATION, GIVEN OVER TO ITS SIN
1. Changing the Points.
The importance of the Ordination of Women is not that it instigated, but
that it reflects and gave credence to the Principle of Relativism as being a foundational principle of western secular civilisation. Why
so? The ordination of women to the priesthood may seem, in the context
of western secular developments, to have been a small and insignificant
event. It was an attempt by those Churches who ordain them, to remain relevant
to the society in which it operates. Nothing could be further from the
truth. As previously stated, it has grown out of a secular humanistic mind-set,
whose values owe their origin to classical Greek philosophy but emphatically
not to the Bible. It is, to use a railway analogy, the issue that changes
the points. The act of changing the points is of itself a small movement.
The result is that the train is now headed in a different direction that
is growing, increasingly far removed from where it would be had the points
not changed. It is important to understand the magnitude of change taking
place, since it is only beginning, but will grow ever more radical. It
would be irresponsible if we were not to draw attention to this phenomenon.
Society, together with the liberal Churches in tow, is gradually cutting
its ties with the Christian biblical world order that has been providing
an anchor of reality and rectitude. Instead, Church and society are exploring
and identifying with a new set of values, which WEH condones. It is incumbent
on biblical Christians to be alive to, and watch out for, evidence of deviation
from a Christian order, and in so far as one can, point to the consequences
arising from this deviation. As the Christian looks out across the opening
up of the new proverbial landscape that is the contemporary western humanistic
civilisation, it is difficult not to draw the conclusion that what he is
seeing represents a world that has been given over to its sin. That is
taken to mean that what is deemed to be righteous in the sight of GOD,
is deemed to be wrong in the received informed opinion of contemporary
westernized society. On the contrary, that which GOD deems to be wrong,
is now deemed by contemporary secular Man to be right. There is an inevitability
or logical progression of events that grows or emerges from the adoption
of a certain given premise. It is important to be attentive to how this
logic of events is working itself out. In the meantime, it is irresponsible
not to cite and even speculate, given the force of logic, as to where some
of these changes of ethical value are inevitably leading.
2. Sexual Depravity:
i. The perceived rectitude of LGBT+
It clearly states in Holy Scripture that such a state is of itself intrinsically
wrong29) but to a society underpinned by the Hegelian principle of ‘Thesis/Antithesis/Synthesis
LGBT+ practices can be understood to be entirely regular. It is not the
purpose of this paper to comment on, or discuss, the matter of homosexuality
in its various manifestations. Rather, it is to draw attention to the inevitability
of the association between the ordination of women to the priesthood and
belief in the rectitude of homosexuality. Having forfeited the Principle
of Absolutes, Relativism is the premise that underlies the supposed rectitude
of the humanistic interpretation of what is meant by ‘Freedom’ and ‘Equality.’ (See above, pp 96,97.) Given those interpretations there is no case
that can be made for opposing the ordination of women to the priesthood.
On that basis, where Hegel’s principal of thesis and antithesis combining
to form a synthesis, the relationship between thesis an antithesis is merely
relative. Given the sexual spectrum extending from male at one extreme
and female at the other, the relative area in between represents varying
degrees of male and female sexuality, all of which are of equal value and
rectitude. If one is to champion maleness at one end of the spectrum and
the female at the other as being essentially of the same order, since they
combine together to form a synthesis, it becomes illogical to question
whether any combination of sexuality can be designated wrong or degenerative.
Initially, the concern was restricted to homosexuality and lesbianism.
However, in recent years, the male-female spectrum has been subjected to
the proverbial microscope that has led to the discovery or emergence of
a whole myriad of sexual states, whether transgender, sis-gender etc that
come under the general banner of ‘LGBT+.’ The point being made is that
if one subscribes to the rectitude and appropriateness of women being ordained
to the priesthood, it is illogical to argue, in the particular, that the
ordination of women is right and the ordination of homosexuals, lesbians
or any variant of LGBT+ is wrong. In general, it is no longer possible
to qualify any sexual state, however conceived, as being either right or
wrong. It is not surprising, therefore, that within the space of between
ten and twenty years the Churches that have unwittingly subscribed to the
secular/humanist order of values, has progressed from approving the ordination
of women to ordaining homosexuals, Lesbians and transvestites.30)
★★★★★★
29) Romans 1: 18–32 for example. Because the word ‘homosexual’ and ‘heterosexual’
were first coined by Karl Maria Kertbreny in a pamphlet published in1869,
there is no mention of these words per se in the Bible.
30) The Anglican Bishop of Chubu, Rt Rev. Francis MORI, having ordained
a deaconess to the Priesthood, had no problem confirming the orders of the ordination of the rector of his Toyota
parish, when the rector declared he had changed his sex from male to female.
ii. Bestiality
It is important to remember, when one is considering the so called ‘march
of progress’ that the Hegelian formula is a seemingly endless progression
of every Synthesis be coming a new Thesis with its corresponding Antithesis.
This begs the question what is the Antithesis of the Man/Woman Thesis.
It is suggested that it is Animal. Currently bestiality is taboo/immoral
in the same sort of way that until the middle decades of the 20th century,
homosexuality was immoral. It begs the question whether we can detect signs
that contemporary humanist society is moving towards condoning bestiality.
Artificial insemination has been practised in the stock breeding world
for several de cades without there being any serious debate as to the morality
of such a practice, because there is a clear appreciation that animals
are not human. There is a qualitative difference between these concepts.
