Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Religion is for men
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 3 of 77 (383724)
02-08-2007 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Greatest I am
02-08-2007 8:43 PM


It might be me but I can almost always tell that I am debating or discussing something with a woman.
I'd be wary of attributing too much to this gender-radar you think you have. Almost certainly you're remembering your successes and forgetting your failures.
My question to all is where are the women and why is religion mostly for men.
Female input is restricted in a large number of religions, primarily because their input isn't consistent with preserving patriarchal attitudes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Greatest I am, posted 02-08-2007 8:43 PM Greatest I am has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 27 of 77 (384295)
02-10-2007 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by anastasia
02-10-2007 8:12 PM


Re: Misogyny
They are only physically different, which for obvious reasons, make men better at some things, and women others. That I view the role of the priesthood more suitable to the male gender in natural ways
I don't think anybody can question physical differences between men and women.
But here's a hint, my friend. When you take a leap from weewees and hoohoos, to concluding that "men and women are equal, but are suited for different jobs", but coincidentally the jobs men are "physically more suited for" are prestigious jobs like church leaders, running businesses, and political offices; and the jobs you believe women are "suited for" are jobs that are typically undercompensated and underappreciated, you're a misogynist.
It's true that typically men exhibit greater body strength than women, generally with less effort. But since even a person in a wheelchair - indeed, a quadriplegic - could fulfill the duties necessary to lead a church, it's illogical and sexist to say that the physical differences between men and women make men more suited for church leadership.
The simple truth of the matter is that, by any objective standard, women are more suited than men for the leadership of ministry - they're typically more likely to be sensitive, introspective, and nurturing, as well as being generally better communicators. However, men lead the church because church leadership is prestigious, and therefore patriarchy excludes women from serving in that way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by anastasia, posted 02-10-2007 8:12 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by anastasia, posted 02-10-2007 10:06 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 38 of 77 (384330)
02-10-2007 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by anastasia
02-10-2007 10:06 PM


Re: Misogyny
If you say that women are typically this or typically that, you are acknowledging differences in physical mental makeup.
Or, potentially, I'm acknowledging that culture tends to inculcate various mental habits and conditions.
I can just as easily say that men are typically more objective, practical, and tacit.
What's sexist, though, is that none of those traits have anything to do with church leadership; nonetheless, you insist that the prestigious position (pastor, Pope, etc) be filled by a man, while the subservient position (secretary, etc) be filled by a woman.
Now, it seems irrefutable to me that a nurturing person would be best for the priest, and the practical person would be best as the secretary. Sexism dictates, of course, that the man hold the powerful position and the woman take the subservient role, even though that's the exact opposite of how we would expect their stereotypical traits to qualify them for these duties.
That's the sexism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by anastasia, posted 02-10-2007 10:06 PM anastasia has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 48 of 77 (384576)
02-12-2007 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by anastasia
02-11-2007 7:18 PM


Re: Eve the Leader
We do have a list; Jesus and His disciples.
Except that's not a list; there's nowhere in the Bible where an exhaustive list of disciples is mentioned - and certainly no basis for the idea that Jesus chose only men for his disciples.
In fact even that claim is questionable; the Bible uses "disciple" as a word meaning "those who follow the teachings", which makes it fairly clear that it wasn't so much Jesus picking his elect team of religious all-stars, but rather, men and women for whom the teachings resonated coming forward of their own volition to follow him. They chose themselves, in other words.
But to argue that "only men were at the Last Supper because only his disciples were there; therefore, only men were Jesus's disciples" is a fairly transparent act of circular reasoning.
Leading is serving, and serving is leading.
That's amusing, but of course, when it settles out that it's men who get the benefits of "serving by leading", and women who bear the burden of "leading by serving", that's either a particularly tiresome and unlikely coincidence, or institutional sexism. Why do you think my money is on?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by anastasia, posted 02-11-2007 7:18 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by anastasia, posted 02-12-2007 8:31 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 50 of 77 (384762)
02-12-2007 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by anastasia
02-12-2007 8:31 PM


Re: Eve the Leader
Well, folks, take it or leave it, the RCC has taught infallibly on this matter and does not consider itself in any way possessive of the right to change the requirements for ordination.
Papal infallibility extends to claims of doctrine, not claims of fact. (A lot of people don't understand how papal infallibility works. It's not that the Pope isn't allowed to be wrong; it's that, as Christ's Vicar, he's entitled to write checks that Jesus Christ will cash, if you will. If the Pope determines that you can buy an indulgence, Heaven guarantees that it will be honored. If the Pope decides that contraception isn't a sin, it doesn't matter that previous Popes decided differently - Heaven honors the current Pope's determination.) Not even Jesus Christ can change the past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by anastasia, posted 02-12-2007 8:31 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by anastasia, posted 02-13-2007 10:15 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 53 of 77 (384855)
02-13-2007 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by anastasia
02-13-2007 10:15 AM


Re: Eve the Leader
Popes do not and will not toss out the ruling of past popes.
Well, maybe they say that, but anyone can look at the Church's history and see how that's not true. I mean, Benedict XVI has already reversed many papal edicts of John Paul II.
As a side note, I did not say anything about papal infallibility.
Wha...? No, right here:
Well, folks, take it or leave it, the RCC has taught infallibly on this matter
There's only one infallible figure in the Catholic Church, Ana. I shouldn't have to tell you who it is.
As a side note, I have to wonder why you're being so transparently dishonest. Is it your impression that the people you're talking with right now are idiots?
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by anastasia, posted 02-13-2007 10:15 AM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by anastasia, posted 02-13-2007 10:34 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 56 of 77 (384862)
02-13-2007 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by anastasia
02-13-2007 10:34 AM


Re: Eve the Leader
I do not have a dishonest bone in my body.
Protestations of honesty are typical of those who act dishonestly. The honest have no need to proclaim it.
When you say something, and then say you didn't say that, that's behaving dishonestly. Maybe you're an honest person, or maybe not; regardless, that's how you're behaving.
I said, 'taught infallibly'. This phrase refers to the episcopal Magesterium of the Church, not the Pope.
An old Catholic boy knows who's infallible in the Church and who isn't, I assure you. Like I said there's only one infallible figure in the Church.
The Pope defines infallibly.
So, in fact, it was papal infallibility you were talking about. Hence, dishonesty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by anastasia, posted 02-13-2007 10:34 AM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by anastasia, posted 02-13-2007 10:55 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 58 of 77 (384866)
02-13-2007 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by anastasia
02-13-2007 10:55 AM


Re: Eve the Leader
Again, I never mentioned Papal infallibility.
Lol! If you're going to insist that you didn't say what you clearly said, I don't know what kind of discussion is going to be possible with you.
I hope you enjoy your time here at EvC.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by anastasia, posted 02-13-2007 10:55 AM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by anastasia, posted 02-13-2007 11:09 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024