The Catholic Church prohibits women's ordination, saying it has no authority to ordain women because Jesus chose only men as his apostles??? The church's Canon Law 1024 says only baptized men may receive holy orders. This is an example of the outdated and bigoted view of the RCC and their disrespect for women just because they were born female (incubators to pass the male seed). Earlier this year, Pope Benedict XVI denounced the Rev. Bill Brennan (92 years old) for supporting women's ordination, saying their desire to change the church was a "desperate push" driven by their "own preferences and ideas." Instead, the pope urged for the "radicalism of obedience." Not the spreading of the word of Jesus or the sermon on the mount mind you … obedience to the CHURCH is their priority and it would solve all their problems if it weren’t for the people involved who are becoming better educated.
This priest was dismissed by the RCC in god's name of course for performing church dogma with an ordained WOMAN. Blasphemous sombich deserve that and more, guess he won't be going to a catholic heaven so shame on him. All he had to do to please god and drum up RCC support and reclaim his salvation was to have raped some children instead. I have no use for a church like this or the manmade god that promotes these kinds of ‘truths’. That is a 1st century immoral view without a doubt about it.
Haha, he's lucky I'm not the pope. I would have had him burned at the stake, on pay preview.
In the lords name of coarse. <-- That's my get out hell free card there.
EDIT: opps, mod login
myphistopheles
I'm sorry you think you're an incubator to pass man's seed along. If you read the Bible, you may be able to discern women's purpose better, but most likely you would just get pissed off that they may, in fact, have a different role in the way a church functions, due to the Creator, God, creating them differently from men.
Since you don't believe in any of that though, perhaps you should just not bother sticking your nose where it doesn't belong.
Yeah, it's a person who hates me because of my religious beliefs.
Women are not to have authority spiritual over men, but they could still teach men if they have the authority of the elders of a church, who should be men. That's what the scriptures say. So when you quibble over what the Catholic Church does, you are dealing with what God wants. This is independent of what the culture says. Culture right now says that anything men do, women should do. The Bible says that in a marriage, there are certain roles. In a church, there are certain roles.
From a woman's perspective on Christian marriage:
However for the record the spiritual authority I would happily submit too would be one that is modeled on a full Christian marriage not the traditionally paternalistic self serving one so often modeled in our society under the umbrella of a traditional marriage. I would happily give myself in marriage to a man willing to love me as Christ loves the Church and willing to lovingly empower me in a partnership modeled on Christ's relationship with the Church. Please note that Christ does not dominate nor subjugate His followers. He lovingly works in partnership with them, accepting their free will gift of voluntary submission to a process to help them reach their full potential though the medium of loving and committed relationship with them. If my husband were to be as fully committed in his submission to Christ's spiritual authority as I am, I will joyfully step under the umbrella of his authority for the purpose of establishing a spiritual union/family on earth.
This was regarding marriage but spiritual authority in the church follows a similar pattern - males have the main teaching authority, and the responsibility and accountability for that lies on them.
You are a woman too ... didn't know that so it seems my "male chauvinist pig" comment was inappropriate ... now I have to rethink things in light of this. So you accept the back seat to the menfolk huh. I am not even married in your eyes so I don't think I am concerned with your views of it. You know I have read the bible more than once because I told you already. So even though you aren't catholic, you feel the RCC actually speaks for god and not the bible itself? I find that amazingly strange in light of the church breakup in the 16 century. Besides popes and bishops act more political than spiritual and they are wealthy beyond belief but still squeezing money from people at every turn. They see moral debauchery everywhere else in the world! And what do they do when the people are in need, why they ask for more money of course! They followed strictly the outcomes of the 4th Lateran Council of 1215 … not the Bible, The Council established the existence of Purgatory, salvation is earned through good works and can be bought through indulgences and that priests (men) must be the ones between the people and God. Do not have any use for a 1st century education or lessons in morality from them.
PS - Now wait a minute here, your profile lists you as male … so you are a "male chauvinist pig" after all and determined on telling women their proper place in this godly scheme of yours. It is understandable that you are not married and since you adhere to the RCC instead of god, I feel compelled to treat you as a catholic even though you profess not to be one.
The beauty of faith is that it is personal. So no 2 need be alike. The beauty of religion is to share your faith with others which are similar. So there are a multitude of religions, especially Christian.
My step father was married by a female minister. I see no problem with that. But I am Catholic, left the church, and returned. One day, women will be ordained in that religion. Until that time you can either accept the structures of the religion, or find another better suited for your needs.
But as long as you profess to be a member of that religion, you must live by its rules. And the rules state that women cannot be ordained. But as I indicated previously, you have choices. There are religions, similar to Catholicism, that allow the ordination of women. And the beauty of it is, no one can force you to profess a faith in any religion. So you are free to chose.
Or abstain.
I'm not a woman.
