A couple of things to note really quickly on this subject. First, there are substantial differences between Male and Female. These differences do not mean that there is a difference in dignity or worth, rather there is a difference in function and purpose. Thus, there are roles suited for one that are not suitable for the other. Thus, from that standpoint it should not be surprising that there might be offices in the Church that women cannot be (or, that there could have been offices that men cannot hold).

Secondly, the office of the priest derives from the office of Bishop which is what each of the Apostles were consecrated to be. The title of Bishop derives from Episkopos which we can find in the New Testament as referring to the head of the Church in each of the various communities. We note that Christ only chose male Apostles. Given the dignity with which Christ treated women, something quite surprising in that day and age, had He intended the office of priest and Bishop to be open to women it stands to reason He would have named at least one or two women Apostles. Yet He did not, all the while conferring on them great honor (working His first miracle at the request of His Mother, appearing first after His Resurrection to Mary Magdalene, etc...).

In conclusion, I think the only reason this is a controversial topic stems from a misunderstanding of the role of priesthood. Those who treat it as a power structure naturally see in an all male priesthood a threat to equality. But Christ reminds us yet again that the priest is not to be a ruler, but to be the servant of all. Our current Pope exemplifies this and is setting a wonderful example for all Christians.

I hope that helps!

Dominus tecum

This is a good treatment of it. Well said.

I believe that egalitarianism of any kind puts people at odds unnecessarily and makes people disrespect one another as they come to see one another as interchangeable, and hence as replaceable. "Why him and not me?" is textbook jealousy, a grievous sin. Plus looking too much at positions of earthly power means we're looking in the wrong direction. Joan of Arc was a teenage peasant girl and she's a saint in Heaven--in fact, I am fascinated by her, and part of it is her femaleness, and that (combined with the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary) is something that I, a man, will never know. Am I jealous? Do I say "Why her and not me?" No--I bless God for allowing it for someone, and I trust that He has a plan in mind for me that is different but no less important or valued.

I would debate as a devil's advocate- females are basically not giving the same opportunity because of their gender alone.


That's what it boils down to.

Even if the female exceeds beyond of the male counterpart- she will not get the title because what she was simply born with.

I would argue infact it is unethical.

Is it unethical that I can never become pregnant if I want to, because I'm a man? Am I not being given the same opportunity because of my sex alone?

However, you are talking about the biological of gender alone, but it should not be a factor to determinate a priest.

So, what happen if the woman applied for Priesthood and physically made herself sterile so she have a fair chance against the guys- is that right?

Not everybody can or have the mentally capability of bearing children for 9 months (I am one of those).

I am using to use your example but let's say to a person who is paralyzed from the neck down- from a condition that the person was not responsible for at all. And let's say that person wants to apply for a job that he is really excellent at.

What happen if he could not get the job because of religious bias because of his condition.

We would loose a very great mind.

A person who cannot physically perform their job through no fault of their own is not discriminated against. It's just a fact of life. However, being a priest isn't just a job. It's a calling given to specific people God chooses through His Church.

"A person who cannot physically perform their job through no fault of their own is not discriminated against. It's just a fact of life."


I want to correct something because problem with your statement:

"...And let's say that person wants to apply for a job that he is* really excellent at."

*I used the word "is" as in he can still perform the job despite of his condition. I think it is a slight misunderstand on that. Therefore, he should a fair chance of getting the "job".

"However, being a priest isn't just a job. It's a calling..."

If a priest is working and return is getting some kind of currency- it is a job.

Welcome back, Yarbro! I take it you had a great convention? I hope to hear from you soon on that note I sent you. That said, I'll respond to you on this post and the other you posted later down.

I would agree that if a person is qualified to do the job, in the sense that he or she fits the criteria of the employer and is practically capable of the work, then it would be unfair to disqualify them on something unrelated. I think the issue may be that the priesthood is so misunderstood nowadays that we don't understand why women aren't able to become priests.

There is one solitary function of the Priest: The Priest represents Jesus Christ, our Lord, on Earth. God called men from every age to act on behalf of Him, because He loves us. Because men are prone to sin, and because God is infinitely Just, that sin causes us to be separated from God. Christ (who is God) came into this world in order to reconcile us to Himself. It is much like a lover who's beloved was unfaithful, but the lover is so in love that he pursues his beloved to win her back. He is faithful to us even when we are unfaithful. The priest of God from Melchizedek of Salem to Fr. Brown of New York is God seeking out His beloved, the race of man. That is to say that the Priest's essential function is to be the hands and feet of God as God tries to woo you to back to Him.

