(Edited Title) Feminist Christians & logic…

[AngryAtheist8]

…so from your understanding the Catholic Church refers to women as having male genitalia? …and you also believe that the Church equates strong women as having a huge/brass pair of (explitive)?

…by any chance, do you believe that reading the Old Testament can lead to witchcraft?

Maran atha!

Angel

No, but I wouldn’t care if it did.
Magic isn’t real:shrug:

 

[AngryAtheist8]

…it seems that selective reasoning is applied… did the Church sign treaties with various governmental bodies in the world? Yes… did the governmental bodies in the world felt that they were held captive by the Church? No… how can we know? …the Church has no power in the internal governance of any nation and the Church does not maintain a military power or has the financial holdings to keep captive the world’s nations … so are there reasons why the Church would sign agreements/treatises… yes, usually self-preservation is the main cause/reason:

**…your own reply demonstrate that the Church had to support Franco or suffer extinction… **as with Mexico and other nations in the world the extinction of the Church does not only mean a peaceful extradiction of Catholics but the brutal and depraved murder and torture of both Clergy, Religious, and laity… did the Church concede too much power to Franco… I cannot tell… Blessed Pope John Paul was a direct product of communist oppresion where the Church had to concede much to the ruling powers of both Germany and Russia… and, as with most oppressive governments, the Church must do what she can to provide for her members’ temporal and spiritual wellbeing… at times the Church deals with heads of state/government bodies that support Catholic Teachings and great strides are taken… however, when new governments or dictatorships arise, the Church does not call Catholics to battle and arms them so that Catholics may eradicate the enemies of the Church and the Culture of Life which she champions… can members of the Church act against the Church’s Teachings? …they have and do (just check with US politicians that call themselves Catholics); yet, the Church Teaches with Love and Patience in an effort to persuade her children to return to the fold…

Interestingly enough, her most staunch followers have given their life for the Faith while her most agressive antagonists, past and present, kill Believers by the thousands under the guise of liberty and freedom.

Maran atha!

Angel

Perhaps.
But even after the danger (to it) had passed the Church maintained its close relationship with the Franco regime and privileged position in Spain.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

**Could you be a woman who wants to be a priest… **go to a religious group that welcomes such practice and the problem is solved… as for my observations, I think that it is quite offensive for a woman to have to subscribe to having male parts in order to be respected. A woman should be respected because of her qualities and abilities not for her pseudo sexual organs. As I explained before it seems that you have a problem with the language that hollowood employs not with my rendering of their exploitive take on females.

I think we should put this to rest–I am only responding to your posts out of respect (since you feel I am purposely derisive); but clearly your possition will never change and I cannot grant you what you seem to be seeking.

…as for females being priests… it is not the Church but Scriptures that has set the bounderies… anyone can take liberties (and they do) with Scriptures but that does not mean that Christ’s Church must follow suit… (“to be friends with the world means to be at enmity with God.”)

Maran atha!

Angel

I am a man who has no interest in becoming Catholic (let alone a Catholic priest) actually.

 

[jcrichton]

What point are you trying to make?
Your own quotes says Catholic priests were largely supportive of the Nationalistis.

I think that you miss the whole of it… as a Catholic I do not represent the Church if I chose to engage in acts that demonstrative are against Catholic Doctrine… as a body the Church has and will continue to engage civil entities in order to procure peaceful coexistence… however you seem to agree with some that the Church should be silent in society while simultaneously blame her for everything that goes wrong because she did not do or say enough to force a military power to cease its oppressive treatment of all its citizens… Catholicism is not a totalitarian regime nor a police state… there’s no other way that I can help you understand this.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
The opposing traditional view is that Man is simply better than Woman.

Everything.
Because the Catholic Church was a defining factor (perhaps THE defining factor) in the area once known as Christendom.

…again, you continue to infer that the Church has this super power over the world’s government… but only in the negative aspects of the world’s history… it’s almost a malcontent argument: ‘I hate me cause the Church says.’