I gave you a woman's view of what submission in a marriage looks like. I didn't write that part.
I don't agree with the Catholic Church about a lot of things. But male leaders is something we do agree on. Tell God he's a chauvinist - I'm just following his design.
The Bible talks about this issue, Dr. Guy. I'm not sure it's ever going to be allowed in a Catholic Church. How far do you have to get from your source for truth before your church just falls apart?
I agree Doc, The pastor of our baptist church was the kindest and most understanding religious person I ever knew personally ... and when he was screwed by the church 'elders' it broke my heart and this played a part in my rebellion against the bible and the church. Of course many other things were involved too. Are you a YEC Doc or just a religious person of the Catholic persuasion like the scientist Ken Miller (see Dover trial) for instance?
ID (not necessarily biblical in nature) is a topic that can be discussed endlessly. Why are homo sapiens self aware, and no other species? So I am not one to dismiss it out of hand. But I believe we did evolve. What we must remember is that while "evolution" is a fact, the "Theory of Evolution" is not. IN time it may become a fact. But I am open to all new data, in the quest to know the answers.
Was there ID in the evolution of man? I do not know. What I do not know dwarfs what I do know. And the more I know the more I know how little I know. I am not an evangelist (and unsure of what YEC stands for), but I do have faith. As such, I know I can disagree with the Church on administrative matters (such as the ordination of women) and still be a member of the religion. What I cannot do is violate the rules (doubting is not against the rules or there would be no Apostles), and that is what happened with the Priest. Just as Lefevbre violated the rules, so did this Priest. At some time in the future, he may be regarded as a great man. For now, he just is a man who stepped over a line.
You can debate with the teachings of the church. You can question them. And you can cajole, persuade, and try to convince them of their errors. What you cannot do is violate the rules. That will not prevent you from being a Christian. But it will alienate you from your religion.
The beauty of faith is that no one can take it from you. When you leave a religion, you still take your faith with you. So if a religion is not for you, find one that is.
The RCC has a history of grubbing for money. I don't trust it at all.
Actually, no. I said faith, not religion. I was careful about choosing my words. Atheism is a faith. It is not necessarily a religion. But since the existence of supreme being cannot be proven or disproven, choosing to believe one way or the other is pure faith. So if you chose to not believe in his existence, that is your faith.
Faith can be a crutch, and many use it as such. But what it all boils down to is a way to lead your life. Satanism is a faith, where the practitioners chose to follow a path of evil.
I guess this means the ones that think the world is about 6000 years old? Perhaps if they thought about it, they would realize that all the bible indicates is the recorded memory of one section of the population.
I agree. But the miracles that have been proclaimed have no rational scientific explanation - TO DATE. Which means the more we learn, yada, yada, yada. But what they do really mean is that humans are capable of extraordinary things when the right circumstances come along. And that to me is a miracle.
Atheism is a faith … now here we have a genuine disagreement and I would like to continue this discussion. It never ceases to amaze me when christians explain what an atheist is and what they must believe and what to call it … regardless of the fact that it has been simply and well defined. Not saying you too Doc, but this has been my experience.
the existence of supreme being cannot be proven or disproven ... If you want to take this further, there is virtually nothing we can determine absolutely without the least bit of doubt (tea pots unicorns etc.) but we get on with our lives because we have learned to deal in probabilities too. Nobody is born with any appreciable knowledge at all (religious or otherwise). That means that everything we think we know about the world, the fauna and flora and everything else is learned from other people and we know how unreliable they can be … everything. If we are taught we are born in sin because of a belief, most will grow up believing all humanity is debased just by being born human. And if we are told that god is the only solution for the blight called humanity … well most will believe that too. And so on till there is little of the individual left. For the simple cost of not misinforming children (based on hearsay) these children retain their natural atheistic state and continue to adulthood free to make their own minds up instead of having it made for them. If miracles are the least likely explanation by definition … then what does that say about the miracle maker … less likely than the least likely of explanations?
I can see where this ties in with your previous post. As we are pretty much the same age (I noted earlier where you were only 1 year older than my sister - my OLDEST sister), I can see where the Church would have been a real horror show for you. My mother use to threaten us with Catholic school if we were not good. Needless to say, that kept us in line (so no, I never went until College, and then it was only chasing a skirt, not because I wanted to go to a Catholic one).
So when you say "RCC Baggage", I can fully sympathize with you. The Church we grew up in no longer exists. If it did, I may be a an atheist as well. It was full of smoke and mirrors and thou shalts and thou shalt nots. They finally got their head screwed on correctly, so after wandering the faith wilderness for many years (trying different ones, even considering Judaism), I came back, sat down and had a very long debate with a priest. And came back (side note that means nothing - the priest later left the priesthood and got married).