In order to represent Himself in this way, He used many images that showed Himself as a male. Male and female are both derived from Him, so He is not actually male, but He chose to show himself that way. Through the Scriptures He shows Himself to us as the Bridegroom, and through the loving Father, as the Lover-King of the Song of Solomon. He is the Shepherd, the Patriarch, the Warrior-King. He consistently calls forth men to represent Him as the Fathers of His People, from Abraham through Moses and all the way up to Pope Francis. The fact is, He has only called men to do this part of the job. Women He calls to do other things, equally important, simply not the Priesthood. The evidence is in the lack of a calling to women. I must ask you, in that case, if you can provide counter-evidence that God ever called women to be Priests? It would actually work against this picture that God's painting of the Divine Groom calling out to His bride, the human race.

Now, I will admit that some priests get paid monetarily, and that the priest works. He does 'labor in the field' so to say. But the priest's reward for his labor is not truly, and never will be, an earthly living. That's simply the way that some priests are supported by their diocese. Some priests and monks operate entirely on charity. The reward for all priests is the salvation of souls, and sanctification.

Thanks Geoffrey! I am going to a job interview tomorrow but I hope to respond to your note in a few days time.


" I must ask you, in that case, if you can provide counter-evidence that God ever called women to be Priests? It would actually work against this picture that God's painting of the Divine Groom calling out to His bride, the human race."

No. But if we take the statement of "God ever called a gay man to become a priest", well I made statement a few years ago, I would be "correct" but would be I terribly wrong right now due to what the Pope recently said.

I hope you see the weakness in the question.

Problem with it is that there is lack of laws and rules in the Catholic Church that would physically stop a woman to be a priest. I've been pushing you to show me evidence. However, every time you came with this wishy-walshy culture and the concept of "Cannot hold the calling but equal/important" pseudo-humanism thinking is very weak argument. If God suddenly commands a female to a Priest or even if she lies about it- I am sure you will be flipping pancakes at the moment.

That what I need to loose this argument. Laws.

"Now, I will admit that some priests get paid monetarily, and that the priest works. He does 'labor in the field' so to say. But the priest's reward for his labor is not truly, and never will be, an earthly living. That's simply the way that some priests are supported by their diocese. Some priests and monks operate entirely on charity. The reward for all priests is the salvation of souls, and sanctification."

Doesn't mean all priest do it for the good or that statement is 100% accurate to every priest that in the past, present, and future. I hope you understand that.

You already saw the Canon Law, you posted it yourself. For clarity, I'll repost it [url:http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG11.....HTM]HERE[/url].

But you're correct, if God were to call a woman to the priesthood it would simply mean I was wrong and I'd have to eat a ton of crow. The thing is, He won't contradict Himself, and He has spoken through the Church quite clearly on this matter.

Regarding the words of Pope Francis, please show me what you're referring to. That way I can deal with it accurately.

And no, not all priests are doing the right thing with their ministries. They are sometimes in it for fame or money. That's not essential to the priesthood, though, and is actually counter to it. You have to understand what Christ made the priesthood for in order to know what is and is not important to it.

"But you're correct, if God were to call a woman to the priesthood it would simply mean I was wrong and I'd have to eat a ton of crow. The thing is, He won't contradict Himself, and He has spoken through the Church quite clearly on this matter."

You are talking about the same Divine that flood entire earth, committed of the greatest genocide, and then once it was done- he then was satisfied once he smelled of Pigeon Blood. Then makes a rainbow- even though the rainbow should existed prior cause physics and science laws.

If he can break laws of Physics but loved when someone kills a bird when there were only seven left on the entire earth... yeah, I bet for him it is really hard to contradict something of a tradition that is mostly orally enforced.


And there the Pope Francis about his statement on Gay Priests: http://www.news-journalonline.com/a.....VING/130809877

That's the issue, though. See, not everything that's determined by gender, race, or creed is unethical. It's only when it's not justified that it's unethical.

Let's take this for example: I am what you would call a straight man. I am attracted to women. I find them to be the fairer sex, and that leads me not only to treat them with honor but also to pursue them. In fact, because I loved a woman so much I married her. That's something I would never do with a man. Is this unethical? By your definition (discrimination of gender) it is.

