Women Bishops.

Remove all ads!

O.K. and what is your reaction in such cases ? ...

 

I let out deep *sigh* about how little some countries have progressed in their legistlation in the past years and feel lucky that I'm not living in such a country.

I really could not care less about female priests in other churches. It's their issue. I just find it funny how their reasonings for the patriarchal priesthood have their grounds in a patriarchal society which has more or less disappeared from the western world.

I think the same goes for most of us, we are really not trying to pass a law which states that you should allow female priests we are merely trying to find out reasons to why female priests should be excluded and why women are unfit to be priests.

 

Arendil has a good point. We all think our way is right. If we didn't think it were right, we'd pick something else (generally people don't attempt to be wrong). Some try to force their opinions on others, but people like that are generally screened out of public sites like this one. Others don't even bother to explain themselves (all you out there reading and not posting; You know who you are! ). The people in this discussion belong to the third group: people who explain their opinion without expecting you to agree.

Responding to Arendil's specific allegations, I think we agnostics would just like church to be a little less preachy, and a little more reflective. Part of the reason that I personally am no longer a Catholic is that there is very little room for compromise or change. If there were, however, I think a fair amount of agnostics would be glad to attend a 'more enlightened' church (of their own faith). We all just want to belong, but we can only take so much of what we deem nonsense. I'm sure you probably don't agree on that point, but that's why we even have a discussion in the first place. If you can't handle a little criticism, just ignore the boards. Most people do.

 

The Roman Catholic Church, Arendil. I happen to be a member of that Divine Institution. I may be non-believer but I'm not a non-member - so I'm not talking about you , I'm talking about us . Belief is just a small part of being catholic, most of the time the church can do without.

By the way, I was in no way claiming to tell Gnarfflinger’s church how to behave; I merely met his claim of the equality of men and women in his church with doubts which have not been removed up til now – which you surely will realize if you take your time to read the preceding posts again. Anyway, thanks for your contribution.

 

Equality doesn't mean that everyone can do everything in similar manner. Equality is not summary of talents. We are all equal in the eyes of God, being His children, and this is the only way it is true. How are you going to compare people with dramatically different abilities ? Genius and a moron. But both are equal in the eyes of God.

Next - I don't know if women are unsuited for priesthood. Main, and if you insist, possibly only reason that they can't become one is tradition, and fact that Christ choosed only male apostles.
But this tradition (called spoken) is very important, equally as written tradition (Bible).So question is - what is the point to change something that lasts two thousands years ? Actually I asked some fellow catholic women, and didn't find any who wanted to be a priest...maybe just my luck... ...

Also, role of women in CC is not obviously that bad. To begin - Creation. Each subsequent created creature is more and more advanced, and woman is last. There is an interpretation that because of this she is the most perfect creation, better that man... ...

Than - Mother of Jesus, Holy Mary. Glorificated, the only sinless human being in history, main saint of the Church. Her role in JPII's teaching was formidable to say the least. Present Pope says in similar way.

Last thing - you may not know, but Church as well is often depicted as a...Woman...Christ's Bride...

 

Last night I saw a documentary that stated that Jesus was the first religious leader (in that area) to encourage women to follow him.

This is strictly how I see it and there is nothing directed towards any person here.

Jesus seems to have liked and respected women. Paul did not like women and did not respect them. Unfortunately (IMO) Christianity is founded more on Paul's teachings than Jesus's.

'Viking' women had many rights in pre-Christian times but lost them when the Northmen became Christian. I believe the same holds true for many of the Celtic people.

 

Yes there are many famous Warrior Queens in Ireland like 'Maeve of Connact', but women were greater than men, as they brought life into the world.

Christianity ruined womens rights in Ireland. Actually I should say the people that brought Christianity ruined womens rights.

I am not sure about the rest of the Celtic countries though.

 

That's the impression I got when your previous post seemed to look down upon the concept of giving birth.

Equal in status, differenced are in responsibilities given. You don't like it? I shouldn't be surprised. you have turned up your nose or mocked anything to do with religion so far...

It's not that you can't, but the Priesthood (I'm guessing that you may be thinking RC, but I'm talking LDS here. All worthy adult males are to hold the office of Elder, ans this I refer too.) gives certain authority to give blessings and counsel. The Church is also very active in promoting the Family and the Home, and have produced many resources to help in these regards.

That's your opinion. I've told you what what I believe and you ridiculed it. I can't even feign surprise anymore...

It's almost like they expect us to change the church to suit them. The Lord doesn't change, why should his church?

And in most churches, it's not working...

From the perspective of one living in such a country, I don't call it progress.

But the Bible instructs us TO go forth and preach the gospel. I do think that reflection ought not be neglected though. It is through reflection that we are open to the Spiritual guidance that testifies unto us that what we do is right.