More recently, we have become used to the practice of women, for whatever
‘bone fide’ reason, being impregnated by an anonymous donor, frequently because she
does not want the responsibility of relating to a husband. To ease condoning
of such a practice, the resultant birth was called a ‘Virgin Birth,’ crassly
likening these mothers to the Virgin Mary. The purpose here is not with
the rectitude or otherwise of this phenomenon, rather to draw attention
to the factor that it is generally accepted that it is appropriate that
such donations of semen are anonymous. More seriously, the semen donor
is not deemed to have any right to claim either to be the father or to
assume the role and duties of one. In other words, the birth of children
as a result of an anonymous donation of semen, should more realistically/accurately
be called, ‘Doggie Births.’ Like a bitch, the mother is entirely responsible
for bringing her offspring to maturity. The physical and actual father/donor
has no more responsibility for, or role in, the rearing of the child he
has fathered than a dog has in the canine world. The afore-mentioned observation,
at the current time can understandably be considered insensitive, but the
logic is indisputable. It remains insensitive only for as long as one regards
humans and animals as being qualitatively different.
There is evidence that this qualitative distinction is currently breaking
down. There is a persistent and growing movement to grant human rights
to animals. Many nature programmes whether intentionally, or unwittingly,
draw attention to the similarity be tween humans and animals. It may be
a highly developed human-like personality, social order, language, devising
and using implements etc. To an urban population that has little experience
of handling farm, let alone wild animals, it is easy to slip into the notion
that animals and humans are essentially the same. The differences are merely
relative. In contradistinction, which is worth noting, rural man has been
living and working with animals for countless centuries. In the process
stockmen have often developed a personal rapport with their animals. However
intimate the relationship, there is never any confusion or perception that
the creatures they are handling are anything other than animals. There
is a qualitative difference between the two with all the consequences that
that implies. Once it starts being believed that humans are not qualitatively
different from animals, only relatively different, it blurs the distinction
to be made between human and animal rights, and it greatly strengthens
the case for granting human rights to animals. Once this has been achieved,
it becomes illogical to oppose bestiality.
The Christian biblical world view being based on the Principal of Absolutes
is prevented from being exposed to the above order of progression. To illustrate
the point reference can be made to the order of creation in Genesis 1.
The qualitatively different orders of creation are introduced by the Hebrew
word 'רק '('bara') which is a reference to that which is created by GOD: The creation of Matter,
Animal and Man are qualitatively three quite separate orders of creation.
First, GOD created ‘Matter.’ 31)This was followed by the creation of ‘Animal,’32) which is ‘Matter’ plus a factor that constitutes life. It is this latter plus factor, that makes ‘Animal’ qualitatively different from ‘Matter,’ all the while that which is ‘Animal’ includes ‘Matter.’ The third qualitative order of creation is the creation of ‘Man’33) He includes in addition to ‘Matter,’ and ‘Animal,’ a unique plus factor
which is to be created in the image of GOD. It is this that differentiates
Man from Animal. Like the biblical GOD, Man’s world is what is philosophically
called an ‘Open’ as opposed to a ‘Closed Order,’ particularly in respect
of Creativity and Morality. It is the ability to know what is the difference
between right and wrong. and being in the Image of GOD, part of which is
that Man has jurisdiction over the world that is both ‘Animal and Matter.’
The final application of ‘Bara’ is in the creation of Woman, (Female) Man,
in addition to (Male) Man, where male Man personifies the ‘General’, and
female Man the ‘Particular.’34) Both are created in the Image of GOD, but are qualitatively different in
relation to each other in their purpose, and in their duties. Both are
complementary to the proper functioning of the other and of equal value
and significance in the sight of GOD and in their relationship to him.
It is worth pointing out here that since humanist religions do not believe
that GOD exists, they do not, and probably cannot believe that there is
any qualitative distinction to be made between Man, Animal and Matter,
let alone between Men and Woman. If that is the case, it becomes difficult
to justify humans not acting like animals or distinguishing between animate
and inanimate life. Francis Crick (1916–2004) who was in part responsible
for the discovery of DNA, in effect understood the composition of Man as
being merely a ‘Chemical Expression35). Instead of Man being unique in Creation, having been created in the Image
of GOD, and therefore having the facility to function in a philosophical
‘Open Order’, his whole being is now reduced merely to being matter. Crick
railed against ‘Religion,’ Christianity in particular, but failed to realize
that Humanism is itself a religion. Given the present order of Humanism
with which we are dealing, it is pertinent, metaphorically speaking, to
be alive to the extent to which contemporary society is allowing itself
to be programmed, because there is no longer an underpinning philosophical
order/religion that believes such programming to be wrong.
The so-called righteousness of the ordination of women to the priesthood is merely
a manifestation of that humanistic world view. It owes its origin and justification to a
way of thinking that is extra-biblical. It is a manifestation of a world order that purports
to be Christian. Yet the basic primitive view to which it subscribes is that GOD does not
exist. For that reason, the ordination of women to the priesthood is totally incompatible
with Christianity, which reflects the real world and as such it reflects and accommodates
the principle of Absolutes.
★★★★★★
31) Gen. 1: 6–19
32) Gen. Gen: 1: 20–25. Note that creation of plant life is on the Matter
not Animal side. i.e. Plants are Matter not Animal. Photosynthesis is
a process of Matter, as are the physical functions of Animals and Man.
(Gen: 1: 11, 12)
33) Gen. 1: 26
34) Gen 1: 27
35) For a more in-depth analysis of the idea that ‘Man is a Chemical Expression,’
the concept of Reality/Truth v Fiction, ‘Open Order,’ a ‘Chemical Expression,’
see Francis Schaeffer, Trilogy (The God Who Is There, Escape from Reason,
He is There & He is Not Silent), Crossways, 1990. ISBN-13-978-0891075615
NEXT is "Masculinity v Feminism"
バナースペース
Rev. Ivan Cosby's Paper
WHY NO WOMEN PRIESTS
II.How we have got to where we are
・'Critical theory' of the Frankfurt School
III. Christian God/Man relationship reversed
1.Authority is Hierarchical ①