What about men's clubs? I'm not talking about gentlemen's clubs (which a gentleman would never be caught dead in) but an actual fraternity like the Knights of Columbus. Are they unethical because they have an exclusively male counterpart? No, because it was a club designed for men by men so that men could serve the wider community.

The priesthood is the same. It was designed by God for men to serve the wider community. This is why the Pope is "the Servant of the Servants of God." There's no inherent gender struggle here, it's just that men were given this specific hard task and this specific burden. The men who heed the call are humbling themselves to service, not lauding themselves over the laity.

"Let's take this for example: I am what you would call a straight man. I am attracted to women. I find them to be the fairer sex, and that leads me not only to treat them with honor but also to pursue them. In fact, because I loved a woman so much I married her. That's something I would never do with a man. Is this unethical? By your definition (discrimination of gender) it is."

That is a personal right choice- not a "job".

Because you choice- a special person- not with any woman- THAT woman.

That woman you love deep in your heart- and she loves you for the same reason.


So, I have to disagree- I don't think if it is a fair comparison. if you take in the account if a man can be with man and a woman can be a man, ect (Even the courts, and you and I are still debating about that right now). Your personally choice should be hindered because of another person's view. If someone came up and took your marriage license that is recognized not only the church, but also the government, between you and your wife- you can bet every penny I would be in court fighting until I am dead for you and your wife to get your rights back.

That is a freedom.

The problem with it- is that you did not prove any cases that you cannot prove that is biblical directly states (I have to admit it does suggest) that a female cannot priest- nor you show me true cases why they cannot be except gender alone.

No matter how many cases of a person of authority abusing power of those who are forced to have a different job- I really doubt that you will personally recognized that a female should hold the same title as a man in a religion "entitlement",

So, I am a little confused why the "The men who heed the call are humbling themselves to service, not lauding themselves over the laity." Argument. Because it doesn't matter if they abuse their power or not.

I am playing as Devil's Advocate because at the end I do agree that female cannot, doesn't mean they should, become a priest.

Because for a long time, I always thought the Catholics did not allow females because of regulations that directly states that a woman cannot be a preist. And because this is a word of "God" and not a "democracy vote"- I cannot argue with that- even how much I want to even how prove how right I am.

However, I decided to rustle some feathers and see someone can respond with a direct law that confirmed my thoughts (even though I never study about the subject why).

So, I have to ask- can you should me a directly law that states that females cannot be priests?

*and a woman CAN be with a man.

LOL- opps.

Sorry, I did not check any errors.

That's not exactly the case. Especially with Catholics, who honor a Sacred Tradition which includes and is broader than the Sacred Scriptures, the Scriptures are not the only 'Word of God'. God speaks to us through our Church, who received His word directly from Christ and also through the Apostles by the power of the Holy Spirit. The word given to us comes also through the Councils, such as the Council of Nicea and Vatican II.

A more direct answer is for me to tell you that priesthood is not a career. It's not a job. It's a calling. God calls certain human beings to be priests. If we look back to the Old Testament, we can see that God only called the male Israelites to be priests. No women even pretended to be priests. Afterwords, in the Old Testament, the Apostles (the first New Covenant priests) were called directly by Christ. After the crucifixion the Apostles ordained (male) priests into the New Covenant. The pattern is clear, even without an explicit statement of law.

This is very true if you are catholic- the problem is that with a Wiccan man can marry a Buddhist woman (This is true because one of my professors is in that relationship- been together for 35 years or so)- but their marriage does not be recognized by the church or "God" in your case.

Is a possibility that God might call a female someday to become a priest?

Hey, I can argue if we can talk about that his only son walks on water- any can happen.

But is it a "Law" that determinants Priesthood? So far, you did not show me direct evidence a law directly saying "A woman cannot be a priest" at all. You suggest it, but no hard core evidence.

Also, thinking about it- the priest you had now have little similarity of the men during the biblical times. However, none of you guys pointed that out- only the fact that he is male makes the "okay".

Which makes it very, very ironic.

Not so. Aside from accidents such as being Jewish or the like, priests today share much of the same characteristics of the priests of the Acts of the Apostles.

I would continue to debate but a quick research shows that in fact there is a catholic law that female cannot priest.

So, I was right and lost the debate,

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3P.HTM

I find it pretty ironic because thinking about it- it means a female CAN be a priest prior the law written.

