quote:

Are you asking why do churches have only male priests?—También

     No. I am asking how clerics of any denomination or gender can possibly support the precepts listed in
Women in the Bible and hope to have followings of decent people. I should not have asked the question because
obviously they can't.
Seán

Sean, but lots of people do follow the Bible in spite of what's in it.

A: You are Prime Creator.
Q: (L) But that is so esoteric... I am talking about...
A: The point is: stop filling your consciousness with
monotheistic philosophies planted long ago to imprison your
being. Can't you see it by now, after all you have learned, that
there is no source, there is no leader, there is no basis, there is
no overseer, etc... You literally possess, within your
consciousness profile, all the power that exists within all of
creation!?! You absolutely have all that exists, ever has, or
ever will, contained within your mind. All you have to do is
learn how to use it, and at that moment, you will literally,
literally, be all that is, was, and ever will be!!!!!!!!
Q: (L) That is all fine and dandy and sounds wonderful, except
for one little item. You also say that the monotheistic concepts
were IMPOSED on us to prevent us from knowing this. So, if
we are all that is, how can something exist that can impose
something so unpleasant on us?
A: Choices follow desire based imbalances.
Q: (L) If that is the case, why can't any one just turn off the
lights, end the illusion, and everything becomes nothing?
A: Well, first of all, everything does not become nothing.
Secondly, some have already become everything.
Q: (L) Terrific! And I understand that we are digging our way
out of this particular illusion. And that is rather profound a
thing to say to someone still stuck in the mire. I really want to
find out, but it is hard. I have to think about that for a while.

-- John G.

quote:

...but lots of people do follow the Bible in spite of what's in it.—Bluelamp

     If so, they must be highly selective in their reading of it. How could anyone accept the teaching "If however the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death..."(Deuteronomy 22:13-21). Or not loathe the god who issued that directive?
Seán

quote:

Men cement women into inferior status day to day and all the time. It is naturally the way that men behave

Sounds like a misandrist talking to me. As a man, I resent being told that's "naturally" the way men behave--and I deny that it's true. Shame on you.

As for the reasons given why women may not be priests, there are a bunch. A few arguments are here:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What...having_women_priests

A number of those arguments come from the Bible.

Also look here:
http://www.davidmacd.com/catho...ic_women_priests.htm

This page quotes some of the early Church leaders, such as this quote from Tertullian:

quote:

"How wanton are the women of these heretics! they dare to teach, . to dispute, to carry out exorcisms, to undertake cures, it may be even to baptize." In his work On veiling virgins 9. 1:"It is not permissible for a woman to speak in church, nor may she teach, baptize, offer, or claim for herself any function proper to a man, and least of all the office of priest."

Jeff

Sean, I've loathed God as presented in the Bible all my life. Wiping out Sodom and Gomorrah? Drowning almost everyone in the Great Flood? Killing almost all the children in Egypt because of a political problem with the Pharoah? And on and on. Hardly a loving God.

Jeff

quote:

Sean, I've loathed God as presented in the Bible all my life.—CompGuy

Jeff,
     That seems to me to be the sole response compatible with mental health. Believers that the Bible comprises the inerrant Word of God must either be ignorant of its contents or be utterly depraved.
     The loving God I've heard so much about is hard to find within the Scriptures.
Seán

quote:

Sounds like a misandrist talking to me. As a man, I resent being told that's "naturally" the way men behave--and I deny that it's true. Shame on you.

As for the reasons given why women may not be priests, there are a bunch. A few arguments are here:

Culture has to be taught or its lost. We remember who and what we are, so that we don't slide back into ignorance again. We have to teach the next generation of men (and women) that women are equals and that we need them as equals. History books reveal the truth of it. Sad but true, news to you?

Which helps me explain something to Sean.

quote:

If so, they must be highly selective in their reading of it. How could anyone accept the teaching "If however the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death..."(Deuteronomy 22:13-21). Or not loathe the god who issued that directive?

Sean, you've really got some righteous fire going here; so I think you can give equal time to patiently listen to an explanation of the passage.

