Pope reaffirms ban on women priests

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Originally Posted by PRmerger
Only in the way that professors replace students with robots.

Professors take the raw material of students and teach them, so that the students then conform their views to the truth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
As someone who has actually been in a cult (and has personal experience with brainwashing), I cannot take this statement seriously on any level.

No, I suppose I just overreacted to the bad use of metaphor.
Although I know that some people DO claim that.

Hey, Angry, could you learn how to use the multiquote feature? Firstly, it’s going to be easier for you. Secondly, it will make your posts easier to respond to. Thirdly, it just makes them prettier. Find the icon at the bottom right, next to the “quote” icon.

Anyway, yes, over-reacting is not helpful to discourse.

And it’s good to see you understand that religion is about truth, and when one conforms to the truth one is not being “brainwashed”, but rather wise.

That was very sarcastic (even by my standards).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

And this is correct. I believe this, too.

But this is what you really mean to say:

That “only” is the thing that turns this statement from a fact into a belief. And is the reason why secular rationalism is a religion. A scanty one, to be sure. But while you can surely prove we can study our physical universe, science alone cannot prove that only the physical universe exists or can be studied.

You infer secular rationalism from the things you have seen, heard, and witnessed. And you come to this belief based on the evidences you have seen with your eyes, heard with your ears, and understood in your brain. You did not pluck it from the clear blue sky. You came to conclude it to be true based on the evidence you’ve witnessed thus far.

**Thus it is a religion. For that alone is what a religion is. Our conclusions about things based on what we have seen, heard, and learned. **

And what points does SH take as true?

No it isn’t actually.

For instance, good Catholics are required to believe certain things (like the Resurrection) regardless of what they have seen or heard.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

And this is correct. I believe this, too.

But this is what you really mean to say:

That “only” is the thing that turns this statement from a fact into a belief. And is the reason why secular rationalism is a religion. A scanty one, to be sure. But while you can surely prove we can study our physical universe, science alone cannot prove that only the physical universe exists or can be studied.

You infer secular rationalism from the things you have seen, heard, and witnessed. And you come to this belief based on the evidences you have seen with your eyes, heard with your ears, and understood in your brain. You did not pluck it from the clear blue sky. You came to conclude it to be true based on the evidence you’ve witnessed thus far.

Thus it is a religion. For that alone is what a religion is. Our conclusions about things based on what we have seen, heard, and learned.

And what points does SH take as true?

If secular rationalism meets the criteria for being considered a religion then so do virtually all idealogies:shrug:

 

[AngryAtheist8]

And this is correct. I believe this, too.

But this is what you really mean to say:

That “only” is the thing that turns this statement from a fact into a belief. And is the reason why secular rationalism is a religion. A scanty one, to be sure. But while you can surely prove we can study our physical universe, science alone cannot prove that only the physical universe exists or can be studied.

You infer secular rationalism from the things you have seen, heard, and witnessed. And you come to this belief based on the evidences you have seen with your eyes, heard with your ears, and understood in your brain. You did not pluck it from the clear blue sky. You came to conclude it to be true based on the evidence you’ve witnessed thus far.

Thus it is a religion. For that alone is what a religion is. Our conclusions about things based on what we have seen, heard, and learned.

And what points does SH take as true?

Its hard to explain, but one of the main points of Secular Humanism is that human welfare (instead of things like religious issues) should be everybody’s primary concern.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

well the higher power didn’t have an appetite for human flesh but the people wanted to please their god, they just got it wrong. They were right that God required a sacrifice but a perfect sacrifice only.

God was hungry for God-flesh apparently.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Indeed. A man couldn’t, for example, be a mother, either. Works both ways.

So what?

Women can’t produce semen either (and thus cannot impregnate anyone else).

These are physical features.

But the Catholic priesthood is a human institution, just like every other priesthood.

 

[vsedriver]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
What truth was the Aztec religion about?

That has a strong appetite for human flesh apparently (since human sacrifice was a very important aspect of the Aztec religion).

no, the Aztecs only thought that their gods demanded a human sacrifice. God had not revealed Himself to them so you might say they were ill informed.

 

[PRmerger]

That was very sarcastic (even by my standards).

Nope. Sarcasm is when you say one thing but clearly intend the opposite, as in “That was a really great job, allowing your child to move while she tried to give him a shot.” Sarcasm.

But when I said this: * And it’s good to see you understand that religion is about truth, and when one conforms to the truth one is not being “brainwashed”, but rather wise.*

I really meant it.

 

[PRmerger]

For instance, good Catholics are required to believe certain things (like the Resurrection) regardless of what they have seen or heard.

LOL! Is there something that you believe Catholics have seen and heard that tells us that God could NOT rise from the dead?