But meh, when you have New Testament Laws that females should be silent- it is kind of hard for gals to have the ability to be a priest.

Ah, that would be Canon Law, yes.

The law, though wasn't what determined it. It's really only what defined it.

In order to explain to you the full reason why it can't be done, I'd have to explain what the deposit of faith and apostolic succession are. Would you find that helpful, or are you done?

Explain anything would be great but basically I checkmate myself so I lost. If the Cannon Law is in fact the reason that prohibits females become Priests. Problem, if a person wants to be subjected to these practices (that allow female priests or not) that is his/her choice.

"The lying and misleading are the sins. Even if they commit these sins, there's no reason to thing that God hates them."

I was being a little sarcastic- but that failed. To tell you the truth- basically God "loves" you no matter what- As long you worship him. We can discuss that topic in the note debate.

God loves you because He is love, not because of anything you do or don't do. That's why we can't earn salvation. But, as said, we can continue that discussion in notes.

Canon Law does not settle the issue, it confirms what was already settled.

Catholic teaching states that the fullness of the truth the Faith holds was given to the Church before the death of the last Apostle. The truths we were given by God, called the "Deposit of Faith", were final. That's why Catholic teaching cannot change from what was taught in the first centuries. It can only be developed on. A good example is the Bible. We were given the books of the New Testament in the Apostolic Age of the Church. Many books claimed to be scriptures, so in later years we developed a table of contents for the Bible so people could be sure what was the scripture and what wasn't. This wasn't an invention of a new doctrine, but a development of the old.

The priesthood is a very different matter as well. One becomes a priest by being spiritually changed by God through men to share the identity of Christ in a mysterious way. One has no right to it, nor does one chose to do so. It's a calling that you answer. When God instituted this priesthood, which is a gift from a loving God to a broken humanity, He decided that it would be men whom He called to be priests. He communicated this to the Apostles, and the Apostles passed it down through the Bishops to the modern day. So it is not the Canon Law, but rather the word of God, which makes it so.

Now, we have free will. That's true. We can be in submission to his or we can rebel against it, that's our choice. But we don't chose what our actions are, at least in the sense that I can't choose that rebellion isn't rebellion. If God exists, and if God gave us a certain set of gifts such as the priesthood (as it is), and we reject that and say that we have a better way to be saved, then that's a rejection of God and rebellion.

I'll try to give a light-hearted example: If you were awesome and made me cookies, I have free will in the matter. I can accept the cookies gratefully, and reciprocate somehow later. I can outright reject your cookies, because I might think your cookies are infected with zombie virus. Lastly, I might accept the tray you give the cookies on, dump your cookies on the floor, and put my own dang cookies on! The female priesthood is much like the third option. It's a slap in the face to you, an amazing friend who baked me cookies.

It is a good statement- problem showing you are showing a lack of evidence of a law in stone- "that males can only be priest". That all evidence I need to tell you the truth. It feels like you are trying avoid it, be apologetic about it- you explaining why it is- but you are not showing me it is confirmed and cannot be change.

"The priesthood is a very different matter as well. One becomes a priest by being spiritually changed by God through men to share the identity of Christ in a mysterious way. One has no right to it, nor does one chose to do so. It's a calling that you answer. When God instituted this priesthood, which is a gift from a loving God to a broken humanity, He decided that it would be men whom He called to be priests. He communicated this to the Apostles, and the Apostles passed it down through the Bishops to the modern day. So it is not the Canon Law, but rather the word of God, which makes it so."

Sounds like a very similar process of what I understand of JW and Mormon. And it is a huge issue because from what I read you obviously disagree with any other religions than your own. I don't know you well enough- but I might have a feeling that if a person that is not Catholic came up and a very similar statement- you will disagree. Because the conflict two very separate Church claiming that it is their "priests" communicates with God.

The cookie example is poor. Sorry, I don't fully understand that statement.

As far as evidence of the law, you've seen ecclesiastical law. The fact is that not everything Catholics believe was written down when it was first given as law. We have an oral tradition that goes all the way back to Christ. The evidence is in the fact that the Male Priesthood has always been understood as the Tradition given to us by Christ through the Spirit, and has been preserved by the Church faithfully.

