Ok then. I take it that God did not ever say this. I wonder, then, why you keep attributing your claims to “God,” when perhaps you should be more specific and state who the speaker is.
Or Saudi Arabia, then there’s Iran, pre-invasion Afghanistan, etc.
highlighted? like their support of the killing of 60 million unborn children? the support of no-fault divorce? contraception?
1 Timothy 2:12
No axe different from yours.
I have, and I do.
Exactly which opinions are you calling “vain”?
They were reasonable questions, since PeterKeys has expressed approval for theocratic policies and legal discrimination against women in this thread and others. So I decided to just ask him straight out where he stood.
Please prove to me your ‘assumption’ that “God did not say anything about gender restriction by rule of his followers.” What is your understanding of God’s ‘speech’ to people? Is it limited to the ‘red words in Scripture’ or does God (the Holy Spirit) speak to us today and lead us to all truth? If indeed God speaks to us today, then how can you say that the Church’s teaching is NOT GOD SPEAKING TO US? Please prove that the Church’s teaching on men is NOT God speaking to humanity. Really. Show us that it can’t possibly be from the Holy Spirit. I’d love to see your authentic and authoritative sources for that --you know, since you’re telling me this ISN’T God’s word, then God MUST HAVE GIVEN AN OPPOSING WORD IN ORDER TO PROVE YOUR ASSUMPTION. SO WHERE IS IT???
You are being sincere here, for sure. It seems like this is at the core of your arguments. I don’t want to argue back and start something, so hopefully it’s not arguing to say, that this is a (dogma?) that is so foreign sounding to catholics. I know its popular cultural wisdom, but it does get to the heart of things for me. My very first post was about women and motivation. This is the popular dogma I had in mind when I said that women buy into it in order to win men’s approval and love. Alot of the arguments here show how it cannot be true since it is un-natural and bears bad fruit. I’m probably not the one to put forth the argument that will cause you to agree with this. But, as catholics we think that all the different vocations make contributions that are not only valuable, but necessary, and equal in that sense.
Angry
*
If you truly believe that men cannot be as irrational, shameless, and power-hungry as any woman (and vice versa) you don’t understand men or women.*
Hitler is an example of someone who was worse than Pelosi, for sure! A great deal of Hitler’s power came from his popularity with women. So much for the political astuteness of women.
However, we are looking for patterns of behavior, not individual instances. Pelosi, if she did not represent the pattern of female craving for power over men, certainly gives that impression. Of all the women the Democrats had to select from, why did they put her first and foremost as their leader? Because she was a good leader for the nation? “In order to find out what is in the bill, you first have to vote for it.” Has any male Speaker of the House ever said anything so absurdly arrogant? If you would like to counter with a comparable quote from any earlier male Speaker of the House, I’m all ears.
Pelosi is also in the habit of telling Catholics what the Catholic Church teaches on abortion … absolutely the opposite of what the bishops actually teach. More absurd arrogance. So apparently that is another policy we can expect to be promoted by female priests, bishops, and popes cut from the same cloth as the power craving Pelosis of the world?
It should have dawned upon you long ago that the Catholic Church is the oldest and most powerful living institution in the world. That was accomplished by a patriarchal priesthood. The Church has never stopped teaching what she taught from the start … regardless of what feminists and homosexuals would like to see happen in the very near future … and what they would fully expect to happen in the very near future if the Church were taken over by power craving women.
Do you know anything about history?Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8 View Post
If you truly believe that men cannot be as irrational, shameless, and power-hungry as any woman (and vice versa) you don’t understand men or women.
OF COURSE a man might do the things you describe Nancy Pelosi as doing in her position. If you want to know about really irrational unreasonable behavior in the United States Congress study the lead up to the Civil War. What Pelosi is doing now is tame compared to some of the stuff that Southern senators pulled.
And of course men resent their female bosses sometimes. Just as they resent their male bosses, and women quite often dislike their male bosses. What kind of sheltered environment would you have to live in to NOT notice this?
If women are to be equal in any meaningful way THEY MUST be competitors with men sometimes. So that they can compete for jobs, awards, recognition, etc.
If women cannot really participate in business, politics, and public life then THEY are inferior in a very real way (even if its just status wise). Regardless of the theological reasoning behind it.
You know this sounds like a story about a bunch of five year old boys who built a clubhouse and when the five year old girl comes by and wants to join, the boys say it’s boys only. So, instead of finding some little girls to play with, she goes running to the local radical feminist organization who teaches her Class Warfare 101.
Show me the rule or the book or any source for your THEY MUST comment.
Peace,
Ed (QUOTE).
I am going to assume that you’re not referring specifically to the female ordination issue (since I have never argued in favor of female ordination in this thread). Based on that here is my response to your analogy:
Yes the girl (and many other girls) is upset because the boys don’t want to let her in the clubhouse (the worlds of business, politics, finance, law, etc.). Of course the girls want into the clubhouse, it controls their money, laws, and even food supply. I don’t see why we boys can’t share the cool stuff.
