Post Reply
Page 9 of 12  •  Prev 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Does catholicism - or even christianity as a whole - consider women as second class?
2 years ago  ::  Apr 17, 2012 - 12:55PM #81
happygardener
Posts: 734

jlb said:


"That's a rather unoriginal way to avoid the fact that you premise equates “Christ is the head of the Church” with “Christ is the Church”, which is false."


 


You chose a theological "truth" as a premise of your "logic".  The same theological system that says "Christ is the Head of the Church" also says that "the Church is Christ", the "Church is the body of Christ".  If you want to make a "logical" argument based on "truth" from a theological system then you can't pick and choose truths from the system, you have to recognize all of them as being true. It's a matter of consistency, a basic principle of rational thought and logical development.



 


jlb says:


"[P1] “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” [P2] I am a part of “all”.[C] I have fallen short of the glory of God.


What is a theological issue as contrasted against a non-theological issue?"


Just because something comes from the Bible doesn't make it theological. Many people consider the Bible (especially the King James version) an example of fine English literature and may assign it no religious or theological value at all.


A theological issue would be one involving the philosophical meaning of God. Your first two examples illustrate certain coincidences of words or geographical anomoly, but make no inference of philosophical significance, theological or otherwise.


Your more recent example (above) is reasonable within the context of Christian philosophy, but would be nonsensical to the atheist.  This is an example of my point that "logic" (intended to provide a framework for convincing argument) isn't suitable for theological issues because there's often no consensus  on the truth or falsity of the premises.


 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 17, 2012 - 2:06PM #82
jlb32168
Posts: 13,337

Apr 17, 2012 -- 12:55PM, happygardener wrote:

You chose a theological "truth" as a premise of your "logic".


I’m not sure why the word truth and logic are in quotation marks. 


Apr 17, 2012 -- 12:55PM, happygardener wrote:

The same theological system that says "Christ is the Head of the Church" also says that "the Church is Christ", the "Church is the body of Christ".


That’s the problem, it doesn’t say that the Church is Christ.  Yes, it does say that the Church is the body of Christ, but it also says that the body can have schisms and schism from the Church cannot produce the Church’s teaching.


Apr 17, 2012 -- 12:55PM, happygardener wrote:

Just because something comes from the Bible doesn't make it theological. Many people consider the Bible (especially the King James version) an example of fine English literature and may assign it no religious or theological value at all.


What, pray expound, makes a discussion on ecclesiastical interpretations of the Bible a non-theological discussion?


Apr 17, 2012 -- 12:55PM, happygardener wrote:

A theological issue would be one involving the philosophical meaning of God.


Perhaps that is how you define a theological discussion, but others define theological discussions as those which touch ecclesiology and other aspects as well.


Apr 17, 2012 -- 12:55PM, happygardener wrote:

Your more recent example (above) is reasonable within the context of Christian philosophy, but would be nonsensical to the atheist.


The import of the question of the Christian priesthood and whether women should be included in it has little to no import for the atheist.  For that matter, it has little import for those who aren’t members of confessions that have a male-exclusive priesthood - namely the RCC and the EOC.

Victim of this, victim of that, your mama’s too thin and your daddy’s too fat, get over it! - the Eagles
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 17, 2012 - 3:39PM #83
Marcion
Posts: 2,883

Why all the scripture quoting? Quoting scripture proves absolutely nothing, even satan can quote scripture to his advantage.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 17, 2012 - 4:33PM #84
Sparky_Spotty
Posts: 761


And that’s where you’re wrong.  You will never find a document or otherwise official Church teaching that says, “It is Church teaching that bishops and priests are instructed to shelter pedophile priests”.



Of course they didn't write it down. So what.  They did it. They made the deliberate choices and took the deliberate actions. they taught by example that certain evils are permissable 'for the good of mother church'


Some bishops have actually ordained priestesses and were censured for it



exactly.  They were censured for it. The church teaches that women are inferior because they can hold no position higher than nun.


Those additional criteria are condemned by the Gospels.  Please explain why owning another person, but treating them kindly and in a humane manner, is immoral.



Amazing.  I the secular humanist am having to explain to a 'christian' why owning another person is immoral.
Because the slave is not FREE!  He doesn't have the FREEDOM to choose his own station. He is unequal and subservient to another human being. He can't say, "I don't like this job, I'd like to do something else".


You said that slavery was objectively, absolutely evil.  Now you seem to be suggesting that engaging in the slave trade might sometimes work for good.



