(Edited Title) Feminist Christians & logic…

[AngryAtheist8]

I think you keep equating man the same as woman the same as man as a rule for equality.

Maran atha!

Angel

The opposing traditional view is that Man is simply better than Woman.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
It is interesting to wonder to what extent Catholicism influenced progressive movements like the battle to end slavery, the Suffrage movement, Temperance, etc.
There must have been some influence, since all those movements sprang from areas where the Church was at some point dominant.

…again, you seem to equate Church to governnance… Fidel Castro took over Cuba… the nation was mostly Catholic… he proved to the people that God did not exist… Cuba is a major asset to the world’s economy, tech, information hub, and aerospace industry…** get my drift?**

Maran atha!

Angel

Not really.

I said something vague and complimentary about Catholicism, you objected in an unclear and somewhat off topic way:shrug:

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Not at all. I am stating the fact that females have always been part of the Christian life… even as far back into the Old Testament… contrary to your suggestion that females have been hindered by Christianity, I am stating the fact that females have been hindered by society not God or the Church… even when we see a move towards accepting females in more prominent roles the average female is still not respected and revered by society unless she is conforming to the characteristics demanded of them… I’m not political and I have trouble remembering names… but as clear example of this was the recent episode of the democratic rep (female) that blasted (got national coverage) the wife of a republican candidate; (my translation): she has no say since she never worked a day in her life… all she’s done is have one kid after another… this examplifies the social status of females: conform to the norm or be deemed as waste!

Maran atha!

Angel

Of course you are.
Since you are talking about (and criticizing) politics.
And frankly you would sound much more credible if you could remember the names of the public figures you’re talking about.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

…**can you be missing the meaning of “collective noun?”

“human kind” or “mankind” or “humanity” does not set either of the human species sex appart or as inferior…**

…a woman being only “smart” or “capable” or “strong” if she adopts a male persona does not dignify the woman but actually deminishes her because the root importance is not a person but a female person that has evolved to male status.

Mother Angelica was a sickly woman who, ignorant of everything pertaining to the industry and lacking financial means and support, trusted in Jesus and forged the EWTN network… largest world-wide network… she never stopped being female and she demonstrated that she was very strong, capable, and as assertive as any person can be… she did not have to become a male persona in order to achieve her goals (ditto Mother Theresa of Calcuta)!

Maran atha!

Angel

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.

 

[jcrichton]

Yet their more than willing to support thugs like General Franco when such people fight in the Church’s name.

…it seems that you keep getting your facts from the wrong sources:

historylearningsite.co.uk/general_francisco_franco.htm
Why did Britain, France and America recognise a man associated with brutality and right wing politics? First, the Nationalists had won the civil war by April 1939 when Madrid surrendered to Franco’s authority, so Franco as leader of Spain was a fait accompli. Second, the Popular Front was seen for right or wrong, as being associated with communism and the fear of this belief was still rampant in Europe. Franco was seen as the better bet of the two…

Opposition did occur. Students protested about a lack of personal freedom. The leaders of the Roman Catholic Church also complained about his dictatorship and Basque separatists were a constant problem.

saloforum.com/index.php?threads/the-spanish-holocaust-inquisition-and-extermination-in-twentieth-century-spain.2166/
Father Fernando quickly realized that he had been wrong about the honorable behavior of the rebels. The war that he saw, as he courageously wrote to the rebel commander General Francisco Franco, was “without prisoners or wounded,” because they were murdered by nationalist soldiers, along with civilians seen as supporters of the Republic. In April 1937, as Paul Preston records in this breathtaking history, Father Fernando was shot in the back by his own men…

You have the sense, though Preston never quite raises the issue directly, that something must have been amiss in the Roman Catholic Church. Somewhere beneath his account of sins by Roman Catholics against Roman Catholics…

Under Primo de Rivera, Spanish landholders gained a secure sense of their position in the world, Spanish priests maintained their place as caretakers of the rural status quo…

The historical challenge that this book presents for the Roman Catholic Church is considerable. Although some priests sought to prevent violence or shelter those who were under threat, more seemed to have supported the rebellion, and even joined its fighting columns. Some adopted fascist salutes and took direct part in the killing. One priest shot a man who was seeking shelter in a confessional…

The most violent political force in the Republican zone were the anarchists, who fought against Franco but also opposed the Republic. Beyond the reach of the government, and bountifully armed, they were all but impossible to control. They ran the most murderous of the checas, including one squad that decorated their murder van with skulls and their uniforms with death’s heads. They burned corpses to avoid investigation and identification; they burned churches and convents on principle. They saw civil strife as the prelude to a revolution that would overpower not just the Right but all those who upheld the state, including the socialists and the communists. They tried to collectivize agriculture, sometimes forcing peasants who had just gained land from landlords to cede it to a collective farm. They and the Spanish communists killed each other in significant numbers, over real differences in doctrine and practice. The anarchists wanted immediate and radical transformation; the communists wanted stability to build a government that would attend to the desires of Moscow. The anarchists, quite correctly, believed that Spanish communism was a front for the interests of Soviet foreign policy. The communists, quite correctly, believed that the anarchists’ carefree recruitment policies allowed many traitors access to the institutions of the Republic…

