Should Women Priests be allowed?

I thought I would ask this and see what eveyone's said on this, ok do you think that woman should become prist?My friend who is a christen told me that there is author girl's at her church and even if they do that they would never become like the author boy and become a prist because it is not allowed!
Do you argree with this?What are your views?
See you around!JM

__________________
Jackie Malfoy
Fourteen
Slytherin
Favorite Movie of all time:Star Wars!
Online offline boyfriend:AdarkSideJedi(brad)
Other Sites I belong tooeathcurse.com Darkmark.com and StarWars.com and Adult Swim.com!

I don't see why not. But if women are smarter than men, why would they want a life of no sex? Only a dummy would agree to that. Lol

Stick to the subject sunshine I thought we agreed transexuals were the brainiest anyway

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

And many men have already agreed to this why…


Personally I think women should be allowed to become a Priest if they want to be... the Presbyterians, Methodist, and even the Church of England have all concluded women should be allowed in the Clergy, but I won’t hold my breath for the Roman Catholic Church to come to that same conclusion. The last time I read anything about this, the Catholic Church was extremely opposed to idea…

__________________

What in the holy helmet is Prist? Is it like a Priest but a woman?

__________________
Pumpkins scream in the DEAD of night!

Wow, I'm ten years senior to you Jackie Malfoy! I feel old

I don't see any reason why women shouldn't become priests. I certainly think it somewhat unfair that altar boys can become priests but altar girls can't. I think.

__________________
Mr M Rides Again

MoFo Survivor - r3port3r66 wins!!!!!!

So is it only the Catholic church that is digging its heels in on this one Cait? That and the condom policy are really daft IMO. I heard there's now a rebel-group of Catholics who are saying believers should use the pill - which i'm glad to hear, altho it doesn't solve the main thing that angers me, which is suppression of condom-use in africa, where the AIDS problem is just so ****ing rife. There was a recent story in New Scientist saying missionaries/priests in Africa were claiming condoms don't stop viruses, which is just downright untrue. It was a total bit of spin, and it's really not helping.

I just find a lot of that stuff so peculiar. The debate over homosexual priests has been interesting tho. It's nice to actually see debate, rather than outright dismissal/proclamation.

However, why do alllllll the churches seem to lag so far behind the rest of society? Or at least, that's my perception. It's not like any of these institutions look like moral-bastions, what with the wide-spread child-abuse allegations etc.

Sorry to spread the topic out, but i find religious institutions baffling ultimately (i think you can guess i'm being polite/restrained here ).

I don’t know if it is just the Catholic Church or not Golgot… with so many denominations, my guess is that they are not the only ones…

That really doesn’t surprise me that Missionaries/Priests are claiming condom use does not stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases… but I saw something on the news the other day about a woman (sorry, I don’t remember her name) from the US who has started a campaign to educate the people of Africa and China about Aids and condom use... so maybe if more people like her get involved, it will make a difference…

Yeah, it's so hard to keep track of who believes in what ().

Cool, i hope she has some luck. There are plenty of people on the ground trying to spread the word, but it's hard enough to promote them without other people actively denouncing them and desuading institutions from giving out free ones etc. That's one of the major problems. (the Church was using pseudo-science as well in this latest case, possibly to convince all levels of society or to try and have a "scientific" reason for this belief - i.e. they pointed out that very small particals can slip through the latex, which is true - but the further claim that this permitted STDs to get through is demonstrably not true. And they also mis-represented safety-statistics. Shameful. )

Condoms are not 100% safe, but if used properly, will reduce the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS.
http://www.fda.gov/oashi/aids/condom.html

The studies found that even with repeated sexual contact, 98-100% of those people who used latex condoms consistently and correctly remained uninfected.
http://www.aids.org/info/FAQs.html#condom

Check those Urls. FDA, Aids.org. Condoms are not 100% safe.