I’m not afraid to let girls into the clubhouse. They tend to be prettier and have better hygiene than most of my fellow boys anyway
As for my THEY MUST statement, its based on logic.
If women cannot compete for and earn those things (jobs, awards, recognition, etc.) then they must either simply be denied them or given such things in the form of a handout.
If women simply cannot have the good jobs, prestigious awards, public recognition, etc, then they are in an inferior position to men. But if they get such things automatically then they are in a superior position.
Competition is necessary for meaningful equality.
Pope John Paul II defined this issue and gave strict instructions. I’ll take his words over any here. As the Holy Father, he has the final say on the matter.
Then let me ask you a question:
like I said earlier, you are viewing authority in a really vain and shallow manner.Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8 View Post
If you truly believe that men cannot be as irrational, shameless, and power-hungry as any woman (and vice versa) you don’t understand men or women.
OF COURSE a man might do the things you describe Nancy Pelosi as doing in her position. If you want to know about really irrational unreasonable behavior in the United States Congress study the lead up to the Civil War. What Pelosi is doing now is tame compared to some of the stuff that Southern senators pulled.
And of course men resent their female bosses sometimes. Just as they resent their male bosses, and women quite often dislike their male bosses. What kind of sheltered environment would you have to live in to NOT notice this?
If women are to be equal in any meaningful way THEY MUST be competitors with men sometimes. So that they can compete for jobs, awards, recognition, etc.
If women cannot really participate in business, politics, and public life then THEY are inferior in a very real way (even if its just status wise). Regardless of the theological reasoning behind it.
You know this sounds like a story about a bunch of five year old boys who built a clubhouse and when the five year old girl comes by and wants to join, the boys say it’s boys only. So, instead of finding some little girls to play with, she goes running to the local radical feminist organization who teaches her Class Warfare 101.
Show me the rule or the book or any source for your THEY MUST comment.
Peace,
Ed (QUOTE).
I am going to assume that you’re not referring specifically to the female ordination issue (since I have never argued in favor of female ordination in this thread). Based on that here is my response to your analogy:
Yes the girl (and many other girls) is upset because the boys don’t want to let her in the clubhouse (the worlds of business, politics, finance, law, etc.). Of course the girls want into the clubhouse, it controls their money, laws, and even food supply. I don’t see why we boys can’t share the cool stuff.
I’m not afraid to let girls into the clubhouse. They tend to be prettier and have better hygiene than most of my fellow boys anyway
As for my THEY MUST statement, its based on logic.
If women cannot compete for and earn those things (jobs, awards, recognition, etc.) then they must either simply be denied them or given such things in the form of a handout.
If women simply cannot have the good jobs, prestigious awards, public recognition, etc, then they are in an inferior position to men. But if they get such things automatically then they are in a superior position.
Competition is necessary for meaningful equality.
You’re right up to a point, but you only get one yes. Whoever the Nobel people are, they are free to be as idiotic as they want to be…same for a private business. There is something weird about these questions though. There is nothing in catholicim that says that women are never called to make societal contributions outside the home, but we also believe that where God’s will is, there is a way…no need to make this into a competition thing.
No, because God is not a man or a woman. God is God. There is no gender involved, so we should not base our practices on the “gender” of God (which does not exist).
Well, are we more fair in “allowing” men to become nurses, a long-standing stereotype of a “woman’s” role? Uhmmm…YES?! There are no roles other than the role of father and mother that we as people are ‘ontologically’ meant to have–and those roles are purely based on our chemical makeup. Sure, men probably make better generals because of their natural makeup in their brain which makes them more logical and better able to cut off emotions. This is why men are usually generals. Women are usually pre-school teachers because they have the motherly instinct and are more caring towards children. This is why women are usually pre-school teachers. But is that to say that men can’t become pre-school teachers and women shouldn’t become generals? Are ALL women more emotional/less logical and ALL men more logical/less emotional?
Why shouldn’t we? Does the role of priest require some sort of heavy lifting that us wee females can’t handle? Are women less able to understand and study the Bible? Are women, dare I say it, less than men in your opinion? What makes women incapable?
Your logic in this question is also inaccurate and misleading.
Again, another bit of inaccurate logic. Refer to the Aquinas/Kingly power point.
I have no idea what you are leading to with the first question.
No one said it was a “corruption”, only that it is a tradition that could change. The face that men are priests is not wrong or corrupt. The fact that only men can become priests is not “corrupt” because men have always only been able to become priests. The fact that we as a society finally recognize the equality of women, the ability of women, the desire women have to be just as faithful in the Catholic Church and want to preach It’s word in the Mass, and still allow this tradition to continue is wrong.
We have no guarantee. What we have is an educated guess looking at the results of similar changes in the past. A black person and a white person, while they have different skin pigments (a purely physical trait), are seen as equals where before they were not. Changing the laws of the country to accept that blacks and whites are equals was not taken with open arms (clearly). But, the fact that blacks and whites are equals is a known fact, and while at the beginning whites didn’t want to accept it, eventually it was accepted and our country is the better for it.