If you apply truth to fact finding you will find that even during the dreaded “Spanish Inquisition” the governance of the time sought to apply “correction” rather than to seek the truth… it was the Church that employed not only a method for truth finding but supplied an advocate for the accused.

I have already shown you that from early history it was the Church that valued woman equal to man… a woman does not gain equality because she is allowed by the Church to become a priest (which cannot happen); a woman value is an intrinsic part of her being because, as man, she is Created in the image and likeness of God.

Even through the material you have cited we can see that the Church has no control over how society (including those of the Clergy and Laity) chose to adhere to her Teaching. Reasoning that the Church should do this or that to resolve social problems is an exercise in futily since secularism is fervently against anything that points to reason if it involves the Church or any semblance of Christ.

…the farce being perpetrated by the culture of death and the eurepean union clearly attest to secularism’s intent to cut their nose inspite of their face: no God, good! :banghead::banghead::banghead:

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Nevertheless, you keep bringing up (over and over again) how referring to women in somewhat masculine terms supposedly demeans them.

Now are you actually claiming that or not?

Because if you are, I must inform you that the Catholic Church does it too.

Church documents often refer to both men and women as Man, and it often refers to humanity in general as Mankind:shrug:

…again… ever heard of collective noun?

…when people speak of having “x” number of children, are these sexless? Not! They are either male or female or both… in Spanish, as with other languages, there are terms that are used that mean both sexes even though it is a male term (children = niños) but then there are terms that seem to imply a female term (the people = la gente)… the fact that the collective noun for children is the male term and that the collective noun for people is female does not mean that all people in the world are females or that only male children count as children… have we inherited collective nouns from a past where males dominated the world? Yes! Is that detrimental to women? No!

Being super-sensitive to collective nouns means that a person has issues that should be addressed… a woman strength should not come from becoming a pseudo man nor should the use of a collective noun threaten her; a woman strength should come from her personal accomplishments and abilities… from those very things that make her a woman… conversely, a man is not more powerful or manly if he oppresses or abuses a woman–rather, that demonstrates that he is quite weak!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

No, but I don’t see why it would matter.
You’re arguing over the male bias with regard to cussing and slang.
How very…Feminist of you

…again, your argument is mute if all you infer is that women would be equal to men if the Church would only allow them to become Priests… that is an impossibility… not because women are not as capable as men but because the Ordination made by God is that of Man: a woman cannot be an alter Christus.

This said, you are still missing the point with hollowood… children learn from the adults around them (today more so from television) and women are being trained to think that they cannot achieve greatness unless they are “the man.” This makes women a second rate citizen–unless they acquiesce to becoming pseaudo males in order to receive honor, title, and prestige… conversely, the old definition of weak male went out because homosexuals must be revered and calling a guy a sissy is politically incorrect so hollowood has been teaching that weak males (and females that do not conform to their peers) must be called by the female sex organ… sadly, I do not think that you are the only person that seems to find no offense in this behavior!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Perhaps.
But even after the danger (to it) had passed the Church maintained its close relationship with the Franco regime and privileged position in Spain.

…an error that continues to cost her… when Russia exterminated the Priests and Nuns and Laity and destroyed, ransacked, and occupated Church buildings and lands it did not stop there… massive imprisonment, toture, rape and murder of both Religious and Laity occurred… when Hitler was bent on the destruction of the Jews his oppressive machinery did not stop with the Jews… when Islam murders and rapes and terrorizes Christians it is no different from the Buddists or the Hindues… this is the reality of Believing in Jesus and the only Body that has some voice in the world is the Catholic Church… she must, at times, lie with the enemy in order to save both her members and those outside of her… the problem with such strategy is that even when she is successful she is criticized for not doing enough or for supporting one faction over another… just look at recent history… there were some dissenters that sought to blame the Church for not coercing President Bush and President Clinton to rescind from going to war with Iraq (as if the Pope had any control over the US governance!).

