-->
@Vader
RIGHT, not a mother
I do not give a shit if you are a orthodox christian. that doesnt mae you any more special Supa. I know a lot more about the Bible than you do and that is that!
Women Becoming Catholic Priests
Posts
Total:
130
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Learn to read what I said and stop assuming things. You don't know shit about the bible if your first claim about why women should not be in clergy is that Men would have to be nuns. It proves you have no ounce of knowledge in anything related to the church in anyway.
Learn to read before you comment on a post. I didn't say that having women in the clergy should be allowed. Stop putting words in my mouth that I didn't say.
Fucking
Learn to read before you comment on a post. I didn't say that having women in the clergy should be allowed. Stop putting words in my mouth that I didn't say.
Fucking
Read
-->
@Vader
I know more than you
that point was to illustrate that if we make women priests,we have to make men nuns
-->
@Stephen
Have you read Daniel Wallace's work on 1 Corinthians 14?
-->
@Dr.Franklin
But this is the thing. That isn’t going to happen. The reason why nuns and monks are separated is to limit the sexual desire. This has stood still through countless times and won’t change cuz of one thing. The argument you made is simply not true, but the claim you make it valif
-->
@Athias
Explain in as few words as possible what " Luciferianism " is?Then you don't seek my explanation. [................................] then a simple search should suffice.
I do. I wouldn't have asked other wise. Any way. I googled this . just tell me if this is what you believe Luciferianism to be. Just a yes or no will do.
"Luciferianism is a belief system that venerates the essential characteristics that are affixed to Lucifer. The tradition, influenced by Gnosticism, usually reveres Lucifer not as the devil, but as a destroyer, a guardian, light bringer or guiding spirit to darkness, or even the true god as opposed to Jehovah"
-->
@Dynasty
I haven't.
-->
@Vader
wrong, no matter what sexual desire you get your suppose to go monk mode celibate
-->
@Dr.Franklin
That's what I am saying bro. You should have no sexual desire, and the only desire is to be a servant to god. They separate the nuns from the monks to encourage celibacy. Your mind is on GOD and nothing else. Your misreading my entire point.
You can't read. This is what I am arguing
You can't read. This is what I am arguing
- Women should not be in the priesthood
- Your claim about nuns having to be monks because of it is invalid. They both do the same thing except are divided by genders to encourage celibacy. That's how the church functions and that's how it will function even in this evolving society. One change with female priests won't change that system
Lol moment when your arguing for the same thing and the only thing you disagree is that having girl priests won't change the whole gender shifts within nun and monkhood and he still argues you. It's truly a tragic site
-->
@Stephen
I do. I wouldn't have asked other wise. Any way. I googled this . just tell me if this is what you believe Luciferianism to be. Just a yes or no will do.
No, you don't. If you attempt to put a word restriction on someone's response, then you can cite your requests as frequent as you deem necessary--you're not seeking discussion; you're seeking lexical semantic gerrymandering.
And I don't "believe" Luciferianism to be anything. Luciferianism is what it is.
A woman should feel free to pursue whatever she wants, placing a stigma on women as catholic priests feels unnecessary and borderline sexist. Ultimately, I want people to make their own choices as to how they wish to live their lives, stopping women from becoming priests hinders this wish of mine from becoming a reality.
-->
@Vader
.
SupaDudz,
YOUR UNGODLY QUOTE: "How is that in anyway prevalent to religion? I call my priest Father ____. Just say Mother _____"
The pseudo-christian faction here on DEBATEART still amazes me, where their biblical ignorance is without bounds!
SupaDudz, I would suggest that you actually READ your Bible and quit slapping Jesus in the face, instead of using it as a "door stop," understood? You are guilty of the following inspired by Jesus' words herewith:
"And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven." (Matthew 23:9)
You're excused.
.
-->
@Vader
SupaDudz,
YOUR ERRONEOUS QUOTE: "The reason why nuns and monks are separated is to limit the sexual desire. This has stood still through countless times and won’t change cuz of one thing. "
With your quote above, then why hasn't through "countless times" the Catholic Priests stopped in continually buggering innocent little boys and girls ad infinitum? Huh? As a matter of fact, they are still doing it today throughout the world. Billions of hard earned offering plate monies have been spent for reparations to these children's parents, and to the children grown up later in life.
How apropos when an innocent crying child was brutally buggered by a Catholic Priest in the churches "rectory!" Yes? What is even worse, it the Catholic Church hid these atrocious acts by their pedophile priests by just moving them to another church in another part of the country. How ungodly can you get?!
DESPICABLE!
.
-->
@BrotherDThomas
I'm literally fucking defending why women shouldn't be priests. Why don't people understand this basic fact. All I'm saying is that the landscape of the church would not be changed and nuns would not turn into monks. I said that women should not be priests yet people are attacking me lol
Since many people are thinking I support women in priesthood, let me make myself clear. I do not support women as priests. The women are in charge of managing the church programs and activities outside the church. They are a guide for the priest. They are well valued in the church. They do not need to become clergy in order to be divine. They can still be saints. Many women in the church are fine with not becoming priests. The women helps the church grow and expand it's reach to people by helping out. Women in church is against the bibles pure teachings.