Your second objection is a little trickier, simply because of the obscurity of time and propaganda. You're right, I would disagree that other Churches date back to Christ. I wouldn't say that they do everything wrong, or that they never have genuine experiences of God. I would say that they are imperfect, and do not have the fullness of the truth. They are, however, sincere. I will recognize that.

I'm sorry about the cookie example. I meant that God gave us a good thing, good for reasons I mentioned above. If we change that good thing He gave us, aren't we saying that His gifts aren't good enough?

"The fact is that not everything Catholics believe was written down when it was first given as law. We have an oral tradition that goes all the way back to Christ. The evidence is in the fact that the Male Priesthood has always been understood as the Tradition given to us by Christ through the Spirit, and has been preserved by the Church faithfully."


Okay, so let me understand it- that not every Catholic believes in everything that is written down in stone from the most perfect church that the most accurate of God's image and commands. But that a Oral tradition from man to man, is more accurate, stable, and accepted by the followers. This is a huge danger, if an outsider, like myself, can push something that argues against what is written down in a church do to a culture shift by playing telephone enough times.


I am seeing a conflict.

"... against what is written down in a church and win* a culture shift by playing telephone enough times."

*Sorry, the previous statement did not made total sense.

That's not what I was saying. I meant that the Church has beliefs that were passed down orally, not in written form. So we have the Bible and Oral Tradition. Every Catholic is bound to believe what infallible truth the Church teaches.

The Church would have that danger if it wasn't protected by the Holy Spirit. The fact that it HASN'T changed its teachings in 2000 years is really miraculous, if I'm going to be honest. And that's just the point. We can look into history and see that with all the danger of outsiders actively trying to destroy the Church, the Church survived and remained faithful to the teachings it has held since the 1st century. That shows me that something supernatural is at work!

"I meant that the Church has beliefs that were passed down orally, not in written form."

But Oral tradition is not an accurate enough. Because it can be changed or lied over time.


"The Church survived and remained faithful to the teachings it has held since the 1st century. That shows me that something supernatural is at work!"

Oh boy, the "my religion survived therefore it must protected by the supernatural" argument.

And Atheism had been around prior Jews became a established religion- therefore way before yours. Atheists were killed by a lot of crazy people too- Catholics does not get a gold star when comes down to pain and suffering of it's followers. Almost all religions/beliefs had some sort of genocide.

I don't about you, but I don't know why God would allow Atheism, that a belief that does not worship him, to have same "supernatural protection" similar as Catholicism and Muslims, and Jews, and Quakers and every single religion that fight to the neck of which one is more accurate to God's image.

Yarbro, I get that you're passionate about this, but it seems like you're just trying to find sticks to beat my position with.

I granted that the Catholic Church should have changed it's dogma at some point over the 2000 years. It's a big sore thumb with a target on it. People have been trying to change it for two thousand years. It's a hard religion to follow, people at least want it mellowed out. A lot want it eradicated.

No, Catholics don't have a monopoly on suffering. Catholics do have the most enduring principles. Atheism, while it has existed since time immemorial, is constantly changing. The atheism of the Greek philosophers were based on an idea that if the Gods can't decide on what is pious then they can't exist. The atheism of Nietzsche is based on his idea that human beings are weak and trying to console themselves with a slave-master in the sky. The atheism of Dawkins is based on the idea that God is a "God of the Gaps" and can be disproved. The Catholic Church has been consistently saying that God exists and teaches "X". We say this ultimately for one reason: He told us in person.

Atheism, Islam, and Judaism are all transient and change quite often. I challenge you (in a friendly way) to give me evidence of the dogma of the Church changing once. I'm not talking the Church expanding on what we already know, I mean contradicting itself.

"I challenge you (in a friendly way) to give me evidence of the dogma of the Church changing once. I'm not talking the Church expanding on what we already know, I mean contradicting itself."

In two hours I found four. I know you want one example- but if it okay- you want me to show you what I found?

Also, if it is alright with you- I am thinking to wrap this argument up and get back in the notes- you can get the last word on this but I want to make a final statement of things I notice about this issue.

Oh, we can definitely move back to notes, but I'd sure love to see your evidence. I think it'd be a great side-topic.

---
Suicide

---

"According to the theology of the Roman Catholic Church, the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, Number 2283 states, "We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives." However, the catechism points out that, "Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide." The Catholic Church used to state that suicide was a sin, and that persons committing suicide could not have a Catholic service and burial. However, the Church has since changed this point of view."

