21 Jul 10
Originally posted by pawnhandlerSo what if a forum restricted to men granted women the right to administer certain sacraments, but not to be fully enfranchised in the decision-making process itself? I am simply aiming at what I see as the broader discrimination; I certainly do mean to ignore the narrower one.
Women are not just excluded from decision-making. It pains many women that they are excluded from administering various sacraments. For example, many women are excellent Spiritual Directors, but only men (priests) can administer the sacrament of reconciliation. Thus, if you believe in the whole system, you can pour out your heart and soul to your spir ...[text shortened]... r the priest who won't get up in the morning) has consecrated enough hosts for the faithful.
Also, since I am not Catholic, I am not restricting myself to just Roman Catholicism (the institutional details of which I am little familiar).
21 Jul 10
Originally posted by Conrau KYes, in fact, that seems to be your argument too. Unlike ThinkofOne, your concern is not immediately the exclusion of women from sacramental ministry; it is rather that they have no official voice in the dogmatic and moral deliberations of the Church on matters which intimately bear on them.
[b]The pernicious gender discrimination and disenfranchisement of women is based on a more complex and extensive power-matrix (which is at the root of other inequities as well) such that addressing only the gender-dominance issue is not sufficient to dismantle the whole, interlocking complex.
Yes, in fact, that seems to be your argument too. Unlike ...[text shortened]... cese. And to many Catholics' bemusement, it was opposed by many outstanding liberal Anglicans.[/b]
Yes, that is my argument too. I think that includes, but is not restricted to, exclusion from sacramental ministry (in whatever church). My position would be (and I think you pointed out some more detail on it vis-à-vis the RCC) that women could presumably be included in the sacramental ministry while still being (at least partially) disenfranchised from the process by which such decisions are made. [See my reply to pawnhandler.]
22 Jul 10
Originally posted by Conrau KUnlike ThinkofOne, your concern is not immediately the exclusion of women from sacramental ministry
[b]The pernicious gender discrimination and disenfranchisement of women is based on a more complex and extensive power-matrix (which is at the root of other inequities as well) such that addressing only the gender-dominance issue is not sufficient to dismantle the whole, interlocking complex.
Yes, in fact, that seems to be your argument too. Unlike ...[text shortened]... cese. And to many Catholics' bemusement, it was opposed by many outstanding liberal Anglicans.[/b]
Actually my concern is broader than that and you know it. My concern is that women are not given the same opportunities as men because of gender. Why do you persist in all this dishonesty?
22 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KYou can continue in your ongoing dishonesty, but the facts remain.
[b]I've explained it a number of times and in a number of ways. It's dishonest for you to try to pretend at this point that I haven't.
No you haven't. This accusation that I have 'deeply prejudiced views of women' was in fact very recent. I made a comparison with exclusion from military service and it was quite clear you misinterpreted the point of t nals.) I am not arguing for male paternalism in which men make decisions for women.[/b]
It's quite clear that there's no point in trying to continue a discussion with someone with such a lack of integrity.
It's ironic that so many Christians resort to these kind of tactics, given the teachings of Jesus.
22 Jul 10
2 edits
Originally posted by ZahlanziI gather that you haven't followed all of this thread.
i agree with the first part. it is gender discrimination.
i don't agree with the second part. you can't remove distinctions between certain groups. like you said, it would accomplish nothing. also those distinctions are there for a reason.
to remove gender discrimination and any kind of discrimination , the discriminated must be allowed the same opp ivileged not remove opportunities from the latter so they can all be equally miserable.
I am for the RCC giving women the exact same opportunities as men. I think that they should just do that.
Read what I wrote in context:
For true equality to exist the RCC would need to either allow women to be clerics or remove any and all distinctions between clerics and lay people like I said earlier. Anything short of this is just an attempt to whitewash. If clerics and lay people were ever truly equal, it would be absurd to keep the distinction. The distinction is kept precisely because they are not truly equal.
What I am saying after the "or" is that theoretically there may exist a way to remove ANY AND ALL DISTINCTIONS between clerics and lay people. I then point out the absurdity of doing this doing this and the fact that the RCC keeps the distinction because they are not truly equal. I am not for this solution, but acknowledge that it is theoretically possible to do. And if it were done, then women would then have the same opportunities as men.
22 Jul 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIt's ironic that so many Christians resort to these kind of tactics, given the teachings of Jesus.
You can continue in your ongoing dishonesty, but the facts remain.
It's quite clear that there's no point in trying to continue a discussion with someone with such a lack of integrity.
It's ironic that so many Christians resort to these kind of tactics, given the teachings of Jesus.
Like you know anything about the latter.
22 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdThe institutionalisation of the scriptures is the root problem.
