L
larkin31
Guest
I have found women to be just as capable of leading a congregation as men. They are quite enlightening as leaders, in fact.
- Status
V
vsedriver
Guest
There’s your problem right there… there’s no competition for this stuff in the Church.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
You are wrong again Ed.
Some types of change are natural, inevitable, and require little to no active human participation. Like the seasons changing, people getting older, dead things decaying, etc.
The idea that you can escape change is a false one.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
Do you think that your words have more impact if you make them big and red?
And I have NEVER advocated women becoming Catholic priests in this thread.
I have said repeatedly that I think they would be better off leaving and joining a more welcoming faith.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
So there can be peace and unity only if your religious enemies and rivals surrender and submit to you?
Well at least your honest.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
The German Nazis didn’t merely want to conquer the Soviet Union and eliminate communism. They openly declared their intent to enslave and/or exterminate the Russian people, and they practiced what they preached (raping and killing a significant chunk of the Russia population).AngryAtheist
*Large numbers of Russian women fought against the Germans during World War II and many of them were decorated for bravery. *
You being an atheist, I’m certainly not surprised that you would use atheist Joe Stalin’s decision to throw women into the battlefield as a form of liberating them from the tyranny of men. Rather, it’s more likely that they became bull’s-eye targets for a lot of male German soldiers. How was that liberating?
By the way, how many American women do you think will volunteer for combat duty so that they can be released from the tyranny of men? I said combat duty, not desk jobs in the military.
But I am not surprised that you would dismiss the courage of women who fought and died to oppose the Nazis and save their homeland.
On a more practical note, when everyone was still using bows and arrows, swords, and similar weapons superior physical strength could give you a decisive edge on the battlefield. But now that most wars are fought with guns and other long range weapons men’s superior strength (in relation to women) counts for a lot less on the battlefield.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
AngryAtheist
*
But I am not surprised that you would **dismiss *the courage of women who fought and died to oppose the Nazis and save their homeland.
I dismissed it? I meant to say that only the Communists would promote it because they have no more respect for the female person than for the male. Their God was the absolute power of the atheist Joe Stalin. At least Hitler did not put women in combat uniform to invade Russia. Nor did the United States expect women to serve on the front lines as combatants.
Do you think the Russians today would dare to put women on the front lines with automatic weapons and hand grenades? I think** that** would be **dismissed **as outright idiotic.
*And I have NEVER advocated women becoming Catholic priests in this thread.
I have said repeatedly that I think they would be better off leaving and joining a more welcoming faith. *
Since you are not a person of faith, why would you encourage anyone to join any faith? Isn’t that a bit hypocritical?
*
But I am not surprised that you would **dismiss *the courage of women who fought and died to oppose the Nazis and save their homeland.
I dismissed it? I meant to say that only the Communists would promote it because they have no more respect for the female person than for the male. Their God was the absolute power of the atheist Joe Stalin. At least Hitler did not put women in combat uniform to invade Russia. Nor did the United States expect women to serve on the front lines as combatants.
Do you think the Russians today would dare to put women on the front lines with automatic weapons and hand grenades? I think** that** would be **dismissed **as outright idiotic.
*And I have NEVER advocated women becoming Catholic priests in this thread.
I have said repeatedly that I think they would be better off leaving and joining a more welcoming faith. *
Since you are not a person of faith, why would you encourage anyone to join any faith? Isn’t that a bit hypocritical?
V
vsedriver
Guest
Actions speak louder than words. Although there were many devoted female disciples of Jesus, including both his Mother and Mary Magdalene, they were not present when Jesus instituted Holy Orders. He clearly chose men.
If it wasn’t a problem for Jesus, it’s not a problem for me.
There has been a lot of jumping through hoops to argue why women should be allowed to be priests and here are some that I have picked up from this thread. You may have others:
the Church got the priesthood wrong
There is no priesthood
Everyone is a priest
the priest represents Christ, who is God, who has no gender so the priest doesn’t need to be gender specific
the Eucharist doesn’t need a priest
the priesthood is about power and therefore should be opened to both sexes for equality’s sake
St. Paul was clueless and/or sexist so he needs to be edited
I’m still waiting to find out if we can have beer and pretzels for communion instead of wine and bread. I’m sure that would increase Church attendance!
Why do women even want to be priests?
they love Jesus and want to serve the church
they love Jesus and want to minister to his flock
there is an air or romance surrounding the priesthood
it looks exciting, you get to wear cool costumes and have gold dishes and every one is nice to you
they are attracted to the authority of the priesthood and want a piece of that
some reasons will be good, some will be bad
G
glencora
Guest
**
AngryAtheist8
“And this is the result of feminism and other modern trends how?
Why do you think so many men throughout history have had multiple wives, concubines, and female slaves?
For that matter, why do you think that the Black population in the United States tends to be so much lighter skinned than people actually living in Sub-Saharan Africa (except for recent immigrants to the U.S.)?
