It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

for catholics: Why do you view women as spiritually inferior?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by they see ALL
simply, jesus didn't ordain women for whatever reason and the church should not change something that jesus did or the rules and values he had


OK, so Jesus didn't pick any women to be apostles for whatever reason. Does anyone really know what that reason is? Did Jesus ever SAY or otherwise explicitly indicate that women should not be leaders in the church? Or are we just making inferences based on what he did? Isn't the Catholic Church making a huge assumption that because Jesus didn't have any women apostles that women aren't meant to be leaders in the church? Is there anything else to back up this assumption?

Is it possible that there simply were no women that Jesus felt were qualified at the time? Is it possible that the women of the time were all pretty busy caring for families and perhaps didn't even have the desire to be leaders and follow Jesus?

Secondly, were there any blond apostles? Black ones? Were there any disabled apostles? Any non-Jewish apostles? Yet, don't we let any of them be priests today, as long as they're men? Are we so sure that the man/woman division is what Jesus meant for us to infer from his actions?

Thirdly, I know it's not a popular belief in some circles, but I believe that much of the bible concerning women has been changed and removed by the men of the Catholic Church to give the power in the church exclusively to men.




posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Thirdly, I know it's not a popular belief in some circles, but I believe that much of the bible concerning women has been changed and removed by the men of the Catholic Church to give the power in the church exclusively to men.


I would agree Benevolent Heretic, that indeed some of the Bible has been changed, things ommitted, and reinterpreted/misinterpreted. As well as, much pertinent ancient holy writings being excluded from being included into the Holy Bible in the first place if it did not serve the purposes of the leaders, "the church" etc at the time, which tool they used to control people and subdue people, yes, perhaps even women, etc. but ALL people as well.

Still, I do believe that in the leadership of an organized church /religion specific roles must be filled, and that it may be necessary to define such roles both by worthiness and gender.

That is to say that there are gender appropriate roles, but it is NOT to say that gender dictates worthiness.

Truth is, many an unworthy man may lead I am afraid, and likewise, many a worthy woman may not.

Is it fair? No, but only God is perfect-not man. Each person must live to the dictates of their own soul, abide by the rules they choose to bind themselves with by entering into a particular religion, and be accountable for what they do and don't do and know.

Remember people, whether son of God, or peace keping philosopher, or myth-there is great wisdom in the intercession of Jesus when he prays:

"Forgive them- for they know not what they do."

At this point in history, I believe very few religions, people of faith, and people without faith- agnostic or athiests- know what they are doing.



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 12:28 PM
link   
2l8: well said. excellent points.



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 01:24 PM
link   
But does anyone have the answer to my questions? Does Jesus or the bible ever say that only men should be the leaders of the church?



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Does Jesus or the bible ever say that only men should be the leaders of the church?


www.gotquestions.org...



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
why do i claim that catholics see women as spiritually inferior?
simply because they dont' allow women to become priests
a man can serve the same functions as a woman and more, but a woman cannot


Although I was born and raised Catholic, I also incorporate the ideologies of many beliefs into my own outlook and perspective on life in general.

I do not subscribe to the belief that Catholics view women as inferior. I believe some priests' (etc) understanding of accepted doctine and script may merely be misunderstood, where as other church leaders feel (although they don't voice it publicly) that it is men who are more obligated to be in service than women are. Even at the genetic (dna) level it is mitochondrial (sp?) dna that is supplied from the female's dna (egg) which servives encoded as instinct from generation to generation, and lasts longer than male dna. Although i know you do not make any correlation between cellular consciousness and a godhead, i do in my beliefs.



the church claims that women and men are equal in the eyes of "god"
why doesn't the church act on "god's will"?


Why is someone who does not subscribe to believing in a god pretend to know god's will? No god exists, hence no will from god is taken in as part of your collective experiences.



i'll expand this to all other christian sects that don't allow women to be some sort of religious leader on an equal position with men


Aren't women tasked with enough burden already?

Why don't men owe more than women in the eyes of God?

1 Timothy 2:11-12 proclaims, “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.”

Sometimes silence speaks louder than words. Perhaps if men could learn to learn in quietness and full submission and follow the example set forth by women we would understand what most women already do understand.