THE HISTORY invites reconsiderations of the European twentieth century. It is hard to overlook the resemblance between the German terrorbombing of Guernica in 1937 and the German terror-bombing of Polish cities, beginning with Weilun´ in 1939. The three basic purposes of Franco’s political terrorism are identical to those of the Germans during the invasion of Poland, which followed the end of the Spanish Civil War by less than six months: the murder of elites who might resist, the intimidation of a population expected to be hostile, and the preparation for a dictatorship to come. For that matter, Franco’s pacification was also similar to the methods the Soviets used when they invaded Poland in 1939. By this time Stalin had reversed course again, accepting an invitation from Hitler to destroy Poland together. That Franco, Hitler, and Stalin all undertook quite similar policies designed to destroy physically an entire political elite in 1939 suggests not only the cruelty of the late 1930s, but also a broader trend in twentieth-century European history.

…so are you intimating that the Catholic Church should have armed Catholics and stop the secular atrocities that were occurring during the 20th century? …or are you intimating that the Vatican somehow can control the mind and behavior of every person that claims to be Catholic (cleric or not)?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

The opposing traditional view is that Man is simply better than Woman.

…but what does that have to do with Church Teachings?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
It is interesting to wonder to what extent Catholicism influenced progressive movements like the battle to end slavery, the Suffrage movement, Temperance, etc.
There must have been some influence, since all those movements sprang from areas where the Church was at some point dominant.

Not really.

I said something vague and complimentary about Catholicism, you objected in an unclear and somewhat off topic way:shrug:

I did not understand it to be a complement but rather a query… I was offering an excellent example of an small country in the world where a secularist government eradicated God (through propaganda and physical oppression of the Church) and liberated the people from the Church, which you seem to intimate as the hinderance to development and social justice…; decades later, in spite of the purported liberation, this small nation is still suffering the repercusions of secularism gone rampant!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Of course you are.
Since you are talking about (and criticizing) politics.
And frankly you would sound much more credible if you could remember the names of the public figures you’re talking about.

…being apolitical does not mean that I cannot form an opinion about society or the bodies that govern it.

…again, my concern is not who they are (as it matters very little) but what was stated: a woman that bares children is equated to ignorant of social economics… at least from that republican’s view (and being that it was woman vs. woman you can’t insinuate male chauvanism); yet, if you really need to know, I can check the net for the actual event and drop the link for you!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

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.

…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

 

[AngryAtheist8]

…it seems that you keep getting your facts from the wrong sources:

**…so are you intimating that the Catholic Church should have armed Catholics and stop the secular atrocities that were occurring during the 20th century? ** **…or are you intimating that the Vatican somehow can control the mind and behavior of every person that claims to be Catholic (cleric or not)?**Maran atha!

Angel

No, I am saying that the Catholic Church actively supported Franco’s rise to power and the brutal Franco regime. According to this official government study:

Catholicism became the state religion in 1851, when the Spanish government signed a Concordat with the Vatican that committed Madrid to pay the salaries of the clergy and to subsidize other expenses of the Roman Catholic Church. This pact was renounced in 1931, when the secular constitution of the Second Republic imposed a series of anticlerical measures that threatened the church’s very existence in Spain and provoked its support for the Franco uprising five years later.

The advent of the Franco regime saw the restoration of the church’s privileges. During the Franco years, Roman Catholicism was the only religion to have legal status; other worship services could not be advertised, and only the Roman Catholic Church could own property or publish books. The government not only continued to pay priests’ salaries and to subsidize the church, but it also assisted in the reconstruction of church buildings damaged by the war. Laws were passed abolishing divorce and banning the sale of contraceptives. Catholic religious instruction was mandatory, even in public schools. Franco secured in return the right to name Roman Catholic bishops in Spain, as well as veto power over appointments of clergy down to the parish priest level. In 1953 this close cooperation was formalized in a new Concordat with the Vatican that granted the church an extraordinary set of privileges: mandatory canonical marriages for all Catholics; exemption from government taxation; subsidies for new building construction; censorship of materials the church deemed offensive; the right to establish universities, to operate radio stations, and to publish newspapers and magazines; protection from police intrusion into church properties; and exemption of clergy from military service.

Source:
countrystudies.us/spain/44.htm

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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

…but what does that have to do with Church Teachings?

