Pope reaffirms ban on women priests

  • Thread starter Thread starter MarcoPolo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
vsedriver said:
no one experiences the ‘feeling’ of happiness forever. That is not the same as having true happiness.

It’s the same way that the Church teaches love is an action, not just a feeling.
Click to expand...
You’re trying to win the argument by redefining the terms being discussed:cool:
 
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
I honestly think you’re confusing the term influence and leadership.
An advisor is not a leader (at least not in his or her role as advisor).
vsedriver said:
I think you don’t understand how the Church is lead.
Click to expand...
So Pope Benedict is just an advisor then:)

If that’s the case, I wonder what power-behind-the-throne really makes the decisions at the Vatican;)
 
RobbyS said:
Well, the Jewish influence primarily religious not cultural. The God of Abraham established a personal relationship with Abraham, and loyalty to “him” developed over the centuries into a rejection of all other gods. The constant fight to keep the Israelites from also worshipping other gods required a specific rejection of male-female fertilty duos. God does not “beget,” Which is where the Muslims also come from, that God does have a son. Which is why they reject the Incarnation. Which is why rationalists also reject the incarnation. The difference between Jews (and Muslims) is of course that for religious Jews, The Lord is a person, who is able to covenant with human being,m and for modernists he is reduced to a mere first principle, like the God of the philosophers who Pascal rejected. To them, of course, the Incarnation is a reversion to paganism, as it seems to Jews and Muslims. Arius followed the same impulse in advancing his Christology, But unitarianism does not save the evidence as well as Trintarianism. Nowhere can one deduce from the testimony of the Jews who were the first Christians any “simple” explanation for the events they depict. Arius was like Einstein when confronted with quantum physics:" God does not play dice,” he protested. Trintarianism is the quantum physics of theology. On the other hand, it is very different from the Hindu notion of trinity.
Click to expand...
To be honest it all sounds kind of ridiculous (at least to me).
Its funny (in a horrible sort of way) to think that people have died over these doctrinal details.
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
Then why is He referred to as Father?😛
Click to expand...
Because that is what He asked us to call Him? Because it’s the closest that human, limited minds can come to understanding?

But remember, AA, that according to Scripture God created man in His image, MALE AND FEMALE He created them. So God’s image and likeness is not limited to ‘male’ alone (or ‘female’ alone. Women are not ‘second-class’, they are equally God’s image.
 
nickybr38 said:
If Jesus wanted female priests he would have appointed a woman to be one of His twelve.

He didn’t.

End of story.
Click to expand...
Can we also break it down by ethnicity, hair color, eye color and so on and exclude those from the priesthood who did not match at least one of the 12 in all of these?

In other words, if Jesus wanted blonde haired, blue eyed Priests, he would have had one of them as one of the 12.

Or if Jesus wanted Nubians to be Priests, he would have chosen a Nubian as one of the 12 and so on.
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
This doesn’t sound admirable.
If something already knew everything (and therefore already had an opinion on everything) and never changed (its mind) would it really think at all?
Or be more like a pre-programmed machine?
Click to expand...
The fact that He may think infinitely more quickly and thoroughly than humans, and therefore not need to revise His conclusions, ie change His mind, does not indicate a lack of thinking.

A math savant may solve complex equations way, way more quickly than you or I, but he or she still employs real thought in doing so and is not simply a computer. It’s just that the thought is at a higher speed.
 
Tantum_ergo said:
Because that is what He asked us to call Him? Because it’s the closest that human, limited minds can come to understanding?

But remember, AA, that according to Scripture God created man in His image, MALE AND FEMALE He created them. So God’s image and likeness is not limited to ‘male’ alone (or ‘female’ alone. Women are not ‘second-class’, they are equally God’s image.
Click to expand...
Not according to the Bible and Saint Paul.
 
LilyM said:
**The fact that He may think infinitely more quickly and thoroughly than humans, and therefore not need to revise His conclusions, ie change His mind, does not indicate a lack of thinking. **
A math savant may solve complex equations way, way more quickly than you or I, but he or she still employs real thought in doing so and is not simply a computer. It’s just that the thought is at a higher speed.
Click to expand...
Learning something new, questioning old beliefs (or forming new ones), working through a problem, and realizing that you were wrong or maybe right are all mental changes (i.e. thinking).

If God is truly Changeless, He never undergoes any such mental changes and does not think.
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
Learning something new, questioning old beliefs (or forming new ones), working through a problem, and realizing that you were wrong or maybe right are all mental changes (i.e. thinking).

If God is truly Changeless, He never undergoes any such mental changes and does not think.
Click to expand...
Thinking is merely using one’s mind.

When I woke up this morning, looked out the window and concluded ‘self, the sky is blue and clear this morning’ I thought about several things (colour of the sky, absence of cloud, time of day) all at once.

I did this thinking without challenging a single previously held belief, learning a single new thing, working through any problem, being wrong - or taking more than a millisecond about it.
 
VeritasLuxMea said:
Can we also break it down by ethnicity, hair color, eye color and so on and exclude those from the priesthood who did not match at least one of the 12 in all of these?

In other words, if Jesus wanted blonde haired, blue eyed Priests, he would have had one of them as one of the 12.

Or if Jesus wanted Nubians to be Priests, he would have chosen a Nubian as one of the 12 and so on.
Click to expand...
Not exactly. The fact is, the Church HAS NO AUTHORITY TO ORDAIN WOMEN.

