The Religious Discussion of 2012

[carlfense]

What rationale is the Catholic Church currently giving for male only clergy?
I think the outrage over someone calling god a female is interesting.

Is it a hold-over from old property ownership laws?

Perhaps it is because Jesus was the bridegroom, and the church was the bride.

This marriage analogy was used... but once gay marriage is introduced into the equasion, the gender roles fly out the window.

I checked. Apparently the position of the Catholic Church is that no woman can have authority over a man. Were I a Catholic woman I don't think that I could/would accept that.

Basically according to the Catholic Church: Men > Women

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/women-and-the-priesthood

 

[knapplc]

I get that that's Church law/doctrine, carlfense, but again, I don't think the vast majority of today's Christians walk around thinking men are "superior" to women - or at least, not because of their religion, and not in a greater degree than the secular among us believe this. The Glass Ceiling wasn't created by Christians, nor is it perpetuated today as part of some Christian doctrine - again, some exceptions excluded.

As far as male clergy, that's a holdover from the Middle Ages, and is not justifiable by Biblical example (see: Priscilla). It's another example of our patriarchal society, IMO.

 

[carlfense]

I get that that's Church law/doctrine, carlfense, but again, I don't think the vast majority of today's Christians walk around thinking men are "superior" to women - or at least, not because of their religion, and not in a greater degree than the secular among us believe this. The Glass Ceiling wasn't created by Christians, nor is it perpetuated today as part of some Christian doctrine - again, some exceptions excluded.

As far as male clergy, that's a holdover from the Middle Ages, and is not justifiable by Biblical example (see: Priscilla). It's another example of our patriarchal society, IMO.

I guess that brings us back to who is the Catholic Church? Is it the moderate believers who use contraception and don't believe that men are superior to women? Or is it the clergy who oppose all contraception other than natural family planning and believe that women are inferior to men? They can't both be right. Congregation or clergy? Who is it?

Our current political rhetoric seems to indicate that the Catholic Church clergy speak for the church. I suppose that is because it gives them one more excuse to falsely paint Obama as being radical.

 

[knapplc]

That's like asking who you are, your head or your body? Can't have one without the other. Now, are we specifically talking about Catholics, or are we talking all Christians in general? I thought this was about all Christians. If it's only about Catholics then the roots of their issues go back to the Middle Ages when political power was as much the Church's focus as theological instruction.

However, I'm not the best person to answer for Catholicism, since I'm not and never have been Catholic.

 

[Sub-Husker]

That's like asking who you are, your head or your body? Can't have one without the other. Now, are we specifically talking about Catholics, or are we talking all Christians in general? I thought this was about all Christians. If it's only about Catholics then the roots of their issues go back to the Middle Ages when political power was as much the Church's focus as theological instruction.

Since there is diversity between Christian denominations, this part of the discussion is specific to Roman Catholics.

If a church had a doctine that supported racism (or some other nasty ism) and a clergy that supported it, how would that go over... even if most believers didn't follow that teaching?

 

[carlfense]

That's like asking who you are, your head or your body? Can't have one without the other. Now, are we specifically talking about Catholics, or are we talking all Christians in general? I thought this was about all Christians. If it's only about Catholics then the roots of their issues go back to the Middle Ages when political power was as much the Church's focus as theological instruction.

However, I'm not the best person to answer for Catholicism, since I'm not and never have been Catholic.

I think I've been focusing on Catholics because of the current brouhaha over contraception coverage. Many (most?) Christian denominations don't denounce the use of birth control or condoms but Catholic clergymen do. That's why they're on my radar at the moment.

 

[knapplc]

If a church had a doctine that supported racism (or some other nasty ism) and a clergy that supported it, how would that go over... even if most believers didn't follow that teaching?

Probably like a lead zeppelin. But it would have to be a major denomination, not some sideshow. The Westboro Baptists come to mind as an example of church-going extremists in this country, but nobody cares what they say because they're a minor sect.

If the Roman Catholic Church or the Lutherans or Southern Baptists came out with a racial agenda it would be a media firestorm. But if it was just the Church governance and not a fair portion of the believers, it would blow over.

 

[johnnyrodgers20]

Why would it be disrespectful to a genderless god? Or, more specifically, why would it be more disrespectful than calling God "He" or "Him?"

Isn't referring to God by male pronouns simply repeating dogmatically the tenets of a religion you were taught?

What about the qoute that God made man in his own image? Wasn't Adam the first human God made? :dunno

Do you really think God has a gender? What's the point of gender without equal/opposite gender? Gender is only necessary as a component of procreation, which is unnecessary for a god.

It's important that we recognize that god is male and that females are inherently inferior.

I never said that but you certainly get your nose out of whack when someone puts words in your mouth. I was simply stating that in Genesis it says God created Adam in his own image and then made him a mate. If that line were true God may look like a man in visible form. It also could mean that God gave man an everlasting soul so they could live ofrever like him and that was the meaning behind it. I was just asking the question how do you square that line with God being a woman? :confucius

 

[johnnyrodgers20]

It's important that we recognize that god is male and that females are inherently inferior.

I get the ironic hyperbole, but I think it's pretty safe to say that today's Christians aren't intentionally feeling/thinking this. At least, anecdotally, none of the Christians I know feel this way. Male or female.

