Pope reaffirms ban on women priests

[AngryAtheist8]

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).

Of course its static, what better way to describe a Changeless sterile state?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

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.

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.

You’re human. You CAN be wrong.

You’re not a perfect being. What perfect being could be wrong? if He were wrong, how could He be perfect? What makes you think that ‘failure’ or making mistakes is a prerequisite for being human at all? Or if it were, that it would be necessary once humanity has finally 'learned it all?"

If you could possibly master a given subject such that you knew everything about it and would never make an error about it, what would be the SENSE in making mistakes? It would be stupid and a waste of time if you knew everything in the world about quantum physics for you to go around and make elementary errors, because you would have nothing to learn from the errors.

And if you had (mirabile dictu) somehow been born into the world knowing everything about quantum physics, you would never make a mistake at all. Because you would KNOW what was right. What would be the point to make a mistake???

I really find it amusing that you presume that because God in your opinion**** does not ‘limit’ Himself to doing the functions which you (in all your human limitation and capacity for being wrong) have deemed are a REQUIREMENT for ‘thinking’, that somehow HE isn’t ‘thinking’ just because YOU don’t understand the way in which He DOES think.

It’s kind of like the 2 year old who looks at mommy and daddy saying “no” when said child asks for a cookie, thinking," But the COOKIE is RIGHT THERE. I want it. I want it now. They could give it to me but they aren’t. They aren’t THINKING STRAIGHT. If they were THINKING PROPERLY they would give me the COOKIE!"

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
I am glad you admit that it is clericalism.

No, no you were right the first time

Excuse me???

I’m sure you’d LIKE me to be right (there’s always a first time, eh?) on this, but no. Let it never be said that Tantum couldn’t admit when she makes an error. I was in error and thank you, I have now corrected that error. No need for you to try to humor me and pretend I was right. You won’t hurt my feelings. So don’t twist the truth and think to spare my feelings. When I am TRULY in error, I will correct the error. On that you can rely.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Of course its static, what better way to describe a Changeless sterile state?

YOU are the one calling it ‘changeless and sterile.’ I do not call it so because it is NOT changeless and sterile.

You really must learn to open your mind a bit and not limit yourself to a kind of ‘rote’ expression. Challenge yourself. Be more broad minded.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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.

Not really.

Saint Paul supposedly said:

For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the
angels.

-1 Corinthians 11

P.S. It seems clear that Saint Paul considered men superior to women and that women existed for the benefit of men (and not visa versa).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
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).

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.

But Jesus is God (at least according to Christianity).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
If that’s the case, I wonder what power-behind-the-throne really makes the decisions at the Vatican

Umm…that would be the Holy Spirit of course.

Hmm…I never would have suspected It of being such a schemer

 

[AngryAtheist8]

You’re human. You CAN be wrong.

You’re not a perfect being. What perfect being could be wrong? if He were wrong, how could He be perfect? What makes you think that ‘failure’ or making mistakes is a prerequisite for being human at all? Or if it were, that it would be necessary once humanity has finally 'learned it all?"

If you could possibly master a given subject such that you knew everything about it and would never make an error about it, what would be the SENSE in making mistakes? It would be stupid and a waste of time if you knew everything in the world about quantum physics for you to go around and make elementary errors, because you would have nothing to learn from the errors.

And if you had (mirabile dictu) somehow been born into the world knowing everything about quantum physics, you would never make a mistake at all. Because you would KNOW what was right. What would be the point to make a mistake???

I really find it amusing that you presume that because God in your opinion**** does not ‘limit’ Himself to doing the functions which you (in all your human limitation and capacity for being wrong) have deemed are a REQUIREMENT for ‘thinking’, that somehow HE isn’t ‘thinking’ just because YOU don’t understand the way in which He DOES think.

It’s kind of like the 2 year old who looks at mommy and daddy saying “no” when said child asks for a cookie, thinking," But the COOKIE is RIGHT THERE. I want it. I want it now. They could give it to me but they aren’t. They aren’t THINKING STRAIGHT. If they were THINKING PROPERLY they would give me the COOKIE!"