Nice try.
The purchasers in this place are not buying them to be slaves. It is not the 'slave trade' as they are not purchasing them to be slaves.


I considered your answer and think it’s wildly inaccurate and founded upon no warrant of history.  There were plenty unenslaved poor who had no jobs.  It seems reasonable to suggest that many of them would gladly have accepted remuneration in goods for their labor.  In the absence of other social services, many of them resorted to begging or crime.  If they were unable to find work, even if remuneration were given in goods, then how can you seriously suggest that this would have been an option available for the additional tens of millions of new freedmen that would have been added to the imperial population?



Duuuh  I guess you're right. its better to keep them as slaves, and by the same reason, black people should still be slaves in the U.S.

Seriously now, what is so hard about:

a) you work for me and I give you food clothing and lodging, oh and if you leave I will drag you back and force you to stay
b) you work for me and I give you food clothing and lodging, oh and if you leave I will have to advertise for someone else



WOULD YOU HAVE FREED THESE TENS OF MILLIONS OF SLAVES WITHOUT ANY SOCIAL SERVICES NET TO CATCH THEM, TRUSTING ONLY IN YOUR OPINION THAT ALL OF THEM COULD BE REMUNERATED WITH GOODS?  Why can’t you simply answer the question??



See above.



Do you make no distinctions between a five year old and a 15, 16, or 17 year old?  We deny these teenagers the choice to to choose their station in life all of the time.  Why is it acceptable for us to do so and suddenly bestow them this right at 18?



Because our legal system has to deal with absolutes, and an age of consent had to be set, and the law attempts to define it with a concrete number.


Please answer the question.



OK. NO. Someone with a high school education cannot be certified as a doctor or engineer because they have 'good common sense'.


I don't see much point in continuing this discussion.
You're defending slavery. And you refuse to aknowledge how terrible that is.
Its not just that the romans HAD slaves at the time, they CONTINUED to buy them or capture them or force them into slavery. New ones, all the time. And the bible said this was ok.
You're attempting to create some sort of apologetic for it with the rationalization that 'if they freed them, well they'd all go crazy and starve and do bad things', glossing over that it was the act of making slaves that created the situation in the first place.
Your exact rationale was used by colonialists and aparthiedists. Its a terribly paternalistic justification to engage in behavior that exploits other human beings.

I find it reprehensible and disgusting.

I can't help but think if you weren't so desparate to defend your bible you'd be properly and morally opposed to slavery, like every civilized country and human being in the world is.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 17, 2012 - 5:43PM #85
happygardener
Posts: 734

jlb says:


"I’m not sure why the word truth and logic are in quotation marks."


The quotation marks are intended to suggest that the terms are being used in a specialized sense (a theological argument) rather than in the more general use (in non-theological argument).


 


jlb says:


"That’s the problem, it doesn’t say that the Church is Christ.  Yes, it does say that the Church is the body of Christ, but it also says that the body can have schisms and schism from the Church cannot produce the Church’s teaching."


No, the problem is yours because  the Church DOES say that it is Christ. 


From NewAdvent Catholic Encyclopedia:


"...In the conception of the Church as a body governed and directed by Christ as the head, far more is contained than the familiar analogy between a ruler and his subjects on the one hand, and the head guiding and coordinating the activities of the several members on the other. That analogy expresses indeed the variety of function, the unity of directive principle, and the cooperation of the parts to a common end, which are found in a society; but it is insufficient to explain the terms in which St. Paul speaks of the union between Christ and His disciples. Each of them is a member of Christ (1 Corinthians 6:15); together they form the body of Christ (Ephesians 4:16); as a corporate unity they are simply termed Christ (1 Corinthians 12:12)."


www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm


 


jlb says:


"What, pray expound, makes a discussion on ecclesiastical interpretations of the Bible a non-theological discussion?"


 


And what, pray tell, "ecclesiastical interpretations" were noted in either of your first two examples?


 


jlb says:


"Perhaps that is how you define a theological discussion, but others define theological discussions as those which touch ecclesiology and other aspects as well."


Check your dictionary. Theology is to God what ecclesiology is to the Church.


jlb says:


"The import of the question of the Christian priesthood and whether women should be included in it has little to no import for the atheist.  For that matter, it has little import for those who aren’t members of confessions that have a male-exclusive priesthood - namely the RCC and the EOC."


