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?

Slavery was viewed as acceptable at time,  and it served an economic purpose.  Under Roman law, owners were required to provide food, clothing, and shelter for their slaves.  Employers, however, weren’t required to provide the same things for their employees, which had to fend for themselves.  In fact, were all of the slaves liberated in the ancient Roman Empire, when no social services were in place to take care of the several million freedmen who suddenly couldn’t work, most scholars agree that the majority would have been forced to resort to crime, prostitution, and other unsavory practices just to live. 

In such a case, the mass liberation of the slaves would have been wrong if not overtly evil or do you disagree?  Would you have liberated them?

Returning to the point, as time passed and society began to develop the means whereby slavery no longer served as a safety net for the most destitute and indigent of society, instead becoming a luxury for the rich who merely wished to increase their material wealth, the church’s view of slavery began to change and it became viewed as a great evil that robbed man of the dignity he possessed as a creature created in God’s Image.  The Church began to advocate for its abolishment and was one of the first abolitionist organizations.  

Of course, the church teaches and has taught for centuries that one should love and honor his/her parents.  If you’re saying that tradition is evil then it seems you’re sanctioning parricide.  

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

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

In this case, the Church wasn’t following Christ’s teaching.  If anything, it was disobeying Christ’s teaching so this example doesn’t support your point.  Besides that, I'm not RC.  I'm Eastern Orthodox so I'm not so sure why you're directing this question towards me.

Apr 13, 2012 -- 7:09AM, Sparky_Spotty wrote:

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.

No, I understood what point you were trying to make, I just think the point is complimented by calling it ridiculous since I said that I and not a few clergy I know would prefer female Prime Ministers, Presidents, University Chancellors, University Presidents, Governors of States, Mayors, VPs, Board Chairs, CEOs, Principals, Professors, Senators, Representatives, SCOTUS Justices, etc. over male ones if they could do the job better; we just want our priests and bishops to be men.  

In spite of all of this above, you still concluded that we deep down, secretly, in our heart of hearts, really want to treat women like dogs. 

Apr 13, 2012 -- 9:50PM, jlb32168 wrote:

Slavery was viewed as acceptable at time,  and it served an economic purpose.  Under Roman law, owners were required to provide food, clothing, and shelter for their slaves....

Ah, so slaves are actually better off being slaves. It was for their own good.

Puhlease!

In this case, the Church wasn’t following Christ’s teaching.  If anything, it was disobeying Christ’s teaching so this example doesn’t support your point...

You can't have it both ways. You justify the fact that women can't be priests by saying its the churches tradition/teaching, and christ is the head of the church, so then 'logically' it must be christ's teaching.

But then when the church does something else, like turn a blind eye to pedophile priests, you say its not christ's teaching.

So which is it?

And you haven't answered the question. Did Jesus teach/feel that women can't be priests?

jlb posted yet another unreasonable argument.

>>Had the slaves been liberated in the ancient Roman Empire,  thousands of freedmen suddenly freed and turned out into the streets because their former owners could afford to pay them wates, would have been forced to resort to crime, prostitution, and other unsavory practices just to live because there were no social services in place to suddenly help them.<<

RESPONSE:

Really? Then why didn't this happen in the American South following the Emancapation Proclamation???

So you are trying to justify a practice which was intrinciaslly immoral because it might cause some disruptions? Sort of doing evil so good could come from it, right?

Perhaps you are overlooking the fact that the Church itself supported slave ownership until the early 1900's.

The Church's magisterium was in error, pure and simple.

Writing about slavery itself under any circumstances, Pope John Paul II pointed out that

" there are objects of the human act which are by their nature "incapable of being ordered" to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image .... they are such "always and per se," in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that "there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object". [Veritatis Splendor #80]

Thank you NJ, I  needed some support. I've kind of given up trying to talk logic with jlb. Beyond the obvious problems with trying to apply logic to theological questions,  it really becomes hopeless when he doesn't seem to understand  basic concepts of logic like consistency, valid and invalid argument, and the essential difference between a sound vs unsound conclusion.  As your parallel illustrates, he just takes his opinion, forms it into a set of arguable premises, and repeats it as a "conclusion". The pattern repeats itself  and  coupled with a tendency to stumble over his own contradictory statements (as in the ongoing exchange with "sparky") patience has run out.