Here’s a hint, it’s not due to the prevalence of interracial marriage in America’s past.
Feminism by and large has not created injustices against women. It has merely highlighted them.**
As an African-American woman, I WILL address this question! The rape of African female slaves occurred because the culture tolerated the dehumanization of people. It occurred because the culture idolized the CREATURE (man; i.e. white skinned human beings), instead of the CREATOR (God).It occurred because the two greatest commandments were broken. It occurred because of a distorted understanding of human sexuality. Those men abandoned their role as protector of women and children. They abandoned the sacrament of marriage for adultery!
AngryAtheist8
“And this is the result of feminism and other modern trends how?
Why do you think so many men throughout history have had multiple wives, concubines, and female slaves?
For that matter, why do you think that the Black population in the United States tends to be so much lighter skinned than people actually living in Sub-Saharan Africa (except for recent immigrants to the U.S.)?
Here’s a hint, it’s not due to the prevalence of interracial marriage in America’s past.
Feminism by and large has not created injustices against women. It has merely highlighted them.**
As an African-American woman, I WILL address this question! The rape of African female slaves occurred because the culture tolerated the dehumanization of people. It occurred because the culture idolized the CREATURE (man; i.e. white skinned human beings), instead of the CREATOR (God).It occurred because the two greatest commandments were broken. It occurred because of a distorted understanding of human sexuality. Those men abandoned their role as protector of women and children. They abandoned the sacrament of marriage for adultery!
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
Both Nazi Germany and the United States employed women extensively in factories during World War II. Building guns, armored cars, tanks, and other war materials; something the women did more than adequately.
They may not have been on the front lines, but women were a huge part of the war effort.
As for the Russians, even after decades of communist rule they were relatively sexist. They decided to use women as soldiers because they were desperate. During the low point of the war the Nazis were on the verge of capturing Moscow (Germans troops got close enough to see the capital before being driven back).
On a more practical note, bullets and explosives don’t care whether their fired by a man or a woman. They will maim and kill just as efficiently either way.
Women can kill and die for their countries too.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Bravissimo!
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
AngryAtheist
*
Women can kill and die for their countries too. *
No doubt they can. And in emergency situations they can kill and die for their own children when threatened. However, the policy of promoting women into battlefield situations is very different from working in factories during wartime. Notice that these same women were ousted from their factory jobs when the men they had displaced into the Army draft returned home after the war. Was that also sexist?
Notice also that neither the U.S.Army nor the Germans ordered women into battlefield situations. By your logic, if absolute equality of sexes must be forced to prevail, then it must be possible at some future date, should the draft be restored, to draft women for combat duty. Does that idea appeal to you?
Sounds about as logical as drafting men to have babies while mom goes to work and brings home the bacon.
*
Women can kill and die for their countries too. *
No doubt they can. And in emergency situations they can kill and die for their own children when threatened. However, the policy of promoting women into battlefield situations is very different from working in factories during wartime. Notice that these same women were ousted from their factory jobs when the men they had displaced into the Army draft returned home after the war. Was that also sexist?
Notice also that neither the U.S.Army nor the Germans ordered women into battlefield situations. By your logic, if absolute equality of sexes must be forced to prevail, then it must be possible at some future date, should the draft be restored, to draft women for combat duty. Does that idea appeal to you?
Sounds about as logical as drafting men to have babies while mom goes to work and brings home the bacon.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
*And I have NEVER advocated women becoming Catholic priests in this thread.
I have said repeatedly that I think they would be better off leaving and joining a more welcoming faith. *
Since you are not a person of faith, why would you encourage anyone to join any faith? Isn’t that a bit hypocritical?
Rational humanism would be the ideal.
But I am realistic enough to recognize that most people seem to need the comfort of religion. Especially its promise of life after death.
I hope I am wrong, and that people are basically stronger than that.
But I doubt it.
I have said repeatedly that I think they would be better off leaving and joining a more welcoming faith. *
Since you are not a person of faith, why would you encourage anyone to join any faith? Isn’t that a bit hypocritical?
Rational humanism would be the ideal.
But I am realistic enough to recognize that most people seem to need the comfort of religion. Especially its promise of life after death.
I hope I am wrong, and that people are basically stronger than that.
But I doubt it.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Rational humanism would be the ideal.And I have NEVER advocated women becoming Catholic priests in this thread.
*I have said repeatedly that I think they would be better off leaving and joining a more welcoming faith. *
Since you are not a person of faith, why would you encourage anyone to join any faith? Isn’t that a bit hypocritical?
But I am realistic enough to recognize that most people seem to need the comfort of religion. Especially its promise of life after death.
I hope I am wrong, and that people are basically stronger than that.
But I doubt it.
But if there isn’t any life after death, if there isn’t any Creator, why would people need to be ‘stronger’?