My point I make about Dr.Franklin is that it is illogical to think that women would want to become monks and vice versa. This tradition has hold its due and the goal of them is to devout themselves to god. Separating nuns and monks removes any desire for marriage and true devotion to god himself. The church has survived despite the progressive movements with this tradition and tradition has been unfazed. The church will stay high on this if the change ever happens.
The point about terminology is extremely stupid on DrF's part. The church would just refer to them as Reverent Mother _____ if the change happens. That is not a valid reason to object women in the church. I have stated the valid reasons in my post above
-->
@BrotherDThomas
And I'm not a Catholic, I am an Orthodox Christian, the traditional beliefs and values and procedures of Jesus Christ and the early Christians
-->
@Athias
I do. I wouldn't have asked other wise. Any way. I googled this . just tell me if this is what you believe Luciferianism to be. Just a yes or no will do.No, you don't. If you attempt to put a word restriction on someone's response, then you can cite your requests as frequent as you deem necessary--you're not seeking discussion; you're seeking lexical semantic gerrymandering.And I don't "believe" Luciferianism to be anything. Luciferianism is what it is.
Jesus!!!!. You really are a little cry baby tit, aren't you.
-->
@Vader
The women are in charge of managing the church programs and activities outside the church. They are a guide for the priest. They do not need to become clergy in order to be divine. They can still be saints.
Give a woman and inch , eh.
We have the same problem when we cave in to minority groups. Legalise homosexuality , the next thing they want is lawful same sex marriage and allowed to legally adopt little baby boys.
-->
@Stephen
We have the same problem when we cave in to minority groups. Legalise homosexuality , the next thing they want is lawful same sex marriage and allowed to legally adopt little baby boys.
I believe legally and legislatively, that no restrictions should be had on gay marriage. To outlaw gay marriage is a violation of the 1st amendment right by forcing religion. From that aspect, there shouldn't be a punishment for homosexuality.
I believe personally that gay marriage is a sin, but it is a sin that you can be forgiven for like any other sin. A gay person is not doomed to hell once they are gay. They can repent and show love in the church and they can be rid of sin. I also don't believe we should excommunicate them. We should still love and care for them. God told us to love the sinner, but repent our sins. Love the person, not the sin itself.
I believe personally that gay marriage is a sin, but it is a sin that you can be forgiven for like any other sin. A gay person is not doomed to hell once they are gay. They can repent and show love in the church and they can be rid of sin. I also don't believe we should excommunicate them. We should still love and care for them. God told us to love the sinner, but repent our sins. Love the person, not the sin itself.
-->
@Vader
I was simply making a point of once an inch is given a whole mile is taken.
I don't care what two homosexuals wish to do behind closed curtains in the privacy of their own homes.
A gay person is not doomed to hell once they are gay. [ .................................] and they can repent [.......................................]
" not doomed" ! I should think not. Homosexuals where created by god too just like anyone else who isn't homosexual. So I am not sure why they should "repent" either.
-->
@Vader
You started this conversation, you calimed I didnt know as much as you-YOU are at fault
-->
@Barney
Christians accept the writings of Apostle Paul as being part of the Biblical canon, divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit to impart relevant truths to believers. Some of the content found in his Epistles is situational, such as his advice to Timothy to drink wine for his health. Likewise, no surviving denomination to my knowledge requires women to wear a veil in church, not even the Eastern Orthodox. But his writings are in large part a divinely inspired commentary, to help believers make sense of events and developments that came before. That is to say, Paul was the author of Christian theology as we know it.
One tenet of this is that there exists a difference between men and women, who were "created male and female" in the words of/to paraphrase Jesus, and that with this difference comes assignment of different roles. Paul made it clear that all humans may be saved and follow Christ in their everyday lives irrespective of gender but part of the rightful gender division includes male leadership.
When you think about it, this makes sense. Men are always the ones who have to take initiative in starting a relationship. They pursue a woman, brave the emotional hurt of rejection, belittlement and vilification in order to establish something long-lasting. The burden is on him to improve himself in order to become desirable, as opposed to a woman who takes desirability for granted. In Bible days he would've literally had to build the house they'd be living in as a married couple, he had to leave the house every day and go out into the world to make ends meet for the entire household. The safety of the family was his duty, and he had to take up arms to defend the family and his community against outside aggression.
In all of these areas he took/takes the initiative, as a leader does. A man is built physically stronger but even in a post-industrial era he has more aggression, which translates either to more destructiveness or more constructive ambition. It's no coincidence that *most* great innovators, CEOs and statesmen are male, as are most felons. A man who doesn't shoulder big responsibilities or goals is more likely to end up wasting his life or in prison, and so the argument could be made that a man needs to be playing a vital role in some project for his own good. The church is meant to reflect the correct order of things, in which humans obey rather than rebel against God, and in which the household functions according to the framework God designed for it. And that includes male leadership. Women obviously do have a meaningful contribution to make in the church but it's to be headed by men so far as circumstance will allow.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Because you can't read what I'm saying hence you don't know what I'm talking about. You and BrotherD are the only ones that seem to have a problem with what I'm saying despite the fact I agree with you about women. I'm not at fault because I'm not the one being an illiterate
-->
@Vader
BrotherD is my best friend so that would make sense
As for why some of scripture is situational and some of it isn't, that's because the Bible (per the Christian interpretation, anyway) wasn't really supposed to be a book of rules. God reveals Himself to man, and reveals His expectation for man to be holy. The Bible gives many examples of what holiness (and its opposite) looks like but it doesn't cover everything. A Christian would accept that "Thou Shalt Not Lie" doesn't apply if you're trying to hide Jews in your house from the Gestapo (as Rahab was considered righteous when she lied to protect the Israelite spies in her home), and the reason is because our religion expects us to derive at conclusions by asking why something is right or wrong.
