User Tag List

First 678910 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 127

  1. #71
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bubbles View Post
    Jesus had female disciples. Not Apostles, I will agree, but disciples.

    Also, there were female deaconesses in the early Church.
    But it still remains that the Church excludes women from the priesthood because Jesus excluded them from the apostles.

    The Church keeps telling us that the reason they exclude women is because Jesus did.

    The Church understands that Jesus was misogynist so how can they do any less? After all, Jesus is the Son of God. Who could gainsay Him?

  2. #72
    Shaman BlackCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    9w8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    7,005

    Default

    These people aren't thinking that maybe the people who wrote the bible just didn't include Jesus's female disciples/apostles whatever. Maybe the writer was sexist; it seemed prominent back then. How can we ever know for sure?

    It doesn't make rational sense for Jesus to sacrifice himself for humanity; but to not let females from being a disciple/apostle.
    () 9w8-3w4-7w6 tritype.

    sCueI (primary Inquisition)

  3. #73
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackCat View Post
    It doesn't make rational sense for Jesus to sacrifice himself for humanity; but to not let females from being a disciple/apostle.
    It doesn't make any sense for Jesus to be a blood sacrifice so why should it make any sense for Jesus to exclude women from the apostles?

  4. #74
    Diabolical Kasper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Enneagram
    9w8 so/sx
    Posts
    11,544

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueGray View Post
    To me the difference is you can choose your faith but not so much your government.
    Ever heard of elections?


    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    My Government limits religious freedom by separating the Church and State.

    And my Government limits religious freedom by criminalising infibulation.

    And my Government limits religious freedom by criminalising mass murder in the name of Jihad and martyrdom.

    And my Government limits religious freedom by criminalising child sexual abuse in religious institutions and its cover up.

    And my Government limits religious freedom by criminalising the blood sacrifice of animals.

    And my Government limits religious freedom by banning corporal punishment of children in religious institutions.

    And who knows, they may yet limit religious freedom by banning discrimination against women.

    For my Government is a liberal democratic Government based on the limitation of power. As my Government knows that power tends to corrupt and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.
    I for one am glad of all that.

    A church shouldn't be above the law.

  5. #75
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,679

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackCat View Post
    These people aren't thinking that maybe the people who wrote the bible just didn't include Jesus's female disciples/apostles whatever. Maybe the writer was sexist; it seemed prominent back then. How can we ever know for sure?

    It doesn't make rational sense for Jesus to sacrifice himself for humanity; but to not let females from being a disciple/apostle.
    There's loads of stuff about the female following in the bible, it just depends on the reader.

    He had his mother, Mary Magalene (who is credited by some historians as introducing Christianity to the peple tho took it to Europe), there's a number of stories about women, I can think of two or three right away, they arent named but then all of the disciples and apostles arent given equal credit either.

    I dont know what the big deal is, there are female religious orders, there are female scholars, to be equal does not imply uniform and ultimately there are and always will be differences, women have wombs and men dont.

  6. #76
    Priestess Of Syrinx Katsuni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    3w4?
    Posts
    1,238

    Default

    Been forever since I've remembered to step foot in here (always on the bus when I remember XD ), but I'd like to point something out about this...

    The reason why the government has ANY say on this matter at all, despite seperation of church and state, is that religions recieve tax exemptions and other benefits. If yeu are going to be given benefits by the government such as these, yeu then are therefore required to play by the rules set by the government to earn those benefits.

    In short, the government can't FORCE the catholics to allow female priests... but they CAN say if yeu want to get tax breaks for operating here, yeu need to prove yeu're not just a third world hate club locked in the 1600's, for which we're not going to pay yeu to be stupid anymore.

    Part of a country is having people of the same views and beliefs in general, not exacting, but in general. If the general populace believes in the rights of women, or other races, and believes them to be equal... then that government authority has every right to state that anyone who can't play by those rules shall not be rewarded for failure to comply; be this government bodies, individuals, corporations, or religions.

    As such, if the catholic church insists on their antiquated traditions, and insists that women do not deserve equal recognition (look for the jews to be targeted next due to their own racist and sexist background, though they'll only be targeted later due to people screaming 'zomg anti-seminism!' when it's really an overall general sweeping motion not targeted), then they shall not be afforded equal recognition that other religions may be rewarded with.