The particular passage you've cited protected girls. You're saying that its evil and was about stoning them, but I think you're wrong. I suspect the reason that some brides had to be virgins was to assure the clan's inheritance. It was a way of making sure no clan grew too powerful, assuring a balance of power. You see, some men would marry, sleep with the girl, ruin her reputation and move on. This law guarantees that cannot happen, nor does it necessarily mean that only virgins could get married. Ok, the culture was primitive compared to what you're used to, but the principle behind this law was good. The principle is striving forward toward better things, recognizing that we have not seen how good things can be. You ought to reconsider the accusations you've made. I think this law placed limitations on a man, so that if he wanted to claim his bride was not a virgin (in contradiction of statements in wedding documents) then he had only one day to make a claim. After that, she was safe. The law also specified a way for the girl to fight the false accusation -- with the sheets of the wedding night. This law represented a step forward, not backward. You have demonized the passage and insisted it be forgotten about. That is not the way forward. We have to remember the path to where we are.

I'm not the authority on interpreting what this is about, but I think it is a good guess. I suppose you could ask a professional.

I don't think culture has a bias toward crazy prejudices and that we have to keep telling each generation that blacks and gays and women are people. You have to keep teaching hate for it to persist. You obviously think the opposite. I think you're wrong. I hope you're wrong, And even if you are right, I sure prefer my attitude to yours.

I don't know how you can twist a clear statement that a non-virgin who gets married should be stoned to death into a law that protects young women. (It's actually worse than that--the woman is ASSUMED to be a non-virgin unless she can prove otherwise. We know many virgins have broken hymens for many reasons--yet they would be stoned to death under this law also. And even arguing that way is disgusting, since there is no reason for any woman to be stoned to death for having sex.)

Jeff

También,
     Your rationale for stoning little girls surprises me. However, it does not address my point, which was that if the Bible is the veritable Word of God, neither Word nor God is tolerable. A God who endorses brutal murder to discourage unsanctioned copulation is unacceptable in any era: the past, the present or the future.
     As a compromise for this discussion we can substitute some other passage from Women in the Bible. They are all disgusting.
Seán

Sean, it is confusing because that is not the topic of the thread. Ordaining of women is bigger than arguments for and against the existence of God. You're pushing some kind of anti God message and I'm talking about preserving history and facing facts. Human culture stones little girls until someone envisions a law to protect them. Maybe girls were stoned before that law came apparently; and I agree that was bad. We see stoning as bad in our time, because someone before us figured it out and made an effort to improve. This law was progressive in that age, and it was good that someone realized the status quo wasn't OK and changed it. Its good that we have a record of it changing. The ordaining of women is a big deal, too. It is really good when people make an effort to change things for the better.

Comp Guy, you think you were born sipping wine with your pinkie out? It doesn't make sense to me.

Everyone,

This is just a lick-and-a-promise post. I read some of the new posts on this thread but didn't have time to answer them adequately, so I passed. It looks like I started a really interesting discussion, when all I thought I was doing was reporting an unprecedented factoid.

Today I was catching up with other e-mails and other projects, but I want to let everyone know I'll get back to this topic as soon as I can.

--Linda

quote:

I don't know how you can twist a clear statement that a non-virgin who gets married should be stoned to death into a law that protects young women. (It's actually worse than that--the woman is ASSUMED to be a non-virgin unless she can prove otherwise. We know many virgins have broken hymens for many reasons--yet they would be stoned to death under this law also. And even arguing that way is disgusting, since there is no reason for any woman to be stoned to death for having sex.)

Jeff,

I totally agree with you! I was apparently born without a hymen, as there were no signs of breakage on the night when it should have and would have broken if I'd ever had one. I remember thinking: "I would have been in big trouble in the Middle Ages." Since I don't recall any accidents that would have caused breakage earlier, I believe I was simply born without one. Later my mother informed me that she was apparently born without a hymen too.

I agree that the law is totally patriarchal and sexist and treats women as "goods," as things rather than people. It was intended to establish the paternity of future offspring in the days before DNA tests--and not only beyond any reasonable doubt, but beyond any unreasonable doubt. The laws regarding marriage for Levites and kohenim shed further light on this intent. But I don't consider establishing paternity sufficient reason for stoning girls to death--nothing is!

--Linda

quote:

Sean, it is confusing because that is not the topic of the thread.—Tamblén

También,
     My apologies for the confusion. I'll be more circumspect henceforth.
Seán

quote:

Comp Guy, you think you were born sipping wine with your pinkie out? It doesn't make sense to me.