To be honest I think its funny you feel the need to give your deity extremely vast yet vague and undefined abilities just to make your theological system somewhat consistent:shrug:

 

[AngryAtheist8]

YOU are the one calling it ‘changeless and sterile.’ I do not call it so because it is NOT changeless and sterile.

You really must learn to open your mind a bit and not limit yourself to a kind of ‘rote’ expression. Challenge yourself. Be more broad minded.

If God’s mind is not Changeless, then HE is not Changeless.

 

[PRmerger]

Hmm…I never would have suspected It of being such a schemer

What do you mean?

Scheming?

Are you saying that decisions that are made by the Magisterium are schemes?

 

[PRmerger]

But Jesus is God (at least according to Christianity).

Yes, Jesus is the second person of the Trinity. Jesus is God.

But God is not a male. God has no gender.

 

[LilyM]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
If that’s the case, I wonder what power-behind-the-throne really makes the decisions at the Vatican

Hmm…I never would have suspected It of being such a schemer

It makes plans, It makes promises (or at least Jesus makes promises on Its behalf - particularly in regard Its guidance of the Church and He and It follow through on them.

I guess the fact that you make plans and promises and follow through on what you plan and promise to do makes you a real schemer as well

I fail to see why you should be so surprised and derogatory about such a thing. There’s no great secret dastardly machinations being uncovered by you here - it is openly professes belief by all Christians that their leaders are guided in their teaching and decisions by the Spirit.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Hmm…I never would have suspected It of being such a schemer

What do you mean?

Scheming?

Are you saying that decisions that are made by the Magisterium are schemes?

It was a joke.
I don’t actually believe in the Holy Spirit.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t actually believe in the Holy Spirit.

Ya think?

Given your screenname, you don’t have to preface everything with, “Since I’m an atheist and I don’t believe …”

I think everyone gets that.

But you have taken the position here–in fact it is your norm–when dialoguing with Catholics that, while you don’t believe in God you presuppose his existence for the sake of discourse.

So no need to detract the dialogue anymore with, “But I don’t believe that Jesus is God.”

Your screenname presupposes that. We work with it.

 

[PRmerger]

If God’s mind is not Changeless, then HE is not Changeless.

Bingo.

He is the Unchangeable Changer. The Immutable Mutater.

 

[PRmerger]

Then why is He referred to as Father?

God is a Father. God has masculine attributes.

But God is not male. He does not have a biological gender.

I think perhaps you are having a difficult time understanding the difference between male and masculine.

Masculine is a metaphysical, ontological concept, and, as such, applies to all of reality, including God.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

God is a Father. God has masculine attributes.

But God is not male. He does not have a biological gender.

I think perhaps you are having a difficult time understanding the difference between male and masculine.

Masculine is a metaphysical, ontological concept, and, as such, applies to all of reality, including God.

But not Femininity apparently.
Since conservative Christians get very upset when you refer to any aspect of God in feminine terms.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

God is a Father. God has masculine attributes.

But God is not male. He does not have a biological gender.

I think perhaps you are having a difficult time understanding the difference between male and masculine.

Masculine is a metaphysical, ontological concept, and, as such, applies to all of reality, including God.

I understand it perfectly fine.
I also understand that the idea that Jesus Christ is male, Jesus is God, but God is not male is illogical.

 

[PRmerger]

But not Femininity apparently.

'zactly.

It is the Church which is feminine.

See? We’re back to why we call the Church a “she” or our “mother”.

 

[PRmerger]

I understand it perfectly fine.
I also understand that the idea that Jesus Christ is male, Jesus is God, but God is not male is illogical.

Because male refers to biology. God does not have genitalia.

Simple as that.

But it does go to why, since male-ness is so important, (and you are more correct about stressing this “but Jesus is male” concept than you even realize ) women can’t be priests:

because, as you keep correctly stressing, Jesus is male.