Apr 12, 2012 -- 11:06AM, jlb32168 wrote:

I stated the reason directly above those other points; therefore, I have no diea why you’re saying that I’ve not addressed the question.  Directly above those points, I said that it teaches us that the physical is irreverent since it teaches that the person who stands as in place of Christ, reenacting the Eucharist, is only important on a spiritual level since that’s all that’s important to God.  It’s also not a little misandrous  since it always devolves into a discussion about how Christ isn’t a man anymore.  That he’s just “spiritual” now.  “The physical creation isn’t important” isn’t what Christ taught when He was resurrected and took his body with Him; ergo, it's inimical to God's revelation.

Of course, I disagree that it’s irrelevant because the Church presumably says she’s informed by Christ and those who argue for the inclusion are effectively saying that they are speaking on Christ’s behalf.  If they are, then why is Christ moving them to speak things wholly hostile to what He’s taught for two millennia?

So, are you saying that Christ specifically taught that women cannot be priests, only men can?

Apr 12, 2012 -- 5:45PM, Sparky_Spotty wrote:

So, are you saying that Christ specifically taught that women cannot be priests, only men can?

It's not mentioned in the NT, but I don't see why that's important.  The Church teaches it.  Christ is the Head of the Church; therefore, Christ teaches it.

Apr 12, 2012 -- 10:48PM, jlb32168 wrote:

Apr 12, 2012 -- 5:43PM, Sparky_Spotty wrote:

YOU bought up the comparasin. I never did. YOU are the one who bought it into the conversation.

I got that part.  I brought up how some idiots compare the prohibition on women's ordination to Talibanesque government and by doing that, according to you, I'm advocating Talibanesque government.

Cannibalism

I just mentioned cannibalism.  What does that mean by mentioning it?

Apparently irony is lost on you.

The point is, since you bought it into the debate and not I, then, even though you bought it in and then protested against it (classic straw man btw) then perhaps you secretly fear or aknowledge that in fact there is predujice against women in the christian church.

Never mind.

Howdy Sparky

Apr 12, 2012 -- 10:53PM, jlb32168 wrote:

 It's not mentioned in the NT, but I don't see why that's important.  The Church teaches it.  Christ is the Head of the Church; therefore, Christ teaches it.

Apr 13, 2012 -- 7:11AM, Sparky_Spotty wrote:

The church used to teach slavery was ok, does that mean Christ taught that slavery is ok?

But "the church" no longer teaches that slavery is ok.  

As for what Jesus taught about slavery or to be more specific what the N.T. says about slavery:

www.biblestudytools.com/search/?q=slaver...

But that is a separate topic.  

"The church" no longer teaches that slavery is ok.  "The church" does still teach that it is ok to ban women from being priests.  And the Roman Catholic "church are not the only ones to do so.

Apr 12, 2012 -- 10:53PM, jlb32168 wrote:

What about when the church tried to hide pedophile priests, was that Christ's idea too?

No, but it is a church "tradition".   

Mark 10:13 People were bringing little children to Jesus to have him touch them, but the disciples rebuked them.

Mark 10:14 When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, "Let the little children cum to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.

Marcion,

My comments are a critique of the "the church teaches..."
 quote by jlb at post #34.   jlb likes to post his opinions as if they were logical arguments.