An odd metaphor. Are you raising a gay issue of some sort? I hope not.

Anyway, you're raising the old question about whether humans are essentially good or evil. If I'm reading you correctly, you're saying that men are innately cruel to women and that the culture has to train that out of each generation. I'm saying the opposite--that men are inherently kind to women and that they have to be trained into cruelty. I realize that the question is extremely complicated--I'm simply talking about a bias towards one view or another. There are also many evolutionary reasons for men to be nice to women and vice versa of course.

I like to think that progress against sexism, racism, and other kinds of bigotry is a one-way street, that our culture will not turn back to viewing women as property, for example, or resort to barbaric methods like threats of stoning to keep hormones in check. I could be naive in that view. But, as I said, I prefer my view to yours.

Jeff

I seriously don't think the planet has become any better. There may be areas where it's more white collar (economic) and less targeted at specific groups but it's still a totally self centered planet. The US doesn't need good reasons for going to war. The U.S. certainly wasn't treating prisoners humanely and isn't treating protestors humanely.

There's still plenty of domestic violence, still plenty of people going postal. Most of the rest of the world quite correctly sees the U.S. as an evil empire. The U.S. somehow always sees itself as a bastion of virtue in spite of all the horrible things it has done in its short history (much shorter than the Bible). Right from the beginning against the Native Americans, then slavery and it took quite a while just for women to be able to vote.

People are able to feel good about the Bible in spite of what it says and feel good about their country in spite of what it does. We are quite easily controlled whether it be overtly via violent/unjust laws and actions or more covertly via propaganda and economics. Leadership doesn't like us any better than they ever have.

-- John G.

I'm talking about "our culture"--not all cultures worldwide. John, do you deny there's been tremendous progress against sexism, racism, and bigotry in the U. S. over the past century? It's more than political correctness. Could we have elected a black president fifty years ago?

I think the U. S. is evil in many ways and good in many ways. It's far too complex a picture to assign a country's policies overall a simple description. "Leadership doesn't like us any better than they ever have" you say. I'm astonished to meet someone more cynical than I am, but I will point out that in the U. S. we elect those leaders and if we make vast errors in judgment (which we do) it's at least partially our own fault.

Jeff

quote:

...I will point out that in the U. S. we elect those leaders and if we make vast errors in judgment (which we do) it's at least partially our own fault.—CompGuy

The Truth, if ever She were spoken!
Seán

Jeff, I tend to think the problem is much deeper than who we vote into the White House and Congress, my view would be close to this:

http://buddhistpeacegroup.org/pnac/aboutpage.html

"Let us share with you why we've come to believe that those who are promoting this vision are not simply a rogue element who have somehow commandeered the White House - but, rather, establishment elite whose long careers are intimately interwined and deeply rooted in past administrations, all the way back to Nixon and before. Their political objectives are consistent with a variety of highly questionable U.S. policy threads that can be traced back at least as far as the early 1940s, when the 'Cold War' was being fashioned by a likeminded and equally dangerous group of zealots."

I will say that yes the civil rights and anti-war movements of the 60s did scare the powers that be and that they did try to appear nicer to make sure that didn't happen again. Bush II however got some police state-like stuff passed which doesn't seem to be going away any time soon. The Department of Homeland Security is quite Orwellian. In their book 3rd Parties seem to equal terrorists, Ron Paul and others had to complain to get some of their worst stuff retracted.

I do think it is up to us but not in a voting kind of way (they are too entrenched for that) but in more a 60s kind of organized peaceful protest kind of way (though I think they have that well covered too police state-wise). There's the internet too which wasn't there in the 60s. Probably things will have to be less behind the scenes before something like PNAC can be seen for what it is.

-- John G.

Interesting link, Bluelamp. It has some links to Buddhists for Peace, which I hadn't heard about before. I got lost toward the end of the web page and couldn't find the 90 page document. Is it more like a research paper or is it a document, and where can we find it? Thanks.

También, it was the output of a Think Tank.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...New_American_Century
http://www.newamericancentury....AmericasDefenses.pdf

-- John G.

It appears that Vice President Biden is of similar opinion to this string's name. "Washington is broken."

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2...t/entry6215750.shtml

Donald