Should Women Priests be allowed?

I'm glad you feel that way. I was just trying to understand how some Christians that believe every word of the bible is true do arrive at negative and overly-strict role definitions - and to check what james's take on it was.

That is all

(please note - my main problem with religious texts is that they allow people who believe they have arrived at Gods's/"the" truth thru interpretation of them to act negatively as well as positively. If interpreted in a "secular" way i believe they are marvellous examples of historical attempts to get the best out of humanity)

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

What negative things? So we went on a few crusades. Get over it. That was 10 centuries ago! Can't you just move on?

Duh dumbdumb- you want modern examples? What about evangelicals etc who categorise all other religions as representations of the devil at work? What about people who do interpret the above sections of the bible as examples of strong domestic-only-roles for women? And comparable interpretations concerning gays? And those who decide that whatever morality they arrive at thru the bible etc is based on god's will/truth and therefore more valid than other moralities in general etc? (this type of social-superiority belief can lead to invasions you know )

Kong supposes that every church can do as it pleases, but if a Christian church wishes to follow the teachings of the Bible then it cannot allow women to be priests.

The Bible clearly states that women aren't even allowed to speak in church much less become priests! Of course, most Christians and (it seems) most churches only follow the guidelines of the Bible that are convenient for them.

__________________
Kong's Reviews:
Stuck On You
Bad Santa

I take it that men do have the right to talk in church then in the bible? If so, freaky!

I'd say in an ideal world these books should just be used as a guide to how past cultures have tried to maintain a "civilised" lifestyle, which we can learn from in lots of ways. Taking them as "the word" of god has always seemed peculiar in the context of debatable translation anyway.

Have your read Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches: The Riddles of Culture? If not, you should check it out; you'd like it. The author tries to explain why and how cultures develop seemingly irrational practices, and he's pretty successful in doing so. One of the things he covers is the belief in a messiah. Interesting stuff.

Oooo, sounds good. Always interested in social trends. We're a funny old beasty

Duh dumbdumb- you want modern examples? What about evangelicals etc who categorise all other religions as representations of the devil at work? That's Jehovah Witnesses What about people who do interpret the above sections of the bible as examples of strong domestic-only-roles for women? The Taliban? And comparable interpretations concerning gays? It says flat out don't be gay And those who decide that whatever morality they arrive at thru the bible etc is based on god's will/truth and therefore more valid than other moralities in general etc?
Mar 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments [is], Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

Mar 12:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this [is] the first commandment.

Mar 12:31 And the second [is] like, [namely] this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
I think that second one beats anything other moralities can come up with don't you?

Thank you for backing up my points Sunny

I am really really interested in what Chris has to say on the topic, because as far as I look at it, im all for female priests BUT the bible forbids its (i believe dont quote me its just popular opinion that the bible forbids women in a position of power)....oh please Chris reply, oh please reply we havent had a religious debate for sooo long im s-s-s-uffering withdrawls

It's pretty simple why Christians believe that other religions are false.

__________________
Beep Beep!

Hhmm.. That's interesting. Then why don't we believe other religons are false? Didn't you see the Pope at the Wailing Wall?
At the "Wailing Wall"

The second stage of the Pope's last day in Jerusalem was his visit to the "Wailing Wall," built by Herod to enclose the Temple's courtyard. It is the Jewish sacred place par excellence; here they pray and weep in memory of the ancient splendor of Jerusalem and the Temple, once the center of all Jewish life, definitively destroyed by the Romans. They place small votive messages in the crevices of the slabs of stone.

John Paul II also came to place his bit of paper. It was the prayer he read in Rome on March 12 praying for forgiveness for the sufferings caused to Jews by the Church's children. This petition for forgiveness is also a commitment to genuine fraternity with the people of the Covenant. It was a very emotional moment: the Pontiff walked up to the Wall alone and prayed there for a few moments before placing the piece of paper in one of the crevices. He then placed his right hand on the Wall, before blessing himself.

Or Kazakstan

Pope John Paul II said yesterday that the Catholic Church respects "authentic Islam," making the distinction between it and the fanaticism that some fear will stigmatize the religion in the wake of the U.S. attacks. The pope's statement, made during a four-day visit to the Central Asian country of Kazakstan, echoed his efforts to calm international anger following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. The pope has condemned the attacks but has called for restraint as the United States readies its military for retaliatory strikes, possibly in nearby Afghanistan.

Or Vatican City

VATICAN CITY (AP) -- With Pope John Paul II presiding
next to the Dalai Lama, representatives of 20 of the world's
faiths closed a millennium-ending gathering Thursday with a
forceful denunciation of religious extremism.

Assembled in St. Peter's Square, the 200 clergy and lay people appealed
to world leaders to ``refuse to allow religion to be used to
incite hatred and violence.''

``Any use of religion to support violence is an abuse of religion,''
John Paul said in his final message to the four-day council,
speaking to a crowd of red- and orange-robed Asian monks, Catholic
priests in black cassocks, Muslim women in head scarfs and
Africans and American Indians in the traditional clothing of their own
countries.

Beyond the message of tolerance it produced, the council was remarkable
for the scenes it brought to a bastion of Christianity:

An American Indian pivoting in the center of the square at sunset,
blessing the four corners of the earth from the heart of Rome.
Muslims spreading out newspapers in the marble colonnade to kneel toward
Mecca and pray

I can't explain what the Pope says. He doesn't speak for me.

I do believe that other religions are false. I wouldn't be a Christian if I believed otherwise. Jesus' words don't leave room for anything else.

Still, that doesn't give Christians the justification to be rude, demeaning, or murderous.