You thus  confirm what I've said, logic is generally not a useful methodology for a convincing theological argument with people that don't already agree with you.


 


 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 17, 2012 - 8:31PM #86
hewy1952
Posts: 2,454

Apr 17, 2012 -- 5:43PM, happygardener wrote:


jlb says:


"I’m not sure why the word truth and logic are in quotation marks."


The quotation marks are intended to suggest that the terms are being used in a specialized sense (a theological argument) rather than in the more general use (in non-theological argument).


 


jlb says:


"That’s the problem, it doesn’t say that the Church is Christ.  Yes, it does say that the Church is the body of Christ, but it also says that the body can have schisms and schism from the Church cannot produce the Church’s teaching."


No, the problem is yours because  the Church DOES say that it is Christ. 


From NewAdvent Catholic Encyclopedia:


"...In the conception of the Church as a body governed and directed by Christ as the head, far more is contained than the familiar analogy between a ruler and his subjects on the one hand, and the head guiding and coordinating the activities of the several members on the other. That analogy expresses indeed the variety of function, the unity of directive principle, and the cooperation of the parts to a common end, which are found in a society; but it is insufficient to explain the terms in which St. Paul speaks of the union between Christ and His disciples. Each of them is a member of Christ (1 Corinthians 6:15); together they form the body of Christ (Ephesians 4:16); as a corporate unity they are simply termed Christ (1 Corinthians 12:12)."


www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm


 


jlb says:


"What, pray expound, makes a discussion on ecclesiastical interpretations of the Bible a non-theological discussion?"


 


And what, pray tell, "ecclesiastical interpretations" were noted in either of your first two examples?


 


jlb says:


"Perhaps that is how you define a theological discussion, but others define theological discussions as those which touch ecclesiology and other aspects as well."


Check your dictionary. Theology is to God what ecclesiology is to the Church.


jlb says:


"The import of the question of the Christian priesthood and whether women should be included in it has little to no import for the atheist.  For that matter, it has little import for those who aren’t members of confessions that have a male-exclusive priesthood - namely the RCC and the EOC."


You thus  confirm what I've said, logic is generally not a useful methodology for a convincing theological argument with people that don't already agree with you.


 


 


 





Time for a review of Mysticii Corporis (Pius XII)

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 17, 2012 - 8:34PM #87
Rgurley4
Posts: 8,665

And there ain't much "theos" in the psedo-theological arguments of this thread...

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 18, 2012 - 8:32AM #88
Marcion
Posts: 2,883

I regard them as mythological rather than theological.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 18, 2012 - 11:34AM #89
happygardener
Posts: 734

jlb said:


"And that’s where you’re wrong.  You will never find a document or otherwise official Church teaching that says, “It is Church teaching that bishops and priests are instructed to shelter pedophile priests”. "


 


The Vatican document "crimen sollicitationis" commands that incidents of pedophilia, homosexuality, etc. committed by clergy must be kept secret from anyone outside the Church, even the document itself was to be kept secret. The effect, of course, was to shelter abusing priests from the secular law and the public.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimen_sollicitati...

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 18, 2012 - 12:17PM #90
gilg
Posts: 5,200

JLB,


I don’t think that the sole issue that hinders one’s seeking after God is embracing the idea of priestesses, but I do see it as a symptom of the overarching promotion of liberalism that is typical among those who advocate for priestesses.


Why are you stuck with "symptom" to such an extent that you can not even grasp a simple concept?


Who is arguing that the sole issue that promotes or hinders orientation towards GOD is the gender of the priest?  You misunderstand JLB. The point is that gender or other roles shouldn't affect or orientation towards the divine.


Contrary to your view, I don't believe nor do I advocate a gender approach to the divine! That is the point of my question, that the only important factors  are   what promotes or inhibits approaching the divine: gender, social status, ethnic group, etc.... are loadedp with cultural values and expectations. We err when we believe cultural values are divine mandates.. In the end, you see female priests as inhibiting approaching the divine because the male body is the only one dignified to represent Christ - no matter how you cut it, you do see something about the human female  body that isn't Christlike.... that is a cultural value and while it may also be a religious value it is still a human invention and not a divine one.


 


 In your world, is a hermaphrodite elgible for the priesthood or do the female organs disqualify that person? If Christ was a hermaphrodite would only hemaphrodites be elgible for the priesthood? Where does one stop creating artificial distinctions?


 


 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 9 of 12  •  Prev 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook