September 22, 201115 yr Never heard a Catholic put it quite like that. Pretty interesting to me. So in the Catholic vocational viewpoint are their any other jobs which are gender specific other than nuns? Didn't teachers in Catholic elementary (maybe even further) always used to be nuns, thus gender specifc? CWB answered this pretty well. Nuns weren't teachers because that's what women did, but because their particular order of nuns had the education of children as their mission. And it's not quite accurate to say that "nun" is a gender-specific profession. "Nun" or "sister" is just the equivalent of a "monk" or a "friar" in that they are people who have professed vows to a religious life. In the original Greek, the term "monk" was also applied to women as it just means "solitary." The term "nun" is just the Latin term for the same word... "monk." And in Church documents written in Latin, monks and nuns are referred to as "nonnum" and "nonna." Why on Earth that developed I have no idea.
September 22, 201115 yr My whole point, which seemed to offend so many for who knows what reason, is that we all agree that discrimination based on race, gender, age, etc., is wrong. If that's the case, then why does the Church get a free pass? Is the Church not a part of society? Shouldn't the basic laws of the land apply to them as well? It's like a Fortune 500 company saying the CEO has always been a man, so that's the way it's always going to be. What would be the harm in allowing a woman to be a priest?
September 22, 201115 yr My whole point, which seemed to offend so many for who knows what reason, is that we all agree that discrimination based on race, gender, age, etc., is wrong. If that's the case, then why does the Church get a free pass? Is the Church not a part of society? Shouldn't the basic laws of the land apply to them as well? It's like a Fortune 500 company saying the CEO has always been a man, so that's the way it's always going to be. What would be the harm in allowing a woman to be a priest? Discrimination like you are describing applies to jobs. Priesthood isn't just a job. The Catholic Church is an organization that is completely different from Fortune 500 companies, and if you don't try see that, then I don't think there is much point in trying to debate the issue in all reality. The "harm" in allowing women to be priests, as seen by the Catholic church, is in the fact that you would be doing something that is completely contrary to the manner in which it was instituted directly by Jesus and His Apostles.
September 22, 201115 yr How is it not discrimination? Women are not allowed to be priests for the sole reason of their gender. That's the very definition of discrimination. So the law of the land doesn't apply if it doesn't fit in with your religious beliefs? Is that a correct interpretation of your belief?
September 22, 201115 yr This is a little more personal and I understand if you don't want to answer. Do you feel you were called to your vocation by God?Speaking for myself: yes, I was called. The hard part is discerning God's will from your own.
September 22, 201115 yr How is it not discrimination? Women are not allowed to be priests for the sole reason of their gender. That's the very definition of discrimination. So the law of the land doesn't apply if it doesn't fit in with your religious beliefs? The answer to your question, more or less, is yes. For the most part, government is to stay out of religious institutions. And in many instances, certain religious beliefs offer their members a different set of standards in public than those applied to others. For instance: the Amish don't have to send their children to school, certain religions are allowed to use drugs, I believe some religions can still refuse emergency medical care, and certainly the priests in the Catholic church can be entirely male.
September 22, 201115 yr How is it not discrimination? Women are not allowed to be priests for the sole reason of their gender. That's the very definition of discrimination. So the law of the land doesn't apply if it doesn't fit in with your religious beliefs? Is that a correct interpretation of your belief? Priesthood isn't a "job"...and in all honesty, if you don't agree on that point there isn't going to be much way to come to an understanding on that. Religion and matters of faith are, and should be, separate from the law of the land. They differ on many many matters. The law says people can have pre-marital sex and can cohabitate. The Catholic Church says differently. The law says people can undergo gender reassignment. The Catholic Church says differently. The law says people can abort unborn children. The Catholic Church says differently. Does the Catholic Church need to change their teachings on all of these points because US law states differently? What about Catholic Churches in different countries where their laws are different? Should they have a different set of beliefs? Does the Catholic Church need to review state, county, and municipal code before they make a new parish to make sure their beliefs are all in line with local jurisdiction?