What rationale is the Catholic Church currently giving for male only clergy?

I think the outrage over someone calling god a female is interesting

I am not outraged but rather interested inyour assumption that God is indeed a female. :wasted

 

[johnnyrodgers20]

By the way... the minister of my church is a female... she is getting married... to another woman... and she is also a practicing Wiccan.

What faith are you may I ask? :confucius

 

[HuskerShark]

Well I'll be frank with you here. If you are basing laws off of any religion other than Christianity, then the laws are wrong.

Really? You're welcome to head to the Middle East if you'd like to live in a theocracy. The US is a secular nation.

"[T]he Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." You know who said that? The founding fathers.

I really don't care how things are or how they have been, the Bible itself says to follow the will of God before the laws of the people. So here's a better idea: let's not create any confusion and just model our laws after Christianity.

What about the non-Christians? Screw 'em?

Screw 'em isn't exactly how I would phrase it. Let me say it like this: All people and all things on this earth are creations of God. It's just that some have not found Him yet. America's biggest downfall is that we try to make this country so universal so that everybody is happy. That's just not how it works. Sorry if you disagree.

 

[johnnyrodgers20]

I get that that's Church law/doctrine, carlfense, but again, I don't think the vast majority of today's Christians walk around thinking men are "superior" to women - or at least, not because of their religion, and not in a greater degree than the secular among us believe this. The Glass Ceiling wasn't created by Christians, nor is it perpetuated today as part of some Christian doctrine - again, some exceptions excluded.

As far as male clergy, that's a holdover from the Middle Ages, and is not justifiable by Biblical example (see: Priscilla). It's another example of our patriarchal society, IMO.

I guess that brings us back to who is the Catholic Church? Is it the moderate believers who use contraception and don't believe that men are superior to women? Or is it the clergy who oppose all contraception other than natural family planning and believe that women are inferior to men? They can't both be right. Congregation or clergy? Who is it?

Our current political rhetoric seems to indicate that the Catholic Church clergy speak for the church. I suppose that is because it gives them one more excuse to falsely paint Obama as being radical.

Those people who proclaim BO a radical gave him the white house. If they vote 54 to 46 (Catholics) for the Pub nominee in 2012 the white house will be in Pubs hands again. So I don't know who is painting him a radical but they can paint the Romney, Santorum or Gingrich a radical all they want as long as they vote 54 to 46 for them, I would be happy. :thumbs

 

[johnnyrodgers20]

If a church had a doctine that supported racism (or some other nasty ism) and a clergy that supported it, how would that go over... even if most believers didn't follow that teaching?

Probably like a lead (don't you mean) Led zeppelin. But it would have to be a major denomination, not some sideshow. The Westboro Baptists come to mind as an example of church-going extremists in this country, but nobody cares what they say because they're a minor sect.

If the Roman Catholic Church or the Lutherans or Southern Baptists came out with a racial agenda it would be a media firestorm. But if it was just the Church governance and not a fair portion of the believers, it would blow over.

chuckleshuffle

 

[krill]

Well I'll be frank with you here. If you are basing laws off of any religion other than Christianity, then the laws are wrong.

Really? You're welcome to head to the Middle East if you'd like to live in a theocracy. The US is a secular nation.

"[T]he Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." You know who said that? The founding fathers.

I hope you have some evidence to back that statement up, I would like to read it. eyeswear2allthatsholy

The Treaty of Tripoli (Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary) was the first treaty concluded between the United States of America and Tripolitania, signed at Tripoli on November 4, 1796 and at Algiers (for a third-party witness) on January 3, 1797. It was submitted to the Senate by President John Adams, receiving ratification unanimously from the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797 and signed by Adams, taking effect as the law of the land on June 10, 1797.

The treaty was a routine diplomatic agreement but has attracted later attention because the English version included a clause about religion in America.

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

The treaty is cited as historical evidence in the modern day controversy over whether there was religious intent by the founders of the United States government. Article 11 of the treaty has been interpreted as an official denial of a Christian basis for the U.S. government.

----------------

There is also a wealth of writing on the personal beliefs of Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and George Washington's in regard to the desist philosophy and general religious skepticism, which I'm sure you will carefully ignore.

 

[carlfense]

Why would it be disrespectful to a genderless god? Or, more specifically, why would it be more disrespectful than calling God "He" or "Him?"

Isn't referring to God by male pronouns simply repeating dogmatically the tenets of a religion you were taught?

What about the qoute that God made man in his own image? Wasn't Adam the first human God made? :dunno

Do you really think God has a gender? What's the point of gender without equal/opposite gender? Gender is only necessary as a component of procreation, which is unnecessary for a god.

It's important that we recognize that god is male and that females are inherently inferior.

I never said that but you certainly get your nose out of whack when someone puts words in your mouth. I was simply stating that in Genesis it says God created Adam in his own image and then made him a mate. If that line were true God may look like a man in visible form. It also could mean that God gave man an everlasting soul so they could live ofrever like him and that was the meaning behind it. I was just asking the question how do you square that line with God being a woman? :confucius

Where did I say that you said that? My reply was to knapplc.