Discrimination against women by Christians

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]your attempt at sarcasm is pitiful. please reboot and try again.
It's probably just me, but your constructive criticism rings a touch hallow. If--- as you suggest--- my attempt did not strike its intended sarcastic chord, how on earth could you have adduced my intent? I contend that my aim, execution and result were all in perfect harmonious tand ...[text shortened]...
who is the ignorant ham now?
The one expounding when refrain was the order of the day.[/b]

Challenged the ill-placed assertions of the protagonist.
oh, do you mean that there isn't an excerpt from watchtower mag out there? that think is making stuff up? that watchtower official position isn't discrimination against women?

Originally posted by pawnhandler
The point is about eligibility for receiving the sacraments, not administering them (per se). A man can receive any of them. In fact, depending on the circumstances of his life, he can receive all of them. That is, if he's married but then his wife dies (presumably not murdered by him), he can then be a "late vocation" and receive Holy Orders. A fema as well. Bishops have often taken away property from nuns just because they felt like it.

That is, if he's married but then his wife dies (presumably not murdered by him), he can then be a "late vocation" and receive Holy Orders.

Just to be precise, there are a number of circumstances that would allow a married man to receive Holy Orders. A married Eastern Catholic for example can be ordained. A married minister who converts from Anglicanism or Lutheranism may also obtain exemption. In the Latin church too, a married man can be ordained a deacon.

A female, however, is only eligible for six of the sacraments. Being a nun, for example, isn't a sacramental equivalent of being a priest. It isn't a sacrament at all.

This isn't quite true. Conscration is not a sacrament, but it is sacramental. The profession of vows is not empty ritual but a real sacramental moment.

Furthermore, simply because something is not a sacrament does not mean it is less important. In fact, consecration to religious life has historically been regarded as a higher calling than a vocation to the priesthood. This was a point that Pope John Paul II often came to --- that the evangelical councels of religious life (celibacy, poverty and obedience) have an eschatological meaning (that is, they represent exactly what heaven and the end world will be.)

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Do you also advocate racial discrimination using the same line of "reason"? It's probably not too late to join the KKK if you haven't already. Just tell them that you believe in "racial-based roles" as they do.

Spoken like a true bigot. To what race do you prefer? The human one? Man is divided by ethnicity and/or nationalism, two things which are eventually eradicated by time and inter-marriage.

Your thread is crap.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
[b]Challenged the ill-placed assertions of the protagonist.
oh, do you mean that there isn't an excerpt from watchtower mag out there? that think is making stuff up? that watchtower official position isn't discrimination against women?[/b]

I haven't really got into the JW dish on women, as their overall slant is dismissed at the door. What I have challenged is the use and application of a biblical mandate--- or am I supposed to say "persondate?"

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I haven't really got into the JW dish on women, as their overall slant is dismissed at the door. What I have challenged is the use and application of a biblical mandate--- or am I supposed to say "persondate?"

"I understand that Paul's chauvinism was likely a reflection of the times.

I wanted to find out what denominations other than the JWs, if any, continue to hold onto that discriminatory thought pattern today as a part of their views."

this is the first remark you replied to.

he said he understands why paul's chauvinism can be justified. as a passing note. he went on to say that he wants to know if others TODAY hold the same views as the JW. seem the hold.

and you replied with sarcasm and idiotic analogies of how god supposedly discriminates in other areas. off topic to say the least

well it shouldn't come as a surprise, we all know what kind of a debater you are.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"I understand that Paul's chauvinism was likely a reflection of the times.

I wanted to find out what denominations other than the JWs, if any, continue to hold onto that discriminatory thought pattern today as a part of their views."

this is the first remark you replied to.

he said he understands why paul's chauvinism can be justified. as a passin ...[text shortened]... least

well it shouldn't come as a surprise, we all know what kind of a debater you are.

Yeah ,he's a wily old debater, Freaks, isn't he now!!!🙂

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"I understand that Paul's chauvinism was likely a reflection of the times.

I wanted to find out what denominations other than the JWs, if any, continue to hold onto that discriminatory thought pattern today as a part of their views."

this is the first remark you replied to.

he said he understands why paul's chauvinism can be justified. as a passin ...[text shortened]... least

well it shouldn't come as a surprise, we all know what kind of a debater you are.

this is the first remark you replied to.
And my response was aimed at the idiocy/ignorance employed by ToO for using the descriptive terms "chauvinist" and "discrimination" when discussing Paul--- standing, as it were, in a spot of some alleged perspective, looking back (and down) upon an historical person whose intellect and character so surpassingly dwarfs even the most 'enlightened' person on the planet today as to render such descriptions not merely an affront, but character assassination. All of this from a person who couldn't deign to carry Paul's books to school!

