To the Christians here...

[RandFan]

[In a nutshell...] back before everything was decided and being created, God had two sons, Jesus and Lucifer. There was a war in heaven. A third stayed in heaven with God. Lucifer said he would force everyone else to worship God. Jesus offered to give himself as a sacrifice that people might freely choose God. Jesus won out, but Lucifer took a third to hell. [End Mormonism nutshell.]

As a *Mormon I can say, not bad.

However I have a better argument. Christians, as well as other people of various religions call each other "brother" and "sister" even if there is no relation, why? Christians also call God "father", why? According to Christian philosophy God created all.

1.) Christians call God father.
2.) Christians call each other brother and sister.

What about the relationship with God prohibits calling Lucifer brother?

*Full disclosure, I'm also an atheist.

 

[kurious_kathy]

Hi Kathy,
But surely by what you posted earlier: even if you do not agree with some of the doctrines, they would have eternal life and Jesus loved them?

And how are you sure that you have Jesus right?

You are already adding things to what you said was all that was required. It sounded really nice for a minute, but the reality is that you don't really believe what you posted.

I'm going to answer some of your list though. I'm not a believer, but I know enough that there are other points of view.

They have died for what they believe. If it was all for a lie, that sounds like a case that truth should be a part of faith. Not just that faith has a practical purpose or makes us feel good. Martyrs at least deserve to die for something that is true.

Muslims use the word prophet in a different way than Christians do. In their thinking, Muhammad, Jesus, Moses, etc are all the same thing. There are prophets of law, and prophets not of law. They do not believe in the Trinity, but believe there is one God.

The technical argument against Muslims is that they do not believe in the Pauline version of Christ. To Christian theology, they believe too much and so forfeit God's grace. But do you believe too much too? If you are adding requirements to God's grace, what complaint could you have against Muslims? Just a thought.

[In a nutshell...] back before everything was decided and being created, God had two sons, Jesus and Lucifer. There was a war in heaven. A third stayed in heaven with God. Lucifer said he would force everyone else to worship God. Jesus offered to give himself as a sacrifice that people might freely choose God. Jesus won out, but Lucifer took a third to hell. [End Mormonism nutshell.]

Now you may think that's all made up and very wrong, but it hardly seems like an idea to eliminate people from Jesus's company in eternity. (And besides, I think 'Lucifer' is a mistranslation anyway...)

There was a big conference called the Council of Nicene where the inclusion of books was hammered out. They tossed out a bunch. You probably have this backward, Catholics have some books that were left in, Protestants took some books out later.

The division between protestants and Catholics always confused me a little. From the 'outside' you are almost alike. And apoligies if I badly misrepresented anyone's favorite religion.

So anyway, I'm trying to stick with the arguments, but at the heart of it is the fact that I don't think you believe what you posted.

Well God tells us to test the spirits and see if they are from God. If we don't receive Jesus as our personal Lord and Savior, and ask Him to forgive us of our sins, then there really is no hope of ever being able to enter in heaven. Heaven is home for the forgiven and redeemed. Only those in Christ will enter.
"The only way to the Father is through the Son. And yes Jesus really does love us and hope we will all ask and receive His forgiveness.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Well God tells us to test the spirits and see if they are from God.

Doesn't the bible say not to test god as well? It sounds like you are in a paradox.

 

[wollery]

Well God tells us to test the spirits and see if they are from God. If we don't receive Jesus as our personal Lord and Savior, and ask Him to forgive us of our sins, then there really is no hope of ever being able to enter in heaven. Heaven is home for the forgiven and redeemed. Only those in Christ will enter.
"The only way to the Father is through the Son. And yes Jesus really does love us and hope we will all ask and receive His forgiveness.

Which always raises the incredibly simple question - what about people who've never heard of Jesus? There are a lot of them; everyone who lived before he did, or who lived in Southern Africa, the Americas, Australia, New Zealand, China, etc. before ~ the mid 16th century, and there are still people in some of the remoter parts of the world who have no knowledge of the christian bible. Are they all condemned to hell?

 

[RandFan]

Which always raises the incredibly simple question - what about people who've never heard of Jesus? There are a lot of them; everyone who lived before he did, or who lived in Southern Africa, the Americas, Australia, New Zealand, China, etc. before ~ the mid 16th century, and there are still people in some of the remoter parts of the world who have no knowledge of the christian bible. Are they all condemned to hell?

The Jewish children who were gassed in the holocaust, where are they today? If the Germans who killed them received Christ as Lord and Savior then they are in Heaven and the children are in Hell, according to many Christians. I can't speak for Kathy. I will say that Huntster is one who doesn't share this view.