__________________
Jim Lewis
To BE or Not to BE, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Barium Enema
Crouching Tiger, Paint Your Wagon - Forums

Did you miss this part?
"Any use of religion to support violence is an abuse of religion,''
~John Paul II

Either way - neither of you support abuse of other religions and their followers, based on your various interpretations of the bible. However, there are others who are not so understanding. This is the core problem with these books being treated as more than just social-guides gleaned from past experience. IMO

So in other words you think what my Native American elders taught me was false? That I should not treat others with love, respect, and kindness… nor should I be willing to share or sacrifice all that I have for another whose need is greater… nor should I take full responsibilities for my actions… nor should I care for the earth as the Mother because she provides that which I need to survive and that I should never take more then I actually need… nor should I believe the Great Father provides for the needs of all his children and not just a chosen few?

__________________

Saying that a religion is false is not the same as saying that it contains no truth. Most religions overlap significantly in their core teachings.

If I were to tell you that I ran a website, and it was the most popular on the Internet, my statement would be false, despite the fact that I do, in fact, run a website.

Erm, um, eh?

This sounds supiciously like the my-religion-is-best because my-religion-is-best argument again. How does the second point back up the first idea? Or is it supposed to be an example of a statement containing both true and false elements?? If so, it doesn't tally well. (the first statement seems to talk about the idea of "truth" condensed into one concept, which then permeates all the things built on it - i.e. religions that believe themselves to be based around the greatest-truth as it were, but still recognise areas of correlation with other belief-structures. That seems to be a distinct situation from two concepts in a sentence, one of which is false. That's all )

Whatever the case, the "falseness" argument still seems to rely on the my-faith-is-the-one-true-faith idea, which can cause people to perceive their beliefs, actions and decisions to be superior, when they're not necessarily so. It all depends on interpretation of course, but the worrying aspect is always when people take this believed superiority-of-position as the sole/central justifier for their approach to life. i.e. perceiving one type of murder as being better than another for example (as in the suicide-bombing interpretation of the koran), or a cultural-approach being better than another (as is often the case with empire-expansions etc).

It's this aspect of viewing other faiths/approaches etc as "false" per se which is the worrying thing, and can be extended to very damaging extents by some individuals and groups.

Looking at a genuine day-to-day example: Let's say for example that a christian agrees with many native-american beliefs, but ultimately believes that s/he has access to the superior interpretation in areas where they differ (and the native-indian equally believes in the truth of their interpretation). Therefore, if the native-indian was claiming that GM food was destroying variety and crop-health on their land in Canada, and should be stopped, but the christian farmer causing the problem believed that they had been given dominion over the world (in the absolute-control interpretation), and could be doing no wrong, they would see themselves as automatically justified (despite the existing evidence, and even in the face of further proof - well, at least in the case of an unreasonable christian )

The point is:
(1) potential for unbending conflict on points of disagreement
(2) potential for lack of investigation into the scientifically and socially gauged "reality" because the matter is already decided in peoples' heads

Um, my statement didn't attempt to defend, justify, or argue in favor of any religion over any other. At all. How do you manage to detect hints of self-justification in virtually everything I say on the subject of religion, even when no justification of any kind is present? Are we reading the same posts?

The point is applicable to all religions. If you think a belief system is "false," that does not mean you necessarily reject everything it teaches. Or most of what it teaches, even. This isn't obvious? It seems to mirror your opinion of Christianity: nice rules, most of them make sense to you, but you don't buy the Divinity of Jesus, which belief in the system hinges on. Hence, you think the religion is false, even though you believe it teaches some admirable things.


You're over-analyzing terribly. I'm well aware that a statement need not be taken altogether as one true or false value, but I'd argue that perhaps a religion does. Any system of belief which claims to offer fundamental cosmic insights almost inherently contradicts itself if it takes a more lax view of the matter.

Regardless, this has revealed itself to be a purely semantic difference. A "false" religion in this context clearly refers to a religion which the speaker does not believe to be ultimately accurate. It does not carry with it any implication that all teachings within that religion must therefore be bad.


As I've pointed out many times before, any belief held with anything resembling consistency and confidence is subject to the exact same potential pitfalls. Regardless, this is part of our larger, ongoing spirituality debate, and no so much related to what I was getting at in my last post.

Heheh, okay, yeah, let's save the bulk of this for the other thread (bler, not looking forward to the semantics side )(i agree with your first point, i was just puzzled by the second sentence is all. It didn't seem to tally).

Alright, but taking the simple idea that one faith (i never declared which one at the beginning either ) believes itself to be the "true-est", but can of course overlap with others where they agree.....what do you think of example i tacked on to the last post?

What i DO have a problem with is when religions DISagree with another. In that example, both sides have beliefs, and both might refuse to investigate the reality of the situation coz of a belief in their own "rightness".

As it is, the situation is more complex than that. In that particular example, the christian belief-system really doesn't encourage investigation of the matter because the matter is decided in advance. They are right and capable of doing no wrong (so they believe). The native-american stance requires a type of respect that the christian one does not, which prescribes examination of the situation (to at least gauge if wrong is being done to the land - even if their might be a prediliction to perceive such things).

Now from my perspective (which, incidently, i disagree is contingent on one central perception of truth, which you assert again...but....other thread, other thread )....observation of the facts should be used to resolve disagreement. But if the Christian believes he's right already, why should he investigate or negotiate? He won't. It so happens the native-american stance (even if taken as being dogmatically-insistant of their rightness on their side too) involves investigating the situation.

I say, this is a central problem with faiths in general when they are overly assertive of their own automatic rightness in areas of discord. And, as it happens, i don't like the interpretation of the world being something to which we can do no wrong, which some christians walk around with. Heigh ho.