We are probably too old to change now (but no one told John Wayne that). So I have no interest in converting you or convincing you. While politically I am more in line with the Christian Right, religiously I am far from them (but I am no more closer to the religious left either). So I will only tell you that I regret you never had a chance to get rid of the RCC baggage. Some find solace in such a rigidity and orderliness. Others (like you and I, I suspect) want things to make sense and never stop questioning. And the old church could never have been for us.
I guess you are like me in another way. How can "our God" abandon so many that never knew him? That is a toughie, and one that I had to wrestle with for a long time. It was that priest that helped me. IN essence, while we have different religions, in the end, "our" God is just our view of God. We have no way of knowing that he is not Vishnu, or the god of any other religion (except Buddhism since they acknowledge no god). It is not "ours" versus "theirs", but of the teachings of the supreme being. Hindus follow the same basic beliefs that Christian do. They just have different window dressing.
So, eliminating the pagan gods and the mythological gods, all religions that persevere seem to have one common central over riding theme to them. Treating your fellow man as humanely as you want to be treated. That tells me 2 things.
1. Either man is a terrible creature that cannot naturally be nice.
2. God decided to give that dictum as his main contribution to his children so that greatness could be achieved.
Anyway, that is the long way I came back to the Church. Oh, I do debate with priests and still do not take what they say as Gospel (I still disagree with them on the concept of Free Will and Omniscience).
Ok, now on to the last item of yours.
WOW! Just WOW. While I have long said something similar, most of the time it goes right over people's head. I approached it from a different angle. And that is we do not live in reality, but in perception-ville. In other words, the way we interact with our world is how we live, not how the world is. I think we are saying the same thing, but from different angles.
Original sin is a problem. But I guess it is like life. In other words, contrary to today's teaching (secular), you are not "born" great. Your worth is determined by your deeds. So in order to "merit" anything, you have to "earn" it. That is half the place that "original sin" came from.
The other was to prove to the common man that no one, not king or emperor, was without fault. Religion does codify that (and hence were we get original sin from), but the concept is a valid one. Charles Phillip George Arther (whatever, all I remember are those 4 of his names) is the same as the lowliest person when you strip away the veneer.
So again, it is simply a life lesson, and not necessarily a death sentence (for unbaptized babies).
As far as Atheism being a faith, it is. Actually though, you appear more agnostic than atheist. But it does not matter. Taking you at your word, you have a belief that there is no higher being. You do not need a religion built around the faith. Many atheists do have that (as demonstrated by their supreme phobia of anything Christian - they confuse the word from for of). But even though doubts are part of life (in your words), you have faith that your belief is the correct one. Just as I do. You live your life as if it was the truth. (my allusion to perception). That is your faith. Everyone has it. Some call it an ideological frame work (I heard Greenspan use that one day when talking to Nostrilitis and realized he was saying the same thing I do). Whatever it is, it is our intersection with reality. for most, it is mostly based in reality. But since we can never know everything, we must assume, perceive, doubt, or "framework" the missing pieces in order to operate in a world where there are more questions than answers.
That is my statement about faith. Faith is the framework. It does not have to be lit candles and statues.
Ok youngster (hehehe) here is my view of me. I am an atheist so I do not believe in any deities. Therefore I can (and do) view all religions that claim one in the same light. I think that one’s gods are picked for them based solely on geographical location i.e. American will produce Christians (going with the majorities), Israel will produce Jews, the Middle East will produce Muslims and India will produce Hindus etc. The reason is simple … we are all born atheists and we were all molded by our surroundings whatever and wherever they were. We are born empty and in need of direction and our small little world allows for only local input. But monotheism is mutually self-destructive and IMO contradictory.
Naw never too old to change Doc we have to go with the evidence wherever it points us. Truth is we just get crankier about it as we age ... kind of goes with incontinence and arthritis. Thanks for the consideration … so nice for a change not being a fan of evangelizing (+/-) either. I don’t consider any deity to have any influence on the ills of society just as I don’t believe miracles for the good. I am an atheist regardless what it may look like.
How can you just throw out the other gods (???) isn’t that a little presumptuous? What can you offer to prove their gods don’t exist or that any one of the gods does? Faith may move mountains but it doesn’t do a damn thing to change reality. If a majority of the faithful felt the way I think you feel about their religious beliefs, there shouldn’t be any need to violently oppose one another but we do. I too will debate my side but I refuse to argue pointlessly.
What is this Golden Rule and where did it come from?
Jythier, do you look up anything for yourself? The Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity is a maxim, ethical code, or morality that essentially states either of the following:
(Positive form of Golden Rule): One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.
(Negative form of Golden Rule): One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated.
This concept describes a "reciprocal", or "two-way", relationship between one's self and others that involves both sides equally, and in a mutual fashion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule
Hey, I swear I've seen that somewhere...
Matthew 7:12!
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."
Of course, this isn't the first place it's from (which you ignored).
The negative is found in Buddhism.
It's funny that you think I needed to look it up.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