Maran atha!

Angel

Many times in the past the Catholic Church has supported (or at least passively accepted) that view. For instance, under the Church sponsored Franco regime:

Spanish law discriminated strongly against married women. Without her husband’s approval, referred to as the permiso marital, a wife was prohibited from almost all economic activities, including employment, ownership of property, or even travel away from home. The law also provided for less stringent definitions of such crimes as adultery and desertion for husbands than it did for wives.

Link to source:
countrystudies.us/spain/43.htm

 

[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

Why does it matter?
Why are you obsessing over crude language that is by nature somewhat offensive?

Of course these terms are offensive to women (and in many cases men). That’s kind of the point

I honestly I think its far more offensive to say that a women are not strong enough mentally to be priests (or leaders in secular institutions) as many Churchmen have argued in the past, than to simply call a woman a b*tch:shrug:

 

[septimine]

I don’t know if this is what the presenter described was attempting to do, but be aware that some with a feminist agenda are trying to find a way to slip in a little goddess worship with those kinds of verbal gymnastics. Just sayin’.

Well, just to point out the name Sophia has more to do with gnostics than feminism. It was used by some gnostics as the name of the holy spirit (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistis_Sophia) so it’s not really feminist.

 

[jcrichton]

No, I am saying that the Catholic Church actively supported Franco’s rise to power and the brutal Franco regime. According to this official government study:

Catholicism became the state religion in 1851, when the Spanish government signed a Concordat with the Vatican that committed Madrid to pay the salaries of the clergy and to subsidize other expenses of the Roman Catholic Church. This pact was renounced in 1931, when the secular constitution of the Second Republic imposed a series of anticlerical measures that threatened the church’s very existence in Spain and provoked its support for the Franco uprising five years later.

The advent of the Franco regime saw the restoration of the church’s privileges. During the Franco years, Roman Catholicism was the only religion to have legal status; other worship services could not be advertised, and only the Roman Catholic Church could own property or publish books. The government not only continued to pay priests’ salaries and to subsidize the church, but it also assisted in the reconstruction of church buildings damaged by the war. Laws were passed abolishing divorce and banning the sale of contraceptives. Catholic religious instruction was mandatory, even in public schools. Franco secured in return the right to name Roman Catholic bishops in Spain, as well as veto power over appointments of clergy down to the parish priest level. In 1953 this close cooperation was formalized in a new Concordat with the Vatican that granted the church an extraordinary set of privileges: mandatory canonical marriages for all Catholics; exemption from government taxation; subsidies for new building construction; censorship of materials the church deemed offensive; the right to establish universities, to operate radio stations, and to publish newspapers and magazines; protection from police intrusion into church properties; and exemption of clergy from military service.

Source:
countrystudies.us/spain/44.htm

…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:

newadvent.org/cathen/04196a.htm
The purpose of a concordat is to terminate, or to avert, dissension between the Church and the civil powers. This is evident from history. During the first three centuries, when the civil authority was bent upon the total ruin and destruction of the Church, concordats were out of the question. After the era of persecution was over, and, with the exception of some temporary usurpations and outrages, the Christian Emperors of Rome generally recognized and defended the rights of the Church, concordats were unnecessary. This state of affairs continued until the end of the eleventh century, when there arose the strife about investitures which was settled in 1122 by the Concordat of Worms, or Pactum Callixtinum, between Callistus II and Henry V. This may be called the first concordat, unless the agreement of London (1107) is reckoned, as it may be, among the number of concordats. The contest between Boniface VIII and Philip the Fair, at the end of the thirteenth century, opened the way for still further disagreements between the Church, which strove to preserve its rights inviolate, and those civil powers which sought to usurp them. These disagreements gave rise to various concordats. Before the eighteenth century there were six (or seven if the London agreement of 1107 be counted); during the eighteenth century there were fifteen, and in the nineteenth century a much larger number (see SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL CONCORDATS, below).

…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

 

[jcrichton]

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

Many times in the past the Catholic Church has supported (or at least passively accepted) that view. For instance, under the Church sponsored Franco regime:

Spanish law discriminated strongly against married women. Without her husband’s approval, referred to as the permiso marital, a wife was prohibited from almost all economic activities, including employment, ownership of property, or even travel away from home. The law also provided for less stringent definitions of such crimes as adultery and desertion for husbands than it did for wives.