    I see nothing wrong with this. They're just saying, if yeu want to exempt women, then that's yeur choice, but we won't pay yeu to do it any longer because we don't believe in that as a country. We're not directly asking yeu to change, we're just saying if yeu don't change, then it's yeur loss. If yeu DO change, great, thanks for not being stupid anymore. If yeu don't, then we get more money out of the deal.

    I don't see why anyone would find it strange at all that the government would be annoyed at not receiving taxes from someone who broke the most basic of founding principles and laws as part of their traditional beliefs. Yeu don't normally pay someone to effectively be a criminal. If this were a corporation, people would be screaming that it took them this long to do it, except the government CAN force a corporation to change their policies; they can't change a religion's, but they can revoke benefits provided to such.




    So all this is regardless of my personal views on the matter, because that would make sense no matter which religion or government was in power at the time.

    My personal views hold that "Tradition is no excuse for mediocrity; just because yeu did something wrong for 100 years doesn't provide excuse to do it wrong for another 100." which's been my belief for a long time now. The catholic church in particular holds traditions very high in regard, beyond all common sense, as any changes would mean that they were wrong all this time, and they have an awfully difficult time admitting they were wrong about the "word of God".

    The sooner they can admit that the bible was written by humans, and therefore has human error embedded in it from day one, the sooner they can get around to trying to realize that, if there is a god, he's probably a hell of alot smarter than we are, and if he loves everyone so much, he wouldn't discriminate like that either, and that they've been preaching national propaganda for thousands of years of countries that don't even exist anymore, rather than even consider that such may not be absolute truth.

    Personally, I view the catholic church as little more than a cult, considering their worshipping of idols, saints, and virtually anything but god. The idea of having to pray through a saint or angel rather than directly to god kind of goes against the whole "god is omnipotent" thing, and in general most of their stuff is either bigoted or just nonsensical. But that's personal views and I can't really hold that against them in this case.

    Whot I can hold against them is that they are literally breaking the law of Britain, and should not be afforded benefits by the government of Britain for doing so.

  7. #77
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,679

    Default

    Personally, I view the catholic church as little more than a cult,
    I dont view as objective as a result.

  8. #78
    Is Willard in Footloose!! CJ99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    582

    Default

    I don't agree with the bill but for different reasons entirely!

    However when the cultural values of a country clash with the values of a religion then that religion must change or leave.
    "I'd never die for my beliefs, I might be wrong"

    "Is it not enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe there are fairys at the bottom of it too"

    "Intelligence is being able to hold too opposing views in the mind at the one time without going crazy" - Now all I need to figure out is if I'm intelligent or crazy!

  9. #79
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,679

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CJ99 View Post
    I don't agree with the bill but for different reasons entirely!

    However when the cultural values of a country clash with the values of a religion then that religion must change or leave.
    Yeah, I dont believe that, I suspect you dont either but you're thinking of a religion which is foreign to your own personal experience.

    There should be a division, properly recognised, between the temporal and other powers, however we've had two great examples of what happens when the state is the only source of moral authority, communism and Nazism, not humanity's high points wouldnt you agree?

  10. #80
    Is Willard in Footloose!! CJ99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Yeah, I dont believe that, I suspect you dont either but you're thinking of a religion which is foreign to your own personal experience.

    There should be a division, properly recognised, between the temporal and other powers, however we've had two great examples of what happens when the state is the only source of moral authority, communism and Nazism, not humanity's high points wouldnt you agree?
    Actually I was raised a Roman Catholic with parents who met in church and I live in britian so when it comes to personal experience in this thread I reckon I am one of the most experienced.

    As to those two examples Nazism yes horrible, but communism I actually agree on in areas but seperate discussion.

    If the state wants to make something illegal and the people of the country agree then thy have the right too. If a non-religious institue complained they would be made to give logical reasons. But because its a church complaining suddenly the "buts its our traditions" reason is good enough. It wouldn't be for a non-religious institution. Thats double standards!
    "I'd never die for my beliefs, I might be wrong"

    "Is it not enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe there are fairys at the bottom of it too"

    "Intelligence is being able to hold too opposing views in the mind at the one time without going crazy" - Now all I need to figure out is if I'm intelligent or crazy!

Similar Threads

  1. Florida Judge Overturns Ban On Gay Adoption
    By 01011010 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 04-27-2009, 03:30 PM
  2. Ban on Short Selling
    By ygolo in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-19-2008, 05:03 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO