Should Women Priests be allowed?

To try and be a bit clearer:

In areas where a religion disagrees with another religion or belief-system: how do you decide who is "right" (or at least closer-to-the-truth)?

Surely the belief-system which doesn't assert its own automatic rightness is more likely to assess the available information and be reasonable about it?

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

Perhaps it was a poor example on my part, then. Glad it's cleared up now, regardless.


I think your example is the result of disagreement of any kind. It happens with or without religion. When people disbelieve in religion, more often than not they're going to find another central tenet, be it political or personal. People will always make SOMETHING their God, be it money, sex, drugs, their reputation, or their political party. For better or worse (I say better), it is clearly innate in virtually all mankind to place something at the center of their lives.

Or, as Chesterton put it: "when people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing...they believe in anything."

Also, I don't see the basis for your claim that both "refuse to investigate the reality of the situation." Ideas are misrepresented and skewed in all walks of life. You don't need religion for that.

I anticipate that your reply will claim that religion in general is more conducive to the steadfast adherence to misguided beliefs. This might be true, but even if it is, it doesn't speak to the truth of religion. Like virtually anything of significant power or usefulness, it is dangerous in the wrong hands. That doesn't, however, make it a bad thing. Just a potent thing.


This is flat-out false. One of the core beliefs of Christianity is the fallibility of man. At no point does it teach that we are always right, and capable of doing no wrong. It teaches the exact opposite. It is God who can do no wrong. Our imperfection of interpretation and inherent biases are pretty much spelled out, however.

What you're talking about is little more than a caricature.


"Love thy neighbor as thyself." Seems pretty respectful of me.

Regarding the land: I've never interpreted "fill the earth and subdue it" to mean that we can trash the place. Just that it's here for us to make use of in productive ways. Disagreements over what is and is not acceptable use are unavoidable.


The caricaturization continues. You make it sound as if becoming a Christian is an arbitrary choice. It isn't. Speaking for myself, becoming a Christian is a choice which requires inspection, analysis, self-addressed questions, and a heck of a lot of reading on the matter.

As I've said before, it's not so much believing the religion you choose, so much as choosing the religion you believe. And people don't choose religions which do not jibe with the same logical faculties and moral sensibilities they'd use to investigate things in the first place. The investigation you speak of and praise is present in the choosing of a religion, as well as the person's dealings afterwards.


You seem to be singling out Christianity as more sure of itself than other religions. Why? Is there a piece of scripture which conveys this?

The same way you do without a religion: use your head. If you conclude that the other system is clearly in the right, perhaps you've misinterpreted your own. If you're certain you haven't, then perhaps you've chosen to believe the wrong thing.

Using your critical faculties under a religious worldview is the same, fundamentally, as using them without one. I really think you're missing that.

How can you teach anyone anything without asserting that it is right? Even teaching people to doubt presupposes it to be the right thing to do.

I respect that in your case and many others this last point is true. But i don't think all religious people operate in that way. Many dig in their heels and don't evaluate things in a very open way (and many non-believers are the same). The nature of the religion/beliefs facilitate that.

But beyond that, would you renounce your belief of Christ/God if i could prove murder can be right in a way which conflicts with the commandment and contingent interpretations? No, you're far more likely to dodge round this clash-of-"truths" through the interpretation issue. (i.e. change your interpretation, within the limitations of the bible perhaps, but not the idea that all the interpretations pertain to a one-true-god)

Not really - to teach doubt, you can just point out inconsistancies in something. (And if you do end up communicating that various systems of interpretation and "truth" can contradict yet inter-mingle and maintain a type of validity, well, so long as you admit you could be wrong about it all, you're hardly asserting or teaching "the truth" )

Argghhh, and in the interests of simplicity and brevity, that's all i'm going to say. I would love to say more

Cool. I went over-wordy on it unhelpfully as it was

Sure, whether religious or not we can fail to investigate and cling to preferred interpretations. I disagree again tho with the idea that all non-religious people find a central tenet. i think most of us find multiple ones. But if you want a central tenet from which they all spring - it's "the world"

Aha - see. Your going to insist the truth at the centre of your religion is the truth because it is the truth. At the end of the day, so long as you're prepared to be flexible about interpretations surrounding this, it's all cool with me. The problem is when people get too limited by the texts and prescribed habits etc. That's my major beef with religions (and yes, i therefore think they do facilitate skewed perception)

Ahh, that "subdue" term is one that troubles me. I've seen you say in posts from about 2 years ago that you don't believe humans could have a huge impact on god's creation. That's the sort of attitude i'm talking about, which stems from religious appreciations, when i suggest certain faiths may not investigate a problem coz they don't think it could happen.