For Golgotti,
Those who consider condoms a panacea for Africa's AIDS epidemic ignore their track record and naively apply a U.S. solution to an African problem. In fact, the African countries with the highest levels of condom availability -- Zimbabwe, Botswana, South Africa and Kenya -- also have some of the highest HIV rates in the world
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Nov28.html

Never said they were 100% safe. But when you follow the guidelines on the packet the chances of SDT transferal is very small.

Didn't know that about the condom-to-aids correlation (erm, is it a US solution btw? ). Still, i understand the main problem is in education. Knocking them all the time just doesn't help is all. That's a good article tho - i see what he's saying - condoms are only really effective in high risk groups etc. Never thought about it like that before. Tho good luck trying to convince those bigger nations that they should all behave themselves and get involved in faithful marriages. It seems to me that the information dispersal and behaviour reinforcement needed to acheive that can happen more easily in a smaller nation.

Personally i think some sort of cranberry-sauce sex ritual could sort the problem out

Frankly, I think everyone should become a prist. Not that I know what a prist is. I'm assuming it means "clean person".

__________________
www.esotericrabbit.com

Only when you're in your teens. Ba-bum. Who wants to be the curly-haired straight guy we get to slap? (EDIT: wow, that comes across as kinky whichever way you look at it. So much for cleanliness )

Is no one going to...
Because... and I mean...
I...


No personal attacks based on grammar, spelling, or sentence structure?
I feel so immature in comparison.

__________________
"We are all worms, but I do believe I am a glow-worm."
--Winston Churchill

She's only a little clean thing - but i'm sure silver could edit in what she meant to say (oh i love ragging arsey australians, i so do)

Most denominations that still believe that the Bible is true do not believe that women should be priests. That belief is based upon the clear teaching of Scripture.

Basically, the Bible says that men are supposed to be the spiritual leaders of the family. Most women that I talk to wish their good-for-nothing-spiritually husbands would become a spiritual leader.

And BTW, the Bible doesn't talk about who is better qualifed to be the spiritual leader; it talks about who was appointed to be the spiritual leader. If you just went on qualifications rather than responsibility, it would usually be the woman. Perhaps God appointed men to be the spiritual leaders because he knew that instinctively we would avoid the responsibility.

Ultimately, someone has to be in charge of different issues. The only way this works is for one person to yield authority when there is a disagreement. My wife tells people she's glad that she's not the one with that responsibility because then I'm the one in trouble when the wrong decision is made.

Of course, if I am a good spiritual leader, I'm also supposed to love her as Christ loves her. I'm supposed to put her needs before mine. I'm supposed to listen to her. I'm supposed to be the kind of husband that she would want to follow spiritually.

It's why when you form a business, you should never do it on a 50-50 basis. One person should always have more stock, even if it is 50.1-49.9. That way there is someone who is responsible to make the decisions when there is a disagreement. I learned this little tid-bit listening to a legal call-in radio show where a judge dispensed advice on different matters.

__________________
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

Well, judging from all the child-molestation problems in various Churches etc - i think the men could do with some moral guidance matey. Under the rationale you've presented outside of the bible confines (erm, i.e. stuff gleaned from radio chat shows etc) you'd obviously have no problem in theory with a woman taking on that spiritual responsability. But i understand that you give up ultimate authority for such decisions to the bible.

What makes me suspicious tho, is when a religious text tallies with an older form of social structure that has been successfully reinvented in other areas. That is to say: the overarching social idea of men as breadwinners and women as housecarers can (and should IMO) be reassessed - and has been. There are teething troubles, like women leaving it too late to have kids, but it's definitely the type of social experiment worth having in my opinion. (and try stopping women expressing their intelligence outside of the home ). Men can care for kids after the brest-feeding stage (i advocate not rushing to bottle feeding for health reasons on both sides). Women can do most any job a man can do (aside from the most physical - and would they want to? ). It seems a shame that biblical imperative doesn't allow this to take place in the church as well is all.