September 22, 201115 yr I want to preface this by saying I have not researched all of these so I don't know if all are accurate. I was having this same discussion with a friend of mine and he sent me this list. [TABLE=width: 1015] [TR] [TD=class: xl64, width: 1353, bgcolor: transparent]2 Kings 8:26 says "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..." [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent]2 Chronicles 22:2 says "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..." [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent]2 Samuel 6:23 says "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death" [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent]2 Samuel 21:8 says "But the king took...the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul" [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent]2 Samuel 8:3-4 says "David smote also Hadadezer...and took from him...seven hundred horsemen..." [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent]1 Chronicles 18:3-4 says "David smote Hadarezer...and took from him...seven thousand horsemen..." [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent]1 Kings 4:26 says "And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots..." [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent]2 Chronicles 9:25 says "And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots..." [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent]2 Kings 25:8 says "And in the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month...Nebuzaradan...came... unto Jerusalem" [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent]Jeremiah 52:12 says "...in the fifth month, in the tenth day of the month...came Nebuzaradan...into Jerusalem" [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent]1 Samuel 31:4-6 says "...Saul took a sword and fell upon it. And when his armourbearer saw that Saul was dead and...died with him. So Saul died..." [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent]2 Samuel 21:12 says "...the Philistines had slain Saul in Gilboa." ...OK, but this is the last time! [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent]Gen 2:17 says "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day thou eastest thereof thou shalt surely die [note: it doesn't say 'spiritual' death] [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent]Gen 5:5 says "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died." [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent]Matt 1:16 says, "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus..." [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent]Luke 3:23 says "And Jesus...the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli" [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent]James 1:13 says "..for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent]Gen 22:1 says "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham..." [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent]Gen 6:20 says "Of fowls after their kind and of cattle [etc.]...two of every sort shall come unto thee..." [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent]Gen 7:2,3 says "Of every clean beast thou shall take to thee by sevens...Of fowls also of the air by sevens..." ...... this one really quacks me up. [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent]Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent]John 19:30 "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent]Gen 32:30 states "...for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent]John 1:18 states, "No man hath seen God at any time..." [/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] 2 Kings 8 & 2 Chronicles 22...The NIV has each passage saying twenty-two. 2 Samuel 21: 8-9...Clearly states that Michal brought up these children "for Adriel." Michal did not bear these children herself. 2 Samuel 8 & 1 Chronicles 18...NIV has both saying seven thousand charioteers. 1 Kings 4 & 2 Chronicles 9...NIV has both saying four thousand for horses. 2 Kings 25 & Jeremiah 52...NIV has the same three day discrepancy you highlighted. There are errors such as this. They are small errors & do not impact Biblical theology, such as spelling, grammar and timing issues such as this. 2 Samuel 21:12...NIV uses "struck down" instead of "slain." "Struck down", to be fair, does sometimes refer to taking a life. But it also is used to describe beating or severely wounding or mutilating. Seems to me they found Saul's body & then mutilated it through beating & then they hung him in the tree. The phrase can also simply mean "defeat" as in defeat in a battle, but I do not think that applies here. Genesis 2:17 & 5:5...I'm assuming you're speaking of the death warning here. I'm not sure why you highlighted this one. God told Adam if he ate the fruit, he would die. Several hundred years later, he died. God didn't mean "you will immediately die." He meant that death, which had yet to be introduced into the world, would be introduced & Adam himself would experience it. But God didn't say "you will immediately die." Matt. 1 & Luke 3...The often looked at discrepancy of Joseph's father. One says Heli & the other Jacob. The oldest tradition to explain this (back to AD 200) says that Heli was the first husband of Joseph's mother. He died childless & Jacob married her, fulfilling the "kinsman redeemer" idea that you read about in the book of Ruth. So legally, Joseph would have been Heli's son, based on Jewish laws found in Deuteronomy 25, even though biologically he belongs to Jacob. Genesis 22:1...NIV accurately uses the word "test" and not the terribly inaccurate "tempt." It's obvious in reading