-Wikepida

Source: http://www.catholicdigest.com/artic.....ide-go-to-hell

I have personal stories of certain love ones taking their lives. To know that Catholic would, at one point of time, not get a service and reject them, and believed that God would send them to Hell- is something I cannot bear with.


I don't know how you can sleep at night with that fact. Of course, what I am saying? You're going to heaven- and will do anything to get there.

Also, I need biblical proof of "God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance [for people who committed suicide]" statement. So far, I cannot find anything.

Because suicide is against God's plan of perfection- despite he knew the person that would committed suicide in the first place before he or she was born.

---

Salvation- I bet the pennies in my washer you knew this would be brought up.

---

You said that I rejected Jesus and my lost my salvation despite without physically meeting me. But just a few facts you decided to lean towards on your religion teachings- no salvation therefore you go to Hell. You obviously believe that- and most Christians are very clear on that.

However, this is what the Pope said:

"The Lord created us in His image and likeness, and we are the image of the Lord, and He does good and all of us have this commandment at heart: do good and do not do evil. All of us. ‘But, Father, this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.’ Yes, he can... "The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone!".. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.”
Source: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/.....sparks-debate/

But then, you might be right- the Pope was "corrected" saying that Atheist will go to hell- no matter what they do on Earth.

"Just one day after the Pope's now famous words in Rome on May 22, a Vatican spokesman the Rev. Thomas Rosica released a statement quoting a section of the Catechism of the Catholic Church that says people who reject the teachings of Jesus Christ cannot attain salvation."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/.....n_3346201.html

^ While I dislike using liberal articles because of the lack of certain and being too opinionated- I have to make an exception.

---

Limbo

---

"Often Limbo Roman Catholic Church The abode of unbaptized but innocent or righteous souls, as those of infants or virtuous individuals who lived before the coming of Christ."

And all historical paintings that portray Limbo for the Catholic are pretty gruesome. I don't find any "positive" historical paintings on Limbo. And I searched hard.

http://www.catholicculture.org/cult.....TOKEN=66370143

Now they are regretting the teaching- saying due to the increasing number of children dying prior being born. I find it disturbing that they are that is one of the main reasons; because not how bad the concept is but of the numbers of children are being killed.


If only that concept is applied on other arguments- like the people on earth living right now- I am kind of surprised of what lack of information of Christians have knowledge on other religions and that Christianity is not the majority. Infact, none of the religions are, there is not one religion that goes beyond 50% of the world's population. So, according to you- 66% of the world population regret Jesus and therefore will not be saved.

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning.....d_statwrld.htm

But, meh, knowing you it doesn't change your mind at bit- I have a feeling you knew that statistic already.


---

Purgatory

---

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm

Even if you are saved- you will be be purified with Fire that is very painful...

or maybe not.

Or maybe yes.


It is almost like a cat looking outside on the front door or can't decided to out- or in- or out.

Is Purgatory a fact or not according your religion? Or the better question- it was once accepted?

---

"Atheism, while it has existed since time immemorial, is constantly changing."

Before, I read further I though you pointed something out that would get me stunned. Or something I don't know about this very general brief system. And I was disappointed. :( Your evidence is not strong enough to be a considerable change. I don't see anything that is conflicting with each other, at all.

Usually this is not part of my debating style but I am going to shoot myself in the foot:

Back thousands of years ago- Atheists believe that the world is flat and they learned that they are wrong. Atheists are wrong about a million things. And we will be continuity to be wrong about something. And that it is greatest strength- it has so many errors- but willing to fix and evolve and change. It starts with a very basic idea and it changed according to what it knows and trail and error. None of the people had divine trips or anything. We are just people- with very different views and coming together on a simple concept. We have no supernatural powers- we can't promise divine or salvation. And atheist still get a lot of crap, I can't hold office in certain states because of my brief (unless I want to lie). And people are shocked to learn I am an atheist because I have a very bubble personality. But that statement that many Christians, including Catholics, learn about atheists just by the Bible and Church alone. But I noticed that atheist are very modest and willing to say "Oh you are right- huh well I was stupid". And personally, at least I have the modest on debating and personal thought that I can be 100% wrong that there is a God. And that God is a Catholic God. That's what we are doing right now by me stating "Let's pretend there is a God" and focus on the Mortality of religion.