That's the problem. People tend to write off what we teach as nonsense, thus they avoid religion. If you don't really believe, or believe it to be nonsense, then no real motivation to get out of bed, and you will start finding other things to do with your Sunday mornings...

And I cannot remove those doubts on my own. It is the Spirit of the Lord (which you don't believe in) that removes those doubts.

Interesting. I guess that since Moses didn't tackle the subject, and the Scribes and Pharisees based off Moses's teachings, women were pushed aside until Christ set things straight...

 

Well, taking that question generally and not just specific to religion: presumably, whatever it is that has lasted two thousand years isn't perfect, and therefore it can be improved upon, yes? That is the impetus for change, after all; improvement.

The point of having female priests? To improve the church.

Now, the question is, do you (that's a general 'you') think it would improve the church to have female priests. I do, but, erm, I'm not likely to attend a Mormon or Catholic church (or any church, for that matter) regardless of whether or not they, in my eyes, improve things, so, hey, whatever.

Come to think of it, it's like gay marriage in that way; I have views on what would be "right" or "improvement," but it ain't going to affect me one way or the other.

 

But such changes would affect *my* life in many ways...also I don't see how female priests would improve the Church, sorry.

And this - there are churches that allow such a thing, and do you think that they are better than, say, Catholic Church ?

 

I reject the assumption of imperfection that you have made. If the Gospel of Jesus Christ, whih makes no allowance for female priests, is perfect, then that's a reason NOT to change it. Further, There are those that may not agree that proposed changes are improvement, and would argue that contradictions to core tenets (allowing Abortion or Gay Marriage) would deteriorate the Church as a whole.

Then why do you expect us to jump through hoops to please someone that doesn't give a damn?

I take an opposing view that these deviations from the gospel of Jesus Christ cheapen these churches. The more you water down and edit the core doctrine, the less accurate the gospel message that is taught.

 

I don't expect you to. I was simply voicing my opinion on the matter, while at the same time noting that my opinion isn't all that relevant, since the issue is highly unlikely to affect me.

Which is to say, I was bored and I posted. I assume you've done the same in the past. What's the problem?

To be brutally honest, yes; at least in that respect.

 

Yes, because they have removed a form of bigotry from their midst. Less bigotry = better. Keep in mind that I am speaking only in this regard, and that I am not saying that one organized church is wholly better than another.

 

Yep, as far as I know those who think that this is the better solution, *mostly* do not attend to ANY church...sorry, your convenience is not enough reason to change anything in Church teachings...

 

I used to attend church regularly, and when I did, the church I attended had a female pastor (and a male pastor as well). Worked pretty well. Certainly wasn't any obvious reason the woman shouldn't have been a pastor.

 

There's no real justification for a hard and fast position of discrimination other than tradition. It's the way it's always been and people grew comfortable with it. Unfortunately, some other people became uncomfortable, and when they asked for change the first group felt it necessary to come up with some sort of justification for keeping the status quo instead of changing with the times. Saying that allowing a church to evolve with the changing social structure cheapens it is intellectually dishonest and far more cheapening, IMO - what church advocates slavery any more?

Honestly, I don't care in the slightest what happens within the RC or LDS or any church. What I find interesting is all the intellectual hoops that are being jumped through to defend the indefensible, instead of allowing change. Knock yourselves out, it's quite the sideshow. Crap like this is a big part of what soured me on the RC church to begin with.

 

@AMaster - so you have one church that suits you...let other live differently...

@Rally - so simply you don't like RC ? Oh, well...

But from some of your posts I assume that you symphatize with judaism, so tell me what do you think about women rabbi's ?

 

@Arendil: A rabbi is a rabbi. Gender simply isn't a relevant issue.

Think of it this way - no two people are going to have exactly the same interpretations of any area of study, religious or not. Many factors go into shaping each individual's perspectives. Gender is just one of those factors, no more or less than any other.

And thank you for understanding that I was expressing my personal feelings about the Church's policy, not trying to dictate what the policy should be.

 

But what if the reason is NOT bigotry? Or is it simply called bigotry by those on the outside because they don't like our rules?

Exactly. The doctrine or procedures don't change to suit the world around them. That's why we, the religious, stick out like a sore thumb now...

Why should we be expected to change? You won't let us silence our critics (nor should we ba allowed to), then you on the outside should not be allowed to criticize us. The RCC did Excommunicate some women that staged a Ceremony of their own to take upon themselves the mantle of the Priesthood...

 

Well, that seems to be "as far as you know," since there are churches that do allow women to preach the Word, and people do attend those churches. You may desire to use the term "convenience," in this regard, but I would describe those who prevent an "individual" from preaching the Word for what they are - tyrannical. I suppose crafting a democratic institution may be a bit more "convenient," since the love of liberty is the natural condition of mankind - perhaps I should add "womankind" as well.

[ July 28, 2005, 09:16: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]