What do you think Kathy?

 

[Genesius]

<snip>
The Catholics say Jesus is the Son of God...uh right, but I think the Catholic Bible has added books and doctrine that isn't all the correct teachings.

Paging Huntster. . . you're quick enough on the draw when Ken disses your church, so where are you now?

C'mon, all us lurking nonbelievers want to see some hot Xtian on Xtian smackdown action.

 

[1984]

Do they know Jesus for who he really is, they don't all have Jesus right.
The Muslims say Jesus is a prophet...uh Wrong
The Mormons say Jesus was the brother of Lucifer...uh Wrong
The Catholics say Jesus is the Son of God...uh right, but I think the Catholic Bible has added books and doctrine that isn't all the correct teachings.

Hello again, oh Kurious one!

I'm not having a go at you here. However, may I suggest that you present your opinions in this way...

(reason) + (joiner) = (conclusion)

Ie: John has lots of money (conclusion) = because (joiner) + he stole it (reason).

A valid arguement, even though the (reason) in this case may be open for debate. Just an example.

You might also like to check out Books of the Bible and provide us with a valid arguement as to why your bible is more accurate, if at all, than any of the other versions of the bible. If you can argue your case validly, then I, as an open minded skeptic, will listen.

1984

 

[elliotfc]

In addition, there was the Irish mass immigration of the 1840's. The Irish, who were also Catholic, were persecuted viciously during that era.

Yes, this is true....of course this was before the KKK. A few things they had going for them...they spoke English...they fought for the Union...and they often took high mortality jobs.

What am I saying. You're right, there were Catholics in the US pre-KKK. Know-Nothing groups/activities greeted their presence.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Having not read the preceding 12 pages, that never stops me from butting in...

I will see what the conversation is later but my 2 cents on this matter, I really can't find all the "God is Love" and stuff claimed by Christians to actually be in the Bible. There are lots of individual quotes but there are a greater number of passages about hate and smiting enemies.

The Old Dispensation versus the New...or in your case, it's one Dispensation.

I doubt I'll ever get anyone to appreciate this round these parts.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

My understanding is that the Church believes (i) this is not within its authority to do, and (ii) it is not relevant to the equality or dignity of women. I am not deeply familiar with the specific reasons for its position.

You've got it pegged. The Church believes a few important things about the institution of the priesthood that removes this from mere (heh) equality argumentation. I'll add two things.

First, Christ instituted the priesthood. There *were* women priestesses in existence prior, and concurrent, so the argument that a woman priest would be too grand an innovation is not valid.

Second, priests have "supernatural" powers. It ain't an ordinary 9-5 job. A woman can do anything a priest does except for performing the sacraments. This is outside the realm of equality imposition by a government or social opinion/pressure.

Here's a pretty good article giving the Church position.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/WHYWOMEN.TXT

 

[elliotfc]

Sin is an arbitrary standard. Muslims don't accept your standards.

It can be both. We have faith in the objective standard, and we approach that standard with our subjective standards.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

As a *Mormon I can say, not bad.

However I have a better argument. Christians, as well as other people of various religions call each other "brother" and "sister" even if there is no relation, why? Christians also call God "father", why? According to Christian philosophy God created all.

1.) Christians call God father.
2.) Christians call each other brother and sister.

What about the relationship with God prohibits calling Lucifer brother?

*Full disclosure, I'm also an atheist.

Well, Lucifer cut himself off from the Kingdom of God. We are all brothers and sisters as members of the Body of Christ. But if you're not a member of the Body of Christ, then you're not a brother/sister.

 

[Cetecea]

Yes, it is.



I accept the interpretation of the Roman Catholic Church. It would allow me to kill another person in the service of the government in war or law enforcement, and it allows lethal force in a limited way in the self-defense of oneself or another.

There is no mention of the faithful having "a god that can tell them to kill me and they'd do it."

Now, I suppose I can expect more insightful wisdom from he who is always right, straightening me out on my religious faith............

I assume you weren't aiming that at me though you were replying to my post.

That's alright... I forgive you!

 

[rocketdodger]

The Jewish children who were gassed in the holocaust, where are they today? If the Germans who killed them received Christ as Lord and Savior then they are in Heaven and the children are in Hell, according to many Christians. I can't speak for Kathy. I will say that Huntster is one who doesn't share this view.

What do you think Kathy?

Kathy can always play the "greater good" card at times like this.

 

[rocketdodger]

Second, priests have "supernatural" powers. It ain't an ordinary 9-5 job. A woman can do anything a priest does except for performing the sacraments. This is outside the realm of equality imposition by a government or social opinion/pressure.