Which of the two sexes do you think exhibit more empathy and understanding for other people? Men or women? In this specific case i believe women are usually more intuitive concerning interpretting peoples' motives. Maybe it's just my opinion, and i concede that. But, i believe if you asked around most people are far more familiar with the term maternal than they are with the term paternal. I think one word gets used moreso than the other in everyday use, for a reason.

[edit on 17-1-2007 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Thank you, KL. From your link:



1 Timothy 2:11-12 proclaims, “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.”

In the church, God assigns different roles to men and women. This is a result of the way mankind was created (1 Timothy 2:13) and the way in which sin entered the world (2 Timothy 2:14). God, through the Apostle Paul’s writing, restricts women from serving in roles of spiritual teaching authority over men. This precludes women from serving as pastors, which definitely includes preaching to, teaching, and having spiritual authority over men.


Who is speaking? Timothy? So Timothy ordered this and the whole church just accepts it?? :shk:



I cannot barf enough on this bible verse, it's translation and interpretation to show how much I condemn these teachings. Just one more validation of my beliefs about the modern 'bible' and conventional religion.

Edit:
Later that day...
I just wanted to come back and apologize for this outburst. While I cannot say how much I disagree with the sexist teachings of most modern religions, I respect the fact that others have them as part of their faith. It's just something to which I could never espouse. You might say it's against my religion.


BH out.


[edit on 17-1-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I just wanted to come back and apologize for this outburst. While I cannot say how much I disagree with the sexist teachings of most modern religions, ....


If the verse was intended the specific way some people interpret it, i agree with you Benevolent, and not the verse.

If the verse was intended to mean that men have this specific burden and task more so than women do, but our tasks are equally difficult, i believe there may be some truth to the verse, so long as it is not interpretted in a way that only permits it to be seen as sexist in regards to the intended content of the author.

The author may have been putting a greater responsibility and burden on men, since women were already closer to knowing certain truths. Where men only learn certain truths already known to women by attempting to deliver the teachings.

Does this make sense without the verse implying sexist standards upon women?

It does to a certain degree for me, although i am not defending the verse, but rather just trying to show how it could have been that the intended meaning was something less sexist.



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 04:28 PM
link   
they see all,


Well if you think I am sexist, I guess I must be.

I do not need to defend myself.



[edit on 17-1-2007 by resistancia]



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
they see ALL, what about all the rampant sexism in the new testament?
want citations on sexism?

Romans 1:27
1 Corinthians 11:3
1 Corinthians 11:7
1 Corinthians 14:34-35
Ephesians 5:22-24
Colossians 3:18
1 Timothy 2:11-12
1 Timothy 2:14-15
Titus 2:4-5
1 Peter 3:1
1 Peter 3:2-6
1 Peter 3:7

i'd post the actual excerpts, but that would be far too time-consuming for me to do right now


Or maybe. . .it's that you're looking for this sexism and refuse to see anything different?



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by TurningOverFriday
Or maybe. . .it's that you're looking for this sexism and refuse to see anything different?


well, if there is anything in the bible that tells readers to treat women equally it would directly contradict all of those passages i posted

wouldn't such contradictions destroy the infallibility of the bible?



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

wouldn't such contradictions destroy the infallibility of the bible?


Wouldn't spending more time looking for the contradictions, rather than seeing no contradictions, destroy your infallibility in the eyes of those who believe in the infallibility of the bible?

I know it seems like word play, but your question alone may demonstrate your intentions.

You are actively seeking contradictions in a book that has for some reason or another been permitted to pass through the ages, from generation to generation to generation....

Do you believe all these people just more gullible than you?
Have you already discounted the possibility that they were justified in preserving such a book?

[edit on 17-1-2007 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Do you believe all these people just more gullible than you?
Have you already discounted the possibility that they were justified in preserving such a book?

[edit on 17-1-2007 by Esoteric Teacher]


nope
i just think that myths should be taken as what they are
tiny shreds of truth wrapped in very thick shells of falsehoods

parts of the bible are valid at face value
but in one way or another the whole thing is valid if you take it as simple myth instead of absolute truth

i don't really think religious people are more gullible, i just think they are taking a myth far too seriously



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

i just think that myths should be taken as what they are
tiny shreds of truth wrapped in very thick shells of falsehoods


Every once in a while you make these statements i totally agree with. Sometimes it takes the fun out of trying to debate with you. I believe you are right. I think that even the "myths" do contain a truth which was the seed for the myth in the first place. I also believe that through empathy, and a love/reverence for the truth we can further discern what was a shell of falshood and what was a truth.



i don't really think religious people are more gullible, i just think they are taking a myth far too seriously


I'll buy that. I can't honestly totally disagree with this statement.