"Women should be veiled in church" doesn't seem to draw upon any absolute rule. Instead it was a cultural rule, an expression of modesty in that time. In eastern cultures there is a tendency among some men to fetishize women who wear veils so there's nothing inherently superior about it. In our culture there's nothing immodest about a woman with her hair down, as it's a woman's default appearance at all times. But covering her breasts in church would be required, whereas in some jungle tribes women go around bare-breasted and it's so common that (I presume) it doesn't cause the local guys to get horny and everyone just treats it like the norm. Americans in 2020 doing the same as those women in the jungles wouldn't end very well.
In another passage, Paul told believers it was up to them to decide whether it was okay to eat meat sacrificed to idols. There was nothing inherently wrong about it, as they didn't believe in the idols in question and the sacrifices were made by other people. Grilling beef at Baal's altar does not magically defile it. It'd still have all the normal properties of cooked meat. But it might bother the consciences of some, and violating one's conscience even in regards to something that isn't necessarily sinful might constitute a sin in itself. And he told them to avoid doing it if it'd serve to tempt or pressure believers whose consciences would've been bothered by it.
Let me clarify that humans don't decide the morals per se. But sometimes a thing is sin in practice and other times it isn't. Things that aren't normally sinful might be in some contexts and vise-versa so a very large list of absolute rules isn't helpful. Christians are called to be obedient to God but they also enjoy an enormous degree of autonomy from day to day. They have working brains and are adults who should be able to think for themselves so they should be smart enough to determine the right thing to do in a given situation.
The bible says to not let women usurp authority over man. And the bible says to not add or take away from scripture.
Catholic faith and women in leadership roles is wrong. No tradition should interpret scripture. And no woman should have authority over men.
-->
@Vader
SupaDudz,
YOUR QUOTE THAT MATTERS NOT: "And I'm not a Catholic, I am an Orthodox Christian, the traditional beliefs and values and procedures of Jesus Christ and the early Christians"
I didn't say that you were a Catholic. What I proposed to you is good for any pseudo-christian like you, therefore what I stated was to be discussed in kind, get it?
Psst, uh, you RAN AWAY from me pointing out that you are NOT to call anyone father upon earth, why? AGAIN, where do you get the Biblical authority to call your PRIEST "father" in your post #26, where from now on subsequent to me easily "schooling you" in my post #43 upon the fact that you are not to call anyone father, except Jesus in Heaven, understood?! "And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven." (Matthew 23:9) The funny outcome on your embarrassing situation above is the fact that you state that you are well versed upon the scriptures and know more than Doc Frank in your post #30, huh? With you removing one foot to insert the other above, do you want to take back your inept statement that you know more than others about the Bible within this forum? NOT! LOL!!!
Why do pseudo-christians like you make it so easy for TRUE Christians like me to show you to be the Bible fools that you are on a continued basis?
.
-->
@Vader
@Dr.Franklin
SupaDudz,
YOUR QUOTE TO MY FRIEND DOC FRANKLIN: I know religion deeper than you probably do but go on and tell me how I am wrong. I grew up in a house of faith and have studied the bible and religion yet you tell me I'm wrong? Fucking pathetic. At least tell me why?
BACK OFF ON DOC FRANK, UNDERSTOOD BIBLE FOOL? Who in the hell do you think you are? Look at your perceived notion that you comically know more than Doc Frank upon bible topics, where as I had to easily "school you" upon calling your priest "father," when in fact you are going directly against the Bible as I have shown you in my post #43 and 59, THAT YOU CONTINUE TO RUN AWAY FROM as a pseudo-christian where you are NOT to call anyone "father" accept Jesus that is in heaven!
Our Great Doc Frank has forgotten more than you will ever know about the JUDEO-Christian bible, understand? When he smells blood of child like pseudo-christians like you, then Jesus allows the "Doc" to go into high gear and biblically mutilate his adversary in a "take no prisoners" modus operandi, therefore, walk softly around the Doc, because you DO NOT want to get on his bad side, understood? If I personally see you come down on him once again in a demeaning way, I WILL BIBLE SLAP YOU SILLY INTO NEXT WEEK, GET IT? GOOD!
+++++++++++
DOC FRANK: not that you need me to biblically wipe the floor with this grade-school pseudo-christian appropriately named SupaDudz, because you can do it yourself in the name of Jesus when severely provoked, but in any event, let me know if you ever need my assistance and Jesus and I will be there for you, okay?
++++++++++