Now we can speculate endlessly on reasons that God has done this. Many speculate that it’s because men NEED to be humble servants more than women do. 😃

Certainly the same Christ who ‘bucked the system’ could have (and we’re sure WOULD have) ordained women IF God wanted female ordination. There was nothing to stop Him. He could have given ‘reasons’ for doing so which people would certainly have accepted. But. . .He didn’t.

Not because He wanted “Jewish men”, or ‘fisherman’ to be priests and so ONLY chose ‘those types’.

God probably has no ‘one’ reason for His decision. Just as it can be equally ‘reasonable’ for us to note that say knitting is not something one does just for utility, but also for pleasure, creative outlet, socialization, manual dexterity, tradition. . .God may have many reasons for His decisions.

But just because one may ALSO ‘take pleasure’ in knitting does not mean that one does not at all consider its utilitarian factor.

So just because God’s decision for male priests does not SOLELY rest on the fact that Christ never chose a woman doesn’t mean that the statement "Christ never chose a woman priest’ is to be totally disregarded as not germane.
 
LilyM said:
Thinking is merely using one’s mind.

When I woke up this morning, looked out the window and concluded ‘self, the sky is blue and clear this morning’ I thought about several things (colour of the sky, absence of cloud, time of day) all at once.

I did this thinking without challenging a single previously held belief, learning a single new thing, working through any problem, being wrong - or taking more than a millisecond about it.
Click to expand...
Exactly. AA being human has a human mind which has limitations. Our minds are continually looking for change (and also looking for stability, in a kind of ‘balancing’ action’ because we are temporal creatures. We exist in a period which is changeful.

Eternity however is not a period of change as we understand change in a temporal human dimension. That DOESN"T mean that eternity is some blind stasis where NOTHING is ‘done’ or thought’.

Eternity, or the end of ‘time’, is a period where all that has been ‘done’ over time reaches its full potential.

If we could ‘freeze’ time at the exact nanosecond where a peach has achieved perfect ripeness, we could have the ‘summit’ of the peach’s ‘purpose’. In a temporal word that peach will go on to rot.

But eternity is like finding the summit of the purpose of humanity, and letting humanity thereafter exist at the very peak of that perfection. There is no need to change perfection. Yet it is not static because one has had the experience of ‘building up to’ that perfection, fully understanding why and how it occurred and also knowing one’s ultimate purpose, and having one’s mind infinitely expanded such that we can perceive that all–while being not only fully ‘as one’ with God but also with all others of humanity. What an incredible concept. . .even perceived in a shallow and ‘limited’ way we do now (as in a glass darkly).
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
Not according to the Bible and Saint Paul.
Click to expand...
I think you completely misunderstand 'the Bible" and St Paul,.

If you’re doing the usual "women should be silent in Church’, perhaps you are not aware that St Paul directed this letter to a specific church in which city the Greek (i.e. PAGAN) women had been coming into the Jewish temples recently and disrupting the services. St. Paul, aware that many of his converts were coming from such a perspective, reminded these woman that rather than seek to ‘disrupt’ the services in order to gain attention for themselves, they were (just like the men) to listen.

Ever been to a seminar where the professor is teaching something complicated and one or two people in the class CONSTANTLY interrupt? It keeps the majority of the class from getting through and understanding the material. Women (or men, but in the context of St. Paul’s letter it had been demonstrably WOMEN who had been causing the noise) who disrupted services kept people from hearing the Truth and were causing trouble. Therefore they needed to be silent. . .for their good as well as for others.
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
No, I was merely saying that that was the Church position.
And frankly there are plenty of Christians (including some Catholics) who believe that Scripture backs up that position.

Why would you assume that because something was a Church position it was also mine?
Click to expand...
I didn’t assume that, Angry.

I was merely stating that it was your position that the CC didn’t think women were fit to serve.

Clearly, your position is false, as there have been numerous examples of women who have served in leadership positions withing the Church.

Then, you changed your position and declared that the CC did not have women in TOP positions.

If that was your original premise, it would have been helpful if you had made that known.

Just sayin’. 🤷
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
This reminds me of something the late Mary Daly said.
If God is male.
Then the male is God.

Which would be good for me (since I’m a guy).
Click to expand...
Actually, GOD is not male.

Jesus is male.

God has no gender.

And if Jesus is male, then the male is Jesus doesn’t even fit as a logical syllogism.
 
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Learning something new, questioning old beliefs (or forming new ones), working through a problem, and realizing that you were wrong or maybe right are all mental changes (i.e. thinking).

If God is truly Changeless, He never undergoes any such mental changes and does not think.
LilyM said:
Thinking is merely using one’s mind.

When I woke up this morning, looked out the window and concluded ‘self, the sky is blue and clear this morning’ I thought about several things (colour of the sky, absence of cloud, time of day) all at once.

I did this thinking without challenging a single previously held belief, learning a single new thing, working through any problem, being wrong - or taking more than a millisecond about it.
Click to expand...
You changed what you were focusing on.
Besides, if God cannot do any of the things I have highlighted above, His thinking is severely limited at best.
 
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
I am glad you admit that it is clericalism.
Tantum_ergo said:
Actually I wanted to say male celibacy. Thank you for catching my error. It is not clericalism but celibacy.
Click to expand...
No, no you were right the first time;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top