Ok, so women are completely equal, they just can't perform the sacrements... riiiight...

I actually read what was at that link, and it only supports my claims. Despite a whole lot of talk about women's equality, the church does nothing about it. They have modified their doctrine to reflect changes in all kinds of other places, why not with respect to this issue?

Jesus choose all men for his apostles. Because of this, Christian theologans throughout history have generally agreed that Jesus wanted only men in the priesthood. I have two things to say about this. First, that article you linked to says it isn't explicitly said in scripture that this is his wish. Second, regardless of whether it is his wish or not, it is one of the most closed minded, ignorant, and pathetic things I have ever heard. How can you seriously contend that Christianity considers women to be equal to men when this sh-- is one of the central tenants?

As for my claim that the church is partially responsible for the treatment of women, well, look what pope John Paul has to say (from that article):

And last year he wrote an open letter to the women of the world in which he
acknowledged that women have been oppressed and discriminated against and that
some of the "blame" for this can be laid on "not just a few members of the Church."

I can't believe you are so self righteous, elliot, that you would post a link to an article that completely supports my claims.

 

[rocketdodger]

Okay. I'm not really sure what the significance of this is. The subject matter of the "doctrines" of objectivism is not Ayn Rand, whereas the doctrines of Christianity are very preoccupied with their supreme being, I agree. But I still think you are laying problems at the feet of Christian doctrine that can't reasonably be laid there.

The point is that if Christianity was any good, the subject matter would be something other than their supreme being. I am arguing that precisely because it isn't the true nature of organized religion is suggested -- a controlling tool.

(Actually, that's not always the case in theological discourse.) I suspect that it's largely for reasons of tradition. Most Christians, though, seem not to let grammatical limitations constrain theological understanding.

I have never seen "it" used when referring to god, except by agnostics and atheists. As to whether most Christians let grammatical limitations constrain their understanding... I totally disagree with you. In English, we simply do not use gendered pronouns unless we are talking about an animal (the one exception is calling machines "she"). Therefore, even if a person considers god to be non-gendered, calling it a "he" subconsciously reinforces the opposite. It is just that simple. Battleships aren't female, but referring to them as "she" makes us all think of them that way.

I must be misunderstanding you. After all, a person is a non-animal entity (assuming you are using animal in the most common sense), and gendered pronouns are used for persons.

People are members of the animal kingdom.

I suppose we must revise our thinking accordingly about whether the priesthood, for Catholics, has anything to do with how "important" you are.

I am sure this is exactly what they would say in their defense as well. The president can tell everyone how crappy and unimportant his job is -- will that have any effect on all the people that want to be him?

Quite possibly, but female deities have had their cults throughout history and I'm not aware that this consistently improved the lot of women the way the rise of Christianity seems to have done.

Don't you think the fact that those cultures got completely overrun by others has something to do with things?

I can't put myself fully in the shoes of either Christian or woman, but most of them seem to accept the doctrine that woman are truly equal (though obviously not identical) to men.

Ahhh, now you are on to something. What exactly does "obviously not identical" mean? Don't you think that accepting a disclaimer like that leaves a lot of room for manipulation?

We can of course agree that women are not biologically equal to men. But what, then, does that mean? I think it means I have a penis and my girlfriend has breasts and a vagina. It also means she has a higher voice than me. But other than that, I consider us equal. On the other hand, I suspect the vast majority of Christian women think there are many more inequalities, probably because of popular misconceptions regarding exactly how much adult behavior is learned rather than genetic. Disgusting books like "Women are from Venus, Men are From Mars" illustrate my point perfectly.

Well, there are all kinds of things about every culture on earth, including ours, that are frankly repugnant to Christianity. Why are people failing to love their neighbors as themselves? I guess no religious institution is that powerful.

I think some of them look pretty darn powerful when entire armies cut paths of destruction through populations, claiming to be fighting for them.

My understanding is that the Church believes (i) this is not within its authority to do, and (ii) it is not relevant to the equality or dignity of women. I am not deeply familiar with the specific reasons for its position.

Both of which are simply stupid reasons.

 

[ReFLeX]

Yes, and the vast majority of people are only moderately religious.

You've said this before, and yet you still don't understand the implication. Because most people are only moderately religious, they comprise the people who "aren't religious enough" to follow all of God's commandments. That means 95% of religious people aren't subject to your claim that "religious people obey their gods" unless you change the word 'religious' to mean 'extremely devout believing,' which is the only way I can make sense of what you're saying.

 

[ReFLeX]

So, ReFlex, is KuriousKathy bigotted or not? Is she religious or not?