Again, a more complete knowledge of Scripture would solve this problem. The Bible doesn't teach that women are supposed to be stuck at home.
This ideal woman buys property, grows a vineyard, sells goods, dispenses wisdom, brings praise to herself at the entrance to the city, brings praise to her husband for finding such a catch, takes care of the poor, etc. She is industrious and very hard-working. BTW, this is a proverb taught to King Lemuel by his mother.

I didn't say they were house-bound. Just house-orientated. Notice how the context of all of these various activities centres around domestic issues. It's not about being stuck at home - it's about being tied to the domestic.

Could you justify "computer-programmer" for example under those definitions? (and in fact, would you be happy for your wife to become one if she had desire and ability, while you stayed at home, if that was the best arrangement for your marriage?).

-well, not really. She buys a field - which, combined with the vineyard thing/the foraging idea of going out and finding food mentioned in the proverb, re-inforces the idea that her sphere is that of food and its provision only - not general trade.

Yes, she makes and sells clothes. Again, we're looking at a domestic based activity tied to providing for the family first and foremost we can infer (and perhaps even the perception of "looking good"/appearances etc). Would you feel the bible allows for a modern woman to sell cars for example?

I don't doubt that the bible makes sure the gender roles don't degenerate into a feeling of extreme superiority vs. inferiority, coz to be honest such a social system wouldn't survive. (people level the same accusation against Islam etc, altho most traditional muslim women form N.Africa i've met were happy with their uneducated but domestically-tied role). But the question of the spheres they define being legitmate, especially in the modern world, still remains. The way i see it, the above proverb allows for women to go out and shop. Wehey. Oh the liberation. At a push they could perhaps become a clothes designer - so long as they made sure there was food on the table at the end of the day .

Golgot, it seems like you just enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing.

Everything back then was house-oriented. It was 3,000 years ago!! Most people were either farmers or ranchers. They worked at home and lived off what they produced. There weren't factories or office buildings. Your business was at home.

You didn't go to the store and buy clothing unless you were extremely wealthy. You either bought the fabric and dye or you made it from your own livestock or plants. It specifically says that she makes linen garments and sells them. She supplies belts to the tradesmen. That is a business. She wasn't selling them to herself. She couldn't have been manufacturing computers because they didn't exist back then. You're acting like this is an all-inclusive list of things that a woman is allowed to do. It is a proverb that describes a hard working, family loving, praise-worthy woman who lived 3,000 years ago.

Buying a field is buying property. I don't know where you get off saying it isn't. The defition of property is: "1. Something owned; a possession. 2. A piece of real estate. It meets both of those definitions. It says that she buys a field, and from her earnings she plants a vineyard. She has a business, it is not just work for her household.

It might be that "the Bible makes sure the gender roles don't degenerate into a feeling of extreme superiority vs. inferiority" because doing so IS WRONG.

Your whole last paragraph is a horrible interpretation of that text. By your definition, if a man buys leather and makes it into a belt, then he is a manufacturer. But if a woman does it, she was just shopping??? If a man buys a field, earns money, and plants a vineyard; then he is farmer. If a woman does it than she is just making groceries? How can you possibly take that text, given that it was written before we really even had manufacturing and service industries, and call it demeaning toward women? If anything, it described a renaissance woman in her time.

I think all you've proven is that you want Christianity to suppress women, and when presented with evidence that it is not supposed to, you just choose to ignore it and/or twist a plain text into something that suits your own purposes.

There is nothing in the Bible that says who has to work at home and who has to work outside of the home. There is nothing in the Bible that says that the wife has to raise the kids and the husband can't. There is nothing in the Bible that prevents both the man and woman from working outside the home. You are making distinctions that do not exist. Therefore, it doesn't matter if you are a programmer, a Citigroup executive, an accountant, a car saleswoman, or a Mary Kay saleswoman. What matters is that provision for the family and caretaking of the family both occur. As long as that is discussed and agreed upon by the husband and wife, it doesn't matter what roles are taken.

__________________
Beep Beep!