Genesis 22 that God was not trying to tempt Abraham to kill his son. His purpose was to test Abraham & see if Abraham loved his son more or if he loved God more. Genesis 6 & 7...Two of every animal & then an additional seven of every clean. Luke 23 & John 19...Not sure what the perceived discrepancy is here. Jesus made seven statements from the cross. The fifth one, "I thirst" was followed by, "It is finished" (meaning the Father's plan was finished). And just before he breathed his last, he prayed, "Father, into your hands I commit my Spirit." Jacob wrestling with God...The passage (in the NIV, at least) clearly states he was wrestling with a "man" (the word "man" is used five times in the story). God likely took the form of a man, thus He was not displayed in His full glory. Jesus was God in the flesh. He said, "If you've seen me, you've seen the Father." Yet people didn't die when they saw Jesus, because he repressed the full glory. So when Jacob says, "I've seen God" he is partially accurate. He just didn't get the full glory version. I use the NIV in my personal study. Some use the KJV. While the KJV is cherished by many & is a decent translation, people need to understand that the NIV is translated using more manuscripts and newer manuscripts & is a better, more accurate translation. Edited September 22, 201115 yr by Randy Parker
September 22, 201115 yr The dividing line on this issue is how a person interprets or uses the Bible, not gender, so its not a discrimination issue, IMO. The Bible explicity states that a woman should not teach or exercise authority over a man. I just don't see how it could be stated any clearer. Certainly, there are those who "interpret" this in a different way, but I believe they have to reach and get creative to do so. I take this statement at face value. The other way out is how a person uses or views the Bible. I'm not sure how to word it, but I believe some believe the Bible has good and bad, relevant and irrelevant, teachings or ideas, and they pick and choose which they like and dislike at their own discretion. There is a distinction, IMO. Obviously we are flawed as humans and thus we can err in interpreting the Bible. I think there is a big difference in a person interpreting a scripture wrong vs. a person who just doesn't like the teaching and consequently ignores it.
September 22, 201115 yr A woman should not exercise authority over a man? So I guess the Bible is against women in Congress, against women in law enforcement, against women in management roles....:confused:
September 22, 201115 yr The Bible explicity states that a woman should not teach or exercise authority over a man. I just don't see how it could be stated any clearer. This seems like a quite fair question. A woman should not exercise authority over a man? So I guess the Bible is against women in Congress, against women in law enforcement, against women in management roles....:confused:
September 22, 201115 yr A woman should not exercise authority over a man? So I guess the Bible is against women in Congress, against women in law enforcement, against women in management roles....:confused: You're confused because you're trying to apply a teaching meant for the church to every aspect of life. Paul is merely stating God's intended structure for His church. It isn't applicable to our government and society. To try to extend it beyond that is an error.
September 22, 201115 yr You're confused because you're trying to apply a teaching meant for the church to every aspect of life. Paul is merely stating God's intended structure for His church. It isn't applicable to our government and society. To try to extend it beyond that is an error. Correct. Deborah was a female judge from Israel's history. To some extent, the judges were more "leaders" than they were judges in our sense of understanding.
September 22, 201115 yr The dividing line on this issue is how a person interprets or uses the Bible, not gender, so its not a discrimination issue, IMO. The Bible explicity states that a woman should not teach or exercise authority over a man. I just don't see how it could be stated any clearer. Certainly, there are those who "interpret" this in a different way, but I believe they have to reach and get creative to do so. I take this statement at face value. The other way out is how a person uses or views the Bible. I'm not sure how to word it, but I believe some believe the Bible has good and bad, relevant and irrelevant, teachings or ideas, and they pick and choose which they like and dislike at their own discretion. There is a distinction, IMO. Obviously we are flawed as humans and thus we can err in interpreting the Bible. I think there is a big difference in a person interpreting a scripture wrong vs. a person who just doesn't like the teaching and consequently ignores it. I tend to agree on this, though I fully acknowledge it is sometimes difficult to discern when the Bible is giving a permanent principle or teaching a temporary cultural lesson. For example, when it speaks of not eating meat sacrificed to idols, this is obviously a temporary lesson. But other times, it's not as easy to figure out whether it's a cultural thing or a permanent admonition.
September 22, 201115 yr This seems like a quite fair question. ^ It's from 1 Timothy in which St. Paul is writing directly to the leaders of the Church in Ephasus regarding the forms of worship and organization within the church. The epistle has little to no use outside of those areas and it's unfair to extrapolate it any further than that; this is the danger of removing Biblical passages from their context.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.