You may choose to believe that (), but from what i can see, even amongst born-again-christians, the time spent in formative years surround by that centralised beliefs structure limits choice, in the sense that some powerfully instinctive/unconscious side of you believes god exists etc, in the form described.

I've been singling out Christianity in the GM example given mainly because of the potential for the "subdue" thing etc to be badly interpreted etc. And respect for the earth is something very close to my heart. I didn't mean to convay that christianity was more sure of itself in terms of core-belief. All religions are contingent on the centralised-beliefs-set-up, but i do worry about the simple good-bad divisions in all monotheistic religions - i think they are more likely to extend into a rather simplified perception of good-n-bad, yes. The slightly chaotic categorisations of hindusim, native-american-beliefs (as i vaguely understand them), and buddism do seem to offer a less simply-segregated belief-structure. My personal belief (taken from observation of the world, as far as i can tell) is that there is good and bad in all, and my feeling is that this is a healthier perception, which is less likely to lead to entrenched positions of the i'm-obviously-right, this-therefore-must-be-wrong variety.

Ultimately i think we have to generate our own "truth", via promptings from the wealth of human history surrounding us. These truths can't be imparted through text, or even observation, alone. We have to experience these things (and hopefully not have to deal with too rigid a belief structure while trying to reconcile them with our inner worlds)

Yes

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

Laugh i love religious debates here, its all so even! My question Chris is do YOU believe women preists should be allowed?

I'm busy as all get-out, but since Naisy was nice enough to ask twice...

The Bible doesn't really say it. I believe St. Paul says something about women not having power over men, but as there are plenty of female Priests, obviously it's far from definitive just what that means. I think this is another case of people confusing Christians with Christianity.

Back to the question on hand, Should women Priests be allowed?

Only if they're hot

__________________
- Jesus was a pirate who lost his eye-patch

-When in doubt, Kill it

Caitlyn, when I say that other religions are false, I mean that they are false from the standpoint that they reject the teaching that Jesus Christ died on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins and rose from the dead to purchase a place for us in heaven. The other religions teach what we are supposed to do to get into heaven, while Christianity teaches what Christ has already done to get us into heaven. It is "what I have to do" versus "what was done for me."

Christianity, unlike other religions, teaches that we are all sinners and incapable of earning a place in heaven. The only way we can get there is to confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead (Romans 10:9-10).

Any religion that rejects this teaching or doesn't address it at all is false to a Christian who believes that the Bible is true.

__________________
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

Here is what the Bible says:"Overseer" is also interpreted as "Bishop," "Pastor," and "Elder."

If you're speaking of women becoming Catholic Priests then no they should not be and will never be allowed to be. The Church is not a democracy for the worldly views of men to leak over into Her.

Ok I'll add my comments to this debate, should women be priest? Yes if they can do the job, after all, they can't do any worse a job than the male priests. But then again, I'm not religious, so I guess I don't really care either way.

__________________
Gimme some sugar!

Who made the Church if not worldly men with views?

Who has altered the Church over the years if not wordly men with views?

"Women have weak memories, are undisciplined, impulsive and dangerous when given authority over anything." - Catholic Church's edict against women.

__________________

Sounds like male priests.




Okay, not all male priests...

Oh well, at least they didn't say "and were made from a rib". Maybe that's some sort of advancement

That is just astounding.

Actually, the male priest are supposed to represent Christ on earth. Christ was a male and can only be represented through a male.

Golgot, if you ask me then I have to say Christ made the Church. And the Church cannot change Dogmas, just develop them.

I'm Catholic and If you say things like this then you better be able to back them up.

Ask your Priest... I got the information from one here.

Really? Now who's being judgmental. Quite disappointed in you Caitlyn. Such hostility and prejudece towards the Church.