In some cases i think certain people who are taking the their interpretation too seriously are gullible by proxy, but gullible to their own expectations, which doesn't permit them to see other possible meanings.

You have a valid point here Madness.

thanks for sharing thoughts,
john



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 06:52 PM
link   
You know it's quite telling. The quote in my sig. is from T.H. Huxley, he wrote some fantastic stuff, but he was a racist, it was common in those days, I don't condone it. So was Lincoln, they can be great people but we can still see some of their views as abhorent but accept it was the norm in those days.

So, is anyone willing to accept that some of the views in the bible are just the norm for their day and quite abhorent when looked at in a modern enlightened context?



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

So, is anyone willing to accept that some of the views in the bible are just the norm for their day and quite abhorent when looked at in a modern enlightened context?


I am.

that's probably the shortest answer i've ever supplied you with, instead of my normal long winded in depth, repeating myself different ways, type of answers and replies, and follow up posts to your posts .... (blah blah, yada yada, ...)

All joking about myself put aside ....

I believe your point is a very valid one.

It is valuable when in pursuit of the truth of scriptures to keep in mind the possible mindsets and perspectives of those who were writing the texts.

Or else, we would be ignoring an important variable, and part of the puzzle, in our pursuit of understanding.



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
I am.

that's probably the shortest answer i've ever supplied you with, instead of my normal long winded in depth, repeating myself different ways, type of answers and replies, and follow up posts to your posts .... (blah blah, yada yada, ...)

All joking about myself put aside ....

I believe your point is a very valid one.

It is valuable when in pursuit of the truth of scriptures to keep in mind the possible mindsets and perspectives of those who were writing the texts.

Or else, we would be ignoring an important variable, and part of the puzzle, in our pursuit of understanding.


Well, I think it's great that someone can accept it. It's hard sometimes to put writings in the context, or zeitgeist, they were written, to separate the wheat from the chaff.

I posted a similar thread a while back and many tried to justify the submissive position that NT writers gave to women. I also noticed that many of these passages don't seem to be Jesus's words, but rather more sourced from the opinion of the writers.

So, I'm still happy to be 'an atheist for Jesus'


I am wondering what those here who think this clear distinction in roles is justified feel about some denominations allwoing women to have a full role in church? I know when the Anglican church did so, many were quite dismayed by this and left.



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by clearwater
That whole story about the rib doesn't bear out scientifically.


yeah, i know...

science and religion are two separate things (and should remain separate)...


Originally posted by Edn
lol Jesus didn't ordain women 'for what ever reason'?

Wake up will you, Jesus didn't ordain women because 2000 years ago women had there place in the home and thats where they should stay(2000 years ago that is).


i know this too...

i didn't post it because it should be self-evident...

although, i did touch on this a few posts below the one you quoted (check it out)...


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
OK, so Jesus didn't pick any women to be apostles for whatever reason. Does anyone really know what that reason is?


i don't know the reason...


Originally posted by kinglizard
www.gotquestions.org...


thanks kinglizard...

i was hoping you would see this thread...

the best thing about religion is that you can interpret it your own way (most of the time)...


Originally posted by resistancia
Well if you think I am sexist, I guess I must be.

I do not need to defend myself.


sorry if i offended you...

i will look at this thread later tonight some more...





posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

So, I'm still happy to be 'an atheist for Jesus'




WOW!

That would make a GREAT Slogan for T-Shirts!!



BE AN ATHIEST FOR JESUS, I AM!

It makes sense, in a humorous way.

I'm not being sarcastic, i really do like the slogan: "An athiest for Jesus"

If that doesn't confuse some people soo much they start to think, i don't know what would.

Priceless! I say print it out on some shirts, and see if it sells.



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 09:07 PM
link   
well, i guess i'd be an "atheist for jesus" in a way
i see some decent ideas coming out of the NT
however
let us get back on track
the topic is christian sexism (this all came to me because i'm always hearing about muslim sexism and wanted to shed light on the sexism apparent in another religion)



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join