Pejorative name-calling by someone with diminished capacity notwithstanding, is there any concern for historical accuracy, for proper perspective? Or do we just get to call a rock a tree, as the mood strikes us?

we all know what kind of a debater you are.
Yes, "we" certainly do: the kind that won't allow the fart in church to stand without comment, snicker of derision or censure... depending upon the circumstance.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Spoken like a true bigot. To what race do you prefer? The human one? Man is divided by ethnicity and/or nationalism, two things which are eventually eradicated by time and inter-marriage.

Your thread is crap.

Perhaps you haven't been just "playing the idiot" after all. How you can so consistently miss the points of my posts is beyond me.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]this is the first remark you replied to.
And my response was aimed at the idiocy/ignorance employed by ToO for using the descriptive terms "chauvinist" and "discrimination" when discussing Paul--- standing, as it were, in a spot of some alleged perspective, looking back (and down) upon an historical person whose intellect and character so surpassi d without comment, snicker of derision or censure... depending upon the circumstance.[/b]

And my response was aimed at the idiocy/ignorance employed by ToO for using the descriptive terms "chauvinist" and "discrimination" when discussing Paul

For one, in that post I was echoing PinkFloyd's term back to him since his observations seemed reasonable enough. But you aren't one to allow the facts to get in the way of your position.

For another, Thomas Jefferson wrote that Paul was the "first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus" which is inescapably true. Perhaps your desire to hang on to cheap salvation, blinds you to this fact. Your admiration of Paul is no doubt rooted in that desire.

Originally posted by pawnhandler
The point is about eligibility for receiving the sacraments, not administering them (per se). A man can receive any of them. In fact, depending on the circumstances of his life, he can receive all of them. That is, if he's married but then his wife dies (presumably not murdered by him), he can then be a "late vocation" and receive Holy Orders. A fema ...[text shortened]... as well. Bishops have often taken away property from nuns just because they felt like it.

Yes, the RCC just keeps dragging its feet when it comes to moving beyond the "dark ages". Hopefully in the not to distant future, they'll come to remove the rest of their discriminatory practices toward women.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]Listen it's really simple. Women are not allowed to be clerics strictly on the basis of their gender. For there to truly be equal opportunity, the RCC would have to either allow women to be clerics or dispense with clerical positions altogether.

We seem to be conflating terms. If the issue is 'equal opportunity', then the Catholic Church obviously ...[text shortened]... women but a deeper problem about how power and responsibility is distributed in the Church.[/b]

You can continue to muddy the waters, but if you allow the waters to settle, you'll see that it is an undeniable fact that women are denied the same opportunities as men in the RCC. The RCC would need to either allow women to be clerics or remove any and all distinctions between clerics and lay people for that to no longer be true.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You can continue to muddy the waters, but if you allow the waters to settle, you'll see that it is an undeniable fact that women are denied the same opportunities as men in the RCC. The RCC would need to either allow women to be clerics or remove any and all distinctions between clerics and lay people for that to no longer be true.

You can continue to muddy the waters,

Yeah, right. If you say so. Actually, what I am doing is clarifying the boundaries of debate. Discrimination and inequality are not the same thing and a distinction must be drawn if there is to be any moral evaluation of the Catholic Church.

or remove any and all distinctions between clerics and lay people for that to no longer be true.

Yes, I believe that is what I said.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]You can continue to muddy the waters,

Yeah, right. If you say so.

or remove any and all distinctions between clerics and lay people for that to no longer be true.

Yes, I believe that is what I said.[/b]

Yeah, right. If you say so.
Like I kept trying to get across to you, the RCC does not allow women to be clerics on the basis of gender, so there clearly is a gender issue. It's just that simple. You're the one who has kept insisting that there isn't.

Yes, I believe that is what I said.
By "any and all distinctions" I meant "any and all distinctions" which would necessarily have to include titles and even the division into clerics and lay people itself. If this is what you were trying to say, then you certainly went about it in a round about way. Seemed to me you were speaking of something that would fall short of this. Even if you weren't, as it stands currently there is gender discrimination in the RCC.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
...Paul... ...an historical person whose intellect and character so surpassingly dwarfs even the most 'enlightened' person on the planet today as to render such descriptions not merely an affront, but character assassination.

Really? How do you arrive at this conclusion Freaky?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Even if you weren't, as it stands currently there is gender discrimination in the RCC.

If defined in that way, then the question remains whether such discrimination is a bad thing. The title of the thread implies women are necessarily loosers, when in reality that is not proved simply by saying that different posts are available to different genders. I am sure one could argue that a man could not take up the post of Mother Superior, but would you equally call that discrimination against men by Nunneries?

If on the other hand you have argued that the posts held by men are generally better posts then maybe you have a point. I have not read the whole thread.