…as for Franco, even the historian made a light attempt to demonstrate that when the regime whet too far the Church sought to distance herself from it… as fatalists would have it… the Church is to blame for everything bad!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I am a man who has no interest in becoming Catholic (let alone a Catholic priest) actually.

…sorry for the misunderstanding…
…your arguments were misread as I began to believe that you might be a female… no offense intended.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I think that you miss the whole of it… as a Catholic I do not represent the Church if I chose to engage in acts that demonstrative are against Catholic Doctrine… as a body the Church has and will continue to engage civil entities in order to procure peaceful coexistence… however you seem to agree with some that the Church should be silent in society while simultaneously blame her for everything that goes wrong because she did not do or say enough to force a military power to cease its oppressive treatment of all its citizens… Catholicism is not a totalitarian regime nor a police state… there’s no other way that I can help you understand this.

Maran atha!

Angel

Wrong.
I think the Catholic Church should be able to make as much noise (metaphorically speaking) as it wants. I just don’t think people should be compelled to listen (especially by the government).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

…again, you continue to infer that the Church has this super power over the world’s government… but only in the negative aspects of the world’s history… it’s almost a malcontent argument: 'I hate me cause the Church says.’
If you apply truth to fact finding you will find that even during the dreaded “Spanish Inquisition” the governance of the time sought to apply “correction” rather than to seek the truth… it was the Church that employed not only a method for truth finding but supplied an advocate for the accused.

I have already shown you that from early history it was the Church that valued woman equal to man… a woman does not gain equality because she is allowed by the Church to become a priest (which cannot happen); a woman value is an intrinsic part of her being because, as man, she is Created in the image and likeness of God.

Even through the material you have cited we can see that the Church has no control over how society (including those of the Clergy and Laity) chose to adhere to her Teaching. Reasoning that the Church should do this or that to resolve social problems is an exercise in futily since secularism is fervently against anything that points to reason if it involves the Church or any semblance of Christ.

…the farce being perpetrated by the culture of death and the eurepean union clearly attest to secularism’s intent to cut their nose inspite of their face: no God, good! :banghead::banghead::banghead:

Maran atha!

Angel

Wrong once again.
I know that the Catholic Church has never had much power over countries like China, India, or Japan. Moreover what’s I hate me cause the Church says supposed to even mean?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Nevertheless, you keep bringing up (over and over again) how referring to women in somewhat masculine terms supposedly demeans them.

Now are you actually claiming that or not?

Because if you are, I must inform you that the Catholic Church does it too.

Church documents often refer to both men and women as Man, and it often refers to humanity in general as Mankind

…again… ever heard of collective noun?

…when people speak of having “x” number of children, are these sexless? Not! They are either male or female or both… in Spanish, as with other languages, there are terms that are used that mean both sexes even though it is a male term (children = niños) but then there are terms that seem to imply a female term (the people = la gente)… the fact that the collective noun for children is the male term and that the collective noun for people is female does not mean that all people in the world are females or that only male children count as children…** have we inherited collective nouns from a past where males dominated the world? Yes! Is that detrimental to women? No!**
Being super-sensitive to collective nouns means that a person has issues that should be addressed… a woman strength should not come from becoming a pseudo man nor should the use of a collective noun threaten her; a woman strength should come from her personal accomplishments and abilities… from those very things that make her a woman… conversely, a man is not more powerful or manly if he oppresses or abuses a woman–rather, that demonstrates that he is quite weak!

Maran atha!

Angel

Then why would generic insults or somewhat sexist slang be any different?
Your argument *is not *consistent.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
No, but I don’t see why it would matter.
You’re arguing over the male bias with regard to cussing and slang.
How very…Feminist of you

…again, your argument is mute if all you infer is that women would be equal to men if the Church would only allow them to become Priests… that is an impossibility… not because women are not as capable as men but because the Ordination made by God is that of Man: a woman cannot be an alter Christus.