I mean, if people are just random bursts of energy that came about because some cosmic ‘goo’ started a chain reaction and will go on until sooner or later things just ‘shut down’ again, why be ‘strong’ at all? Why are we here? What’s the point? How do we even get (random poofs that we are) the idea that anything other than chaos and randomness is possible, let alone desirable? What’s so great about today’s ‘homo sapiens sapiens’ anyway?
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
Your analogy fails.AngryAtheist
*
Women can kill and die for their countries too. *
No doubt they can. And in emergency situations they can kill and die for their own children when threatened. However, the policy of promoting women into battlefield situations is very different from working in factories during wartime. Notice that these same women were ousted from their factory jobs when the men they had displaced into the Army draft returned home after the war. Was that also sexist?
Notice also that neither the U.S.Army nor the Germans ordered women into battlefield situations. By your logic, if absolute equality of sexes must be forced to prevail, then it must be possible at some future date, should the draft be restored, to draft women for combat duty. Does that idea appeal to you?
Sounds about as logical as drafting men to have babies while mom goes to work and brings home the bacon.
Men are physically incapable of getting pregnant and giving birth, but for women there is nothing similar to prevent them from becoming soldiers.
As for your question, if the choice was between female soldiers and no soldiers or female soldiers and not nearly enough male soldiers, then yes I would be all for it.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
*As for your question, if the choice was between female soldiers and no soldiers or female soldiers and not nearly enough male soldiers, then yes I would be all for it. *
But that’s not your position. Your position is that women must all have the same rights (and therefore the same responsibilities) as men. If men have a responsibility to be drafted, and without excuse that they are men, then women must also have a responsibility to be drafted, and without excuse that they are women. So in your scenario, given affirmative action, there ought to be the same number of women as men on the battlefield.
Please don’t tell me that’s a false analogy.
But that’s not your position. Your position is that women must all have the same rights (and therefore the same responsibilities) as men. If men have a responsibility to be drafted, and without excuse that they are men, then women must also have a responsibility to be drafted, and without excuse that they are women. So in your scenario, given affirmative action, there ought to be the same number of women as men on the battlefield.
Please don’t tell me that’s a false analogy.
L
larkin31
Guest
Nor is there any scriptural evidence that he disallowed them.
Yeah, I would have others.
Women can serve God equally well as ministers to the congregants.Addendum: Paul was clearly “sexist,” and repressed. The latter is weird, but the former was a continuation and intensification of the gender divide of his day. I do not fault him as much for this.
Huh?
Same reasons men do. Why would you imagine that there is any difference in the callings of the genders?
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
OK, let’s imagine there is a planet out there with a humanoid species resembling ours (call them Vulcans. I’m a Trek fan.) Male Vulcans and female Vulcans.Nor is there any scriptural evidence that he disallowed them.
Yeah, I would have others.
Addendum: Paul was clearly “sexist,” and repressed. The latter is weird, but the former was a continuation and intensification of the gender divide of his day. I do not fault him as much for this.
Huh?
Same reasons men do. Why would you imagine that there is any difference in the callings of the genders?
And they have a female-only priesthood because in their history and their understanding of Deity, only women can represent the eternal ‘motherhood’ aspect, the ‘generative’ concept whereby the whole universe was ‘conceived.’
Now, on Vulcan there was a pretty similar ‘civilization’ to earth. The men were pretty warlike hunters; the women developed agriculture.
Over time, men and women developed more similarities in their roles. Women served in historically ‘male’ roles such as army generals; males served in the more historically ‘female’ roles of nurse.
But when it came to the spiritual dimension, it remains female only priests, even though the most powerful position on Vulcan is the High Priestess and her coterie of female acolytes, because spiritual life transcends cultural ‘roles’.
Would you feel that Vulcan society was ‘unfair’ in this? Why?
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
larkin
Why would you imagine that there is any difference in the callings of the genders?
For the same reason posted above. The genders have different callings, different sympathies, different world views. Would you imagine there are any women willing to serve in the combat zones of war? If I were a soldier in the combat zone, the combat women who might be so willing to kill men are not women to whom I would turn my back.
The ones who would like to be pope I could suspect to be on the side of abortion and gay marriage. At least that’s the pattern we tend to see among the feminist women being ordained in the Anglican Church. When you see a female Archbishop of Canterbury, you will see the absolute end of the Anglican Church as a Christian sanctum sanctorum.
Why would you imagine that there is any difference in the callings of the genders?
For the same reason posted above. The genders have different callings, different sympathies, different world views. Would you imagine there are any women willing to serve in the combat zones of war? If I were a soldier in the combat zone, the combat women who might be so willing to kill men are not women to whom I would turn my back.
The ones who would like to be pope I could suspect to be on the side of abortion and gay marriage. At least that’s the pattern we tend to see among the feminist women being ordained in the Anglican Church. When you see a female Archbishop of Canterbury, you will see the absolute end of the Anglican Church as a Christian sanctum sanctorum.
- Status