Link to source:
countrystudies.us/spain/43.htm

I cannot argue that in Spain, as in other nations in the world, females aren’t hindered by their male counterparts–that’s a given even in the US; what is arguable is assigning the Church the brunt of the fault… it can hardly be said that pornography and immorality is an improvement for any society and that women fair better in such “open” societies (check the number of females forced into a life of prostitution vs. males and the number of children born to unmarried females as they practice their sexual freedom); the major problem with society, past, present and future, is that the Church and government cannot legislate morality, decency, self-respect or love; utopia is unattainable in the temporal world:

countrystudies.us/spain/43.htm
Once state censorship was relaxed on magazines and films in 1976 and in 1978, the market for pornography flourished (see Porn Studies). In a country where Playboy was outlawed until 1976, ten years later this and other foreign “adult” magazines were already considered tame and were outsold by domestic magazines. Throughout Spain’s large cities, uncensored sex films were readily available in government-licensed theaters, and prostitutes and brothels freely advertised their services in even the most serious press. Despite these attention-getting changes in public attitudes, however, Spanish government policy for some years remained quite distant from social practice in two important areas related to private sexual behavior, contraception and abortion…

Illegal abortions were fairly commonplace in Spain even under the dictatorship. A 1974 government report estimated that there were about 300,000 such abortions each year. Subsequently, the number rose to about 350,000 annually, which gave Spain one of the highest ratios of abortions to live births among advanced industrial countries.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Why does it matter?
Why are you obsessing over crude language that is by nature somewhat offensive?

Of course these terms are offensive to women (and in many cases men). That’s kind of the point

I honestly I think its far more offensive to say that a women are not strong enough mentally to be priests (or leaders in secular institutions) as many Churchmen have argued in the past, than to simply call a woman a b*tch:shrug:

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

 

[AngryAtheist8]

…it seems that you keep getting your facts from the wrong sources:

saloforum.com/index.php?t…ry-spain.2166/
Father Fernando quickly realized that he had been wrong about the honorable behavior of the rebels. The war that he saw, as he courageously wrote to the rebel commander General Francisco Franco, was “without prisoners or wounded,” because they were murdered by nationalist soldiers, along with civilians seen as supporters of the Republic. In April 1937, as Paul Preston records in this breathtaking history, Father Fernando was shot in the back by his own men…

You have the sense, though Preston never quite raises the issue directly, that something must have been amiss in the Roman Catholic Church. Somewhere beneath his account of sins by Roman Catholics against Roman Catholics…

Under Primo de Rivera, Spanish landholders gained a secure sense of their position in the world, Spanish priests maintained their place as caretakers of the rural status quo…

The historical challenge that this book presents for the Roman Catholic Church is considerable. Although some priests sought to prevent violence or shelter those who were under threat, more seemed to have supported the rebellion, and even joined its fighting columns. Some adopted fascist salutes and took direct part in the killing. One priest shot a man who was seeking shelter in a confessional…

The most violent political force in the Republican zone were the anarchists, who fought against Franco but also opposed the Republic. Beyond the reach of the government, and bountifully armed, they were all but impossible to control. They ran the most murderous of the checas, including one squad that decorated their murder van with skulls and their uniforms with death’s heads. They burned corpses to avoid investigation and identification; they burned churches and convents on principle. They saw civil strife as the prelude to a revolution that would overpower not just the Right but all those who upheld the state, including the socialists and the communists. They tried to collectivize agriculture, sometimes forcing peasants who had just gained land from landlords to cede it to a collective farm. They and the Spanish communists killed each other in significant numbers, over real differences in doctrine and practice. The anarchists wanted immediate and radical transformation; the communists wanted stability to build a government that would attend to the desires of Moscow. The anarchists, quite correctly, believed that Spanish communism was a front for the interests of Soviet foreign policy. The communists, quite correctly, believed that the anarchists’ carefree recruitment policies allowed many traitors access to the institutions of the Republic…

THE HISTORY invites reconsiderations of the European twentieth century. It is hard to overlook the resemblance between the German terrorbombing of Guernica in 1937 and the German terror-bombing of Polish cities, beginning with Weilun´ in 1939. The three basic purposes of Franco’s political terrorism are identical to those of the Germans during the invasion of Poland, which followed the end of the Spanish Civil War by less than six months: the murder of elites who might resist, the intimidation of a population expected to be hostile, and the preparation for a dictatorship to come. For that matter, Franco’s pacification was also similar to the methods the Soviets used when they invaded Poland in 1939. By this time Stalin had reversed course again, accepting an invitation from Hitler to destroy Poland together. That Franco, Hitler, and Stalin all undertook quite similar policies designed to destroy physically an entire political elite in 1939 suggests not only the cruelty of the late 1930s, but also a broader trend in twentieth-century European history.

…so are you intimating that the Catholic Church should have armed Catholics and stop the secular atrocities that were occurring during the 20th century? …or are you intimating that the Vatican somehow can control the mind and behavior of every person that claims to be Catholic (cleric or not)?

Maran atha!

Angel

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

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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

…but what does that have to do with Church Teachings?

Maran atha!

Angel

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

 

[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.

…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

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

 

[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 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