This said, you are still missing the point with hollowood… children learn from the adults around them (today more so from television) and women are being trained to think that they cannot achieve greatness unless they are “the man.” This makes women a second rate citizen–unless they acquiesce to becoming pseaudo males in order to receive honor, title, and prestige… conversely, the old definition of weak male went out because homosexuals must be revered and calling a guy a sissy is politically incorrect so hollowood has been teaching that weak males (and females that do not conform to their peers) must be called by the female sex organ… sadly, I do not think that you are the only person that seems to find no offense in this behavior!

Maran atha!

Angel

As I just pointed out you’re not arguing the point consistently.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

…an error that continues to cost her… when Russia exterminated the Priests and Nuns and Laity and destroyed, ransacked, and occupated Church buildings and lands it did not stop there… massive imprisonment, toture, rape and murder of both Religious and Laity occurred… when Hitler was bent on the destruction of the Jews his oppressive machinery did not stop with the Jews… when Islam murders and rapes and terrorizes Christians it is no different from the Buddists or the Hindues… this is the reality of Believing in Jesus and the only Body that has some voice in the world is the Catholic Church… she must, at times, lie with the enemy in order to save both her members and those outside of her… the problem with such strategy is that even when she is successful she is criticized for not doing enough or for supporting one faction over another… just look at recent history… there were some dissenters that sought to blame the Church for not coercing President Bush and President Clinton to rescind from going to war with Iraq (as if the Pope had any control over the US governance!).

…as for Franco, even the historian made a light attempt to demonstrate that when the regime whet too far the Church sought to distance herself from it… **as fatalists would have it… the Church is to blame for everything bad!**Maran atha!

Angel

I would never give the Catholic Church that much credit

 

[jcrichton]

Wrong.
I think the Catholic Church should be able to make as much noise (metaphorically speaking) as it wants. I just don’t think people should be compelled to listen (especially by the government).

…again, you seem to be under the impression that the Vatican rules the world… hold on to your breeches… nope! The Catholic Church has as much power to rule the world as pinky and the brain… when heads of state meet with the Pope they came with concerns and problems… sometimes the Church is able to help (social service); sometimes the Church voices a concern which helps to halt acts of violence (Iran War)… but most of the times the Church is ignored (abstinance as the only 100% safe and Marital Fidelity as the only deterrent to the spread of STD’s–even in spite of all of their studies the UN and US continue to provide needles and contraceptives and promote abortion and pills as the cure for all that ills the world)…

…yet, interestingly enough, you and I and everyone else that chooses can and do reject Church Teachings… only to blame the Church/God when things go wrong…

…just as a clear example, why are you so charged up against the Church, is being an angry atheist not freeing enough?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Wrong once again.
I know that the Catholic Church has never had much power over countries like China, India, or Japan. Moreover what’s I hate me cause the Church says supposed to even mean?

…so you agree that there are countries where the Church exists only minimally?

…in these is the value of life better?

…are people’s rights and freedom respected?

…my expression was meant to demosntrate what a malcontent would say… a person that needs to blame the Church for things that go wrong in the world would in essense loath him/herself and contend that the reason why he/she does so is because the Church tells them to do so… the Church contends that we are all creatures Created by God and that we each are a potential Child of God with all of the values and graces built-in: God is Love: the major Commandment: Love God; the second: Love your neighbor as yourself!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Nevertheless, you keep bringing up (over and over again) how referring to women in somewhat masculine terms supposedly demeans them.

Now are you actually claiming that or not?

Because if you are, I must inform you that the Catholic Church does it too.

Church documents often refer to both men and women as Man, and it often refers to humanity in general as Mankind

Then why would generic insults or somewhat sexist slang be any different?
Your argument *is not *consistent.

…it only seems inconsistent because you choose to view it as such…

My argument is quite sound: a woman should not receive respect only if she gives up her femininity… to say that using a collective noun is offensive to females and that it debases them is simplistic; conversely, claiming that a woman status is enhanced (from lowly female to strong, independent, intelligent and able female) only when she ceases being feminine is a hollowood farse perpetrated under the guise of “respect”–akin to the Obama Hussein Barack’s claim to “women’s health!”

Maran atha!

Angel