[b]Yes, in fact, that seems to be your argument too. Unlike ThinkofOne, your concern is not immediately the exclusion of women from sacramental ministry; it is rather that they have no official voice in the dogmatic and moral deliberations of the Church on matters which intimately bear on them.
Yes, that is my argument too. I think that includes, but ...[text shortened]... senfranchised from the process by which such decisions are made. [See my reply to pawnhandler.][/b]
That happens when the true meaning of any particular verse or passage is twisted out of it's context and made to fit the whims of some man or group of men who are essentially degenerate in their thinking and passions.
If in fact the scripture teaches that men are to hold to those positions of authority and leadership designed by God for the purpose of ministering to the saints, then what on earth does that have to do with gender discrimination?
Nothing!
Assigning the concept of gender discrimination is the first flaw in reasoning when reading the word.
The second flaw is assigning the concept of gender discrimination in the reading of the scriptures when in reality it is the flaw in man that causes him to do so.
So what is the real issue here? Is it that the Bible teaches gender discrimination? Or is the real issue that men are corrupt and degenerate sinners who get "religion" and then force their own preconceived ideas on what the Bible really teaches for the purpose of controlling the actions of others?
23 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwThe issue is those who use the Bible as a weapon to further their discrimination against women.
The institutionalisation of the scriptures is the root problem.
That happens when the true meaning of any particular verse or passage is twisted out of it's context and made to fit the whims of some man or group of men who are essentially degenerate in their thinking and passions.
If in fact the scripture teaches that men are to hold to those positions ideas on what the Bible really teaches for the purpose of controlling the actions of others?
24 Jul 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOnetheoretically all people on earth could shave their heads and learn to always walk backwards while having blue and green robes. practically it would be retarded.
I gather that you haven't followed all of this thread.
I am for the RCC giving women the exact same opportunities as men. I think that they should just do that.
Read what I wrote in context:
[quote]For true equality to exist the RCC would need to either allow women to be clerics or remove any and all distinctions between clerics and lay people lik ...[text shortened]... ossible to do. And if it were done, then women would then have the same opportunities as men.
yes, if we were all the same, there would be no discrimination. yes, if there would be no priest jobs, women wouldn't complain about it because nobody is priest. i pointed out, to be clear, that this would be a ridiculous state of affairs, where nobody gets anything just say we have a discrimination free society.
what you insist on doing is support your decision of mentioning something completely impractical that adds nothing to the debate just because you felt your initial point (that of allowing women to be priests) needed something absurd to be placed near so that it becomes even more appealing. if that was your intention then i must point out that the RCC should either allow women to be priests or kill 10002 puppies. killing 10002 puppies is preposterous therefore the rcc must allow women to be priests.
(i did what you did, only exaggerated it a bit)
24 Jul 10
Originally posted by josephw"If in fact the scripture teaches that men are to hold to those positions of authority and leadership designed by God for the purpose of ministering to the saints, then what on earth does that have to do with gender discrimination?"
The institutionalisation of the scriptures is the root problem.
That happens when the true meaning of any particular verse or passage is twisted out of it's context and made to fit the whims of some man or group of men who are essentially degenerate in their thinking and passions.
If in fact the scripture teaches that men are to hold to those positions ...[text shortened]... ideas on what the Bible really teaches for the purpose of controlling the actions of others?
you don't see anything wrong with this phrase? nothing at all?
if a company were to hire 100 men and 100 women and then issued a memo saying that the position of CEO would forever be given to a man, you wouldn't find it discriminating? do you know what the definition of discrimination is? i don't even get how you function? that it is wrong to deny someone an opportunity based on gender, race, age, etc but as long as you say from the start that only a certain group can ever be allowed in a certain club, it is ok?
24 Jul 10
Originally posted by ZahlanziGo back and read through the context of the post like I suggested earlier. It's apparent you haven't. The "acknowledgment" was in response to an idea proposed by another poster. Like I said, "I then point out the absurdity of doing this and the fact that the RCC keeps the distinction because they are not truly equal." If you want to go after someone, why don't you go after the other poster?
theoretically all people on earth could shave their heads and learn to always walk backwards while having blue and green robes. practically it would be retarded.
yes, if we were all the same, there would be no discrimination. yes, if there would be no priest jobs, women wouldn't complain about it because nobody is priest. i pointed out, to be clear, t ...[text shortened]... re the rcc must allow women to be priests.
(i did what you did, only exaggerated it a bit)
24 Jul 10
Originally posted by whodeySeems like most of the time people ask questions like this, it's because they have nothing but conjecture and are hoping to hide that fact. But if you have something substantial to say, why don't you just plainly state it?
Speaking of Christ, why did he choose 12 male disciples?