 

[vsedriver]

God was hungry for God-flesh apparently.

no, God is not hungry for flesh. But this all ties into original sin.

 

[PRmerger]

God was hungry for God-flesh apparently.

Careful, Angry.

I like you. I like your being here and being able to dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics.

The above comment could be construed as contemptuous of our faith and I would hate to see you banned.

You ought to be more judicious about how you talk about the atoning death of Christ which caused the salvation of the world.

 

[vsedriver]

So what?

Women can’t produce semen either (and thus cannot impregnate anyone else).

These are physical features.

But the Catholic priesthood is a human institution, just like every other priesthood.

No, the Catholic priesthood was instituted by Christ who is God. Therefore it is not like every other priesthood.

 

[PRmerger]

I just think it’s goofy, though. If everything was more love-based and not on religion, I feel we’d be better off.

Sometimes love requires rules.

You are a parent, yes? Or had parents who imposed rules upon you? Did these rules come out of love?

 

[mtngal25]

To Sparkefly,
The priesthood is not just a job. Also, as far as “pushing people away” if women were made “priests” it would push away the traditional Catholics, so someone would be pushed away no matter what. Trads and modernists don’t mix so there would be the same division no matter which thing happened. The priesthood is not based on rights or social stuff or pleasing people, etc. It has been established a certain way and anyone who wants to be Catholic has to accept the fact that we have a hierarchical church set up a certain way and that unity is one of the marks of the church so the church cannot permit itself to be divided or split asunder. It is better for the dissidents to go elsewhere than to have the church split up into all kinds of camps that turn against each other. .

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I just think it’s goofy, though. If everything was more love-based and not on religion, I feel we’d be better off. Do we really need to impersonate Christ to help people find him and live a life that honors him? I don’t think so.

“Love based”? By whose definition of ‘love’?

Is the fact that only women can give birth to a child ‘unloving’ toward men?

 

[Cinette]

I feel like they should be able to be priests, or there needs to be a female equivalent.

This kind of stuff really leaves me pissed because it’s pushing people away, people that could contribute a lot to do God’s work. I wish it was more love based than rule-based. If she’s qualified, why not? I’m sure there are plenty of women out there that might do a better job than some of the current (and past) male priests.

People have no control over whether they are male or female–the gap needs to close on the rights each has.

I think this has some good points on inequality in the church tbm.org/can_women_be_pastors.htm

*While I think it is sweet of you to care about what the Catholic Church determines I do believe you do not understand. If the priest represents Christ on earth how can a woman represent Christ? We all have our separate roles. Just as a man cannot bear a child (although the day will probably come in this crazy world when some man will attempt to have a womb implanted!!! plus all the other equipment!!!) a woman cannot impregnate. We nurture and care for our babies with the support of our husbands. Our roles are separate and important. The religious in our midst teach and care for children, the old and the dying. I have always been happy being a woman and like my special role.

Vive la difference!*

 

[Cinette]

I just think it’s goofy, though. If everything was more love-based and not on religion, I feel we’d be better off. Do we really need to impersonate Christ to help people find him and live a life that honors him? I don’t think so.

*Dear SparkleFly, May I suggest you do a course in RCIA and learn what the Church is all about and then we can have this conversation. Learn the meaning of the word religion. Believe me the most important word in our religion is LOVE. That is what it is all about.

You cannot separate the word love from religion.
*

 

[Cinette]

Regarding your last line, I would have no problem with women priests if God wanted women priests. I would definitely prefer to see a woman for confession . Guys are lucky in that way. It’s a lot harder to confess intimate sins to someone of the opposite gender.
One can overcome all this. I have no problem with men in any role - my gynaecologist is male and I am very comfortable with him. It took a while though

 

[Cinette]

So what?

Women can’t produce semen either (and thus cannot impregnate anyone else).

These are physical features.

But the Catholic priesthood is a human institution, just like every other priesthood.

*While the priest is a human being his priesthood is not - it is a divine gift from God I feel.

Are you an ex-Christian? *

 

[RobbyS]

I honestly have trouble taking arguments seriously that essentially go:
Women are awesome but…men are stronger, smarter, braver, better with technology, etc.

It seems like it would be more intellectually honest to simply say that you think men are better than women.

Men have attributes that have have shaped the society we have in a profound way. Feminists call this patriarchy, think it bad, and assert that women are as masculine as men. I do not say that men are “better,”just–in grnrtal-- more masculine. The church has the very wise thought that masculine and feminine are complementary. That male and female are two sides of the same coin. It has long been a cliche that civilization is the creation of women. Because they are the ones who have babies and owing to the advantage of a settled society, the ones who make men stay in one place.