Just a guess: there haven't actually been any advances by women in the Catholic Church?

(I know, I'm an atheist, so I should butt out, but I can't resist)

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

The New Testament of the Bible hasn't changed since it was "assembled" from the various writings of the time of Jesus.

What got in, what didn't? Why would some gospels be included and others ignored?

Clinton was quoted as saying that the Pope will have a "mixed legacy" when asked by reporters.

Mixed legacy? This coming from a man who cheated on his wife and lied to the world and was impeached?

As society changes and their religion no longer fits their lifestyle they suddenly decide that the religion must be wrong because they themselves must be right. It means that the doctrines and methodologies that religions subscribe and preach aren't up with the times so it's time to leave and find one that suits their tastes.

Pope John Paul II remained faithful to his cause and his message and never once wavered.

Willy's quote was pretty funny.

Something like the Pope increasing the number of Catholics worldwide by some 250 million, but did not really grow the number of priests. Like a lot of us he will probably have a mixed legacy.

Him trying to draw a connection between lying under oath about getting a bj from an intern in the oval office and the pope not being to grow the priesthood in proportion with the number of new Catholics is pretty amazing.

Apologies for ignoring all the good things he said and good things he helped make happen, but I want to focus on the last part of your comments:

"Pope John Paul II remained faithful to his cause and his message and never once wavered. "

There are some (in and out of the Catholic Church) who would argue that this isn't necessarily a good thing. That's obviously open to interpretaion, and clearly open to argument. But I just want to note that strict adherence and unwavering to a goal isn't always a good thing.

I know, I'm an atheist, so I should butt out

Probably, but I'll play along with you anyway. What do you figure would be an "advancement" for women in the Church?

(Casey's answer was spot on, by the way.)

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

strict adherence and unwavering to a goal isn't always a good thing.

It is if what you're adhering to is religious truth.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I realize that his was the "correct" answer.

A question for you (no hidden agenda, really!): Is there more to not allowing women priests than the idea that the Apostles were all men?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

<reply 1> strict adherence and unwavering to a goal isn't always a good thing. <reply 1/>

<reply 2> It is if what you're adhering to is religious truth. <reply 2/>

You are correct if the belief is the true TRUE religious truth. There has been more than one view over the years on some secondary views in Christianity alone (I'll view a belief in God and in Jesus to be primary, and other things secondary). When allowing for all the religions that have existed over time, we're talking about a pretty wide margin of error in religion.

The problem is that as fallible humans we are succeptable to not only believing in non-truths, but to even create and conceptualize non-truths, both scientifically and religiously.

I'm not saying the Pope was wrong to have strict adherence to the ideals of hope, and life and equality in humanity. But as an example, there are people in the Church who would say that there's no true reason why women can't be Priests (maybe not the best example, but I'm neither Christian nor Catholic).

There have been a lot of religious truthes throughout the history of man that haven't been very good in retrospect. I'm just saying we must allow for that.

Is there more to not allowing women priests than the idea that the Apostles were all men?

Before we get into the theology of it, let me ask you this: Does there need to be?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

"strict adherence and unwavering to a goal isn't always a good thing.

It is if what you're adhering to is religious truth.
"

It isn't when that religious thruth didn't advance with the rest of humanity.
That's not just the problem of Catholic Church though.
Institutions in charge of running all major religions are stuck not only in the last century, but in the one before it.

What about religion has changed in the last century or the one before it that requires rethinking and possible change?

It isn't when that religious thruth didn't advance with the rest of humanity.

Perfect example of the flawed thinking that creates problems.

In your view, then, truth is a malleable thing, that changes with time?

See, cause, in my view, truth is a constant, and the advancement of humanity should be measured by how closely humanity manages to adhere to truth.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Nothing changed in the religion (well, most of them anyways). As Casey said, it's one of the attractions of some of the religions.

Lots has changed in the society though.
Will continue later, gotta run home.

The idea that the Jews have a collective responsibility for the death of Jesus?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

I'm assuming that you mean "does there need to be more reason to the policy of not allowing women priests?". When a policy of an organization effectively shuts the door to a high level of involvement by more than half of its constituents, I'd say there has to be a pretty good reason for doing so.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

When a policy of an organization effectively shuts the door to a high level of involvement by more than half of its constituents, I'd say there has to be a pretty good reason for doing so.

And you wouldn't say that the example of Christ is a pretty good reason, I suppose.

Besides which, not being able to be a priest is not equivalent to shutting the door to high level involvement.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I said that I was asking a serious question, without hidden motives. You'll have to explain to this atheist what "the example of Christ" means. I haven't a clue.

As for your second statement, I don't think you're being honest. Tell me that the opportunities for women in the Church are equivalent to that of men. If you want to use Mother Theresa as an example, tell me how she affects Church policy, for instance. I don't buy it, and I don't think you do, either.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Uhhhh.... I thought you meant the english....

Mixing past tense with present tense in the sentance structure. Would read better without the word "Had"



Never mind...

Look at the Catholic Church and then look at how Jesus taught and lived as shown in the bible. Did Jesus wear the fancy robes. Did he preach in huge, exquisitely decorated cathedrals, did he worry about the specific forms of the service? I'd say the answer to all of those is no. The beginnings of the Catholic Church are vastly different from where they are now. As the Catholic Church grew and gained power it changed from its origins. Now to say that you must stick with the doctrine, strictures, rules, whatever you want to call them as they are set now because you can't change a truth does not follow logically as the Church had already changed to become what it is now.

I think I just talked myself in circles, but to get back to the crux of the argument you can't even say that the Church's view of the truth is constant as there have been some pretty major changes since Jesus's time.

The major truths should never change; belief in the Trinity, Ten Commandments, Golden Rule, etc., but to say that allowing women priests, priests to marry, etc would change the truth of the Church is not correct. Those "lesser" truths are typically interpretations and strictures that the Church has put on itself and were not set by Jesus.

That's what I meant to say!

I hate it when people are smarter than me, stop doing that.

You'll have to explain to this atheist what "the example of Christ" means. I haven't a clue.

Oh, come on- you're an atheist, but you're not slow.

What I mean is that Christ chose only men to be His Apostles, and that example shouldn't be flippantly dismissed. Presumably He had good reasons for doing so. (And please don't shoot back with a reply about the social conventions of His time- I really don't think that anyone who's at all familiar with the Gospel can claim that Christ was over-concerned with chauvinistic social mores.)

As for your second statement, I don't think you're being honest. Tell me that the opportunities for women in the Church are equivalent to that of men. If you want to use Mother Theresa as an example, tell me how she affects Church policy, for instance. I don't buy it, and I don't think you do, either.

I absolutely buy it. You don't buy it, I might guess, because you see the Catholic Church as a purely human institution, like some giant corporation in which women can't hold executive positions. But that's a misunderstanding of the Church, fundamentally.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."