I think seen one time that a Christian who brought a heavly morality topic that influence by religion without using religion at all in the argument. She lost, but the love of Mark Twain, she was a very tough cookie.

Catholics, I kind of feel, they can't adapt- because of concept of "We are the truth and everyone else is wrong". But I find any weakness in your argument and hit the wall just right- it might crash down.

I don't mean to destroy any religion at all- because you might be right- but this concept of "stubbornness" is a really, really bad concept.

---

Now let's get back on the main topic- Woman taking over the world- err, Lady Priest.


As we discussed the argument, I though I seriously going to loose hard. The more we discussed- I felt more and more that it is 100% possible that a female priest can happen. Noticed the word CAN doesn't mean WILL. I know my grammar is horrible, but I am doing my best.

Even though we can agree that it is a God Calling- but if that is it. Then... yeah. If a female priest can happen if God calls on one.

Because you admitted that no all Catholics not all the writing teaching. But oral is not a good method. You can defend it all day- but it is not good way to preserve tradition. Law Courts may reject any oral conversation if something is written down or recorded that conflicts it. There is a good reason why.

"I would agree that if a person is qualified to do the job, in the sense that he or she fits the criteria of the employer and is practically capable of the work, then it would be unfair to disqualify them on something unrelated."

And that's really important because females can physically do the job as males. But your argument is saying well God is male therefore, he had be represent in a male form. But that it is okay according to you- Because of sperate but equal-

And what is the equal job that a female have to a male priest?

Can't be parenthood- because Catholics do accept a single father raising a child or a single mother. And can be part of God's plan- if the spouse died ect. Leaving the other "alone".



You have the last word- go.

---

And I should finish the note by Friday.

The question is, where is the burden of evidence? I would say it's on those who think women can or should be priestesses, not the other way around. Just a single instance of a Christian priestess sanctioned by the Church would be enough to prove that ordination of women was okay--just one.

Since we're not talking about a man-made, democratic organization, do we dare presume upon our Maker when He is silent on something? The Church isn't about seeing what you can get away with without technically breaking the rules--in fact, just the opposite. What matters most is what's in your heart, and if what's in your heart is seeing what you can get away with, is that an obedient heart or is that a self-centered heart? Even if you follow the rules to a T, it doesn't matter.

"Just a single instance of a Christian priestess sanctioned by the Church would be enough to prove that ordination of women was okay--just one."

None. I cannot find one.

So, God hates female priests. Period- the end- they are going to hell.


Annnnnndddd that's one of the reason why I am not a Catholic. :P

I'm sorry if you think you know better than God, or than people who have existed for 2000 years--but please do not put words in people's mouths.

There is nothing wrong with embracing the differences between the sexes--that is in fact a good thing to do.

Naw, don't take it too harsh. It is call sarcasm- the truth a little bit- showing the bitterness even in the New Testament law- but you get my point.

"Embracing the differences between the sexes."

Yeah, females carries eggs, males carries sperm (most of the time).

Okay, I embraced that. So, hard and very difficult to understand- I know. Took me two seconds.

But I can't accept the concept of woman cannot speak in a church part. Even how many apologetic reasons are out there.

Simple, the bible makes it very clear that females are second class compare to males.

Do you want me to list them?

I'm a man, and I don't speak in church.

If females are second class compared to males, why were women the only ones who stuck around when Jesus was arrested and executed, and why was it women who got to be the first Resurrection witnesses?

It's easy to find sexism if you're looking for it.

If that your best counter, you are going to have a very tough time.

Come on, I want to see something much tougher, I am going to give you another shot- give me better examples.

Unless you think these are good enough- which are not- and I can gladly show you why.

There is none so blind as he who will not see.

Funny, cause I was deaf. XD

So, maybe "There is none so deaf, as who will not hear" is a little more accurate.

So, I presume this is your argument you want to keep? Cause I am giving you another shot.

They asked Jesus for a sign after He did nothing but signs, and He said they would have none except the sign of Jonah.

So, this is your other counter claim?

Or are you trying to avoid answering my question?

I can't tell...

For that matter, why was it a woman who was exalted above all creatures?

Woah, woah, that's a big jump.

This doesn't mean that God hates women priests, it merely means that there's no such thing in regards to the worship of God. If people try to call themselves such, they're lying and misleading people. The lying and misleading are the sins. Even if they commit these sins, there's no reason to thing that God hates them.