How many times do I have to tell you? Correlations are NOT based on examples, they're based on data. You are just believing what you want to believe, based on your experience. Well, I'm telling you, that is not enough to convince real scientists.

 

[elliotfc]

Ok, so women are completely equal, they just can't perform the sacrements... riiiight...

If you were to observe the Catholic Mass, you will see that the actions and the words of a priest can be done by the majority of people in the world, excluding maybe infants and some disabled.

If you mean perform as in going through the motions, a woman can perform sacraments as could a man. I'm assuming that you don't believe in the supernatural efficacy of the Catholic sacraments however. Meaning, in accepting sacramental grace, I believe in something beyond the performance.

In my opinion this is a debate for people who accept that priests are channels of God's grace, through the sacraments of the Church. If I can't get you to accept that (you don't), it's pointless for me to argue anything beyond what I already admit; that the mere performance is certainly not beyond the grasp or power or ability of women.

I actually read what was at that link, and it only supports my claims. Despite a whole lot of talk about women's equality, the church does nothing about it.

Equality in general, or in the specific instance of women's ordination?

They have modified their doctrine to reflect changes in all kinds of other places, why not with respect to this issue?

Perhaps you can provide some specifics about these other places...but I'll just say for now that the other places are of a different species.

Jesus choose all men for his apostles. Because of this, Christian theologans throughout history have generally agreed that Jesus wanted only men in the priesthood. I have two things to say about this. First, that article you linked to says it isn't explicitly said in scripture that this is his wish. Second, regardless of whether it is his wish or not, it is one of the most closed minded, ignorant, and pathetic things I have ever heard. How can you seriously contend that Christianity considers women to be equal to men when this sh-- is one of the central tenants?

Regarding your first, perhaps we Catholics see it as a matter of actions speaking louder than words. Just because Jesus doesn't explicitly exclude any number of things doesn't mean those things are automatically acceptable. This would be a "fundamentalist" approach to Scripture which the Catholic Church has never been fixated on. The article goes on to speak of the traditional teaching and practice of the Church, and confirms that it is consistent about this issue. For a Catholic, this is...maybe not exactly as important as any specific teaching in the Bible...but close enough.

As for your second point, we don't consider women's equality to be contingent on any single issue, in particular, this one. It is not a question of equality. That Jesus chose men to be conduits of sacramental grace is just the way it is. We Catholics consider Mary to be the most outstanding human of all, and she was not a priest. Vocations do not establish merit or equality in and of itself; it is what we do with our callings and our potential.

I can't believe you are so self righteous, elliot, that you would post a link to an article that completely supports my claims.

How do you respond when someone calls black, white? Rhetorically.

-Elliot

 

[rocketdodger]

In my opinion this is a debate for people who accept that priests are channels of God's grace, through the sacraments of the Church. If I can't get you to accept that (you don't), it's pointless for me to argue anything beyond what I already admit; that the mere performance is certainly not beyond the grasp or power or ability of women.

I accept that you think this. My question to you is WHY CAN'T WOMEN DO IT? Why will your god only channel supernatural stuff through male priests?

I agree that it is probably pointless to argue this with you, since you will accept it blindly as a fact. But this only reinforces my earlier claim about your lack of rational thought when it comes to the things you "believe."

Equality in general, or in the specific instance of women's ordination?

I consider women's ordination to be a subset of equality in general.

Perhaps you can provide some specifics about these other places...but I'll just say for now that the other places are of a different species.

Oh, so you are telling me that Catholicism has not gone through any doctrine changes in the last thousand years? The heavens still rotate around the flat Earth, eh elliot?

Regarding your first, perhaps we Catholics see it as a matter of actions speaking louder than words. Just because Jesus doesn't explicitly exclude any number of things doesn't mean those things are automatically acceptable. This would be a "fundamentalist" approach to Scripture which the Catholic Church has never been fixated on. The article goes on to speak of the traditional teaching and practice of the Church, and confirms that it is consistent about this issue. For a Catholic, this is...maybe not exactly as important as any specific taching in the Bible...but close enough.

So Catholics oppress women because it is their tradition? I wholeheartedly agree!

As for your second point, we don't consider women's equality to be contingent on any single issue, in particular, this one. It is not a question of equality. That Jesus chose men to be conduits of sacramental grace is just the way it is. We Catholics consider Mary to be the most outstanding human of all, and she was not a priest. Vocations do not establish merit or equality in and of itself; it is what we do with our callings and our potential.

It is contingent upon ALL issues. Claiming that such and such is not a question of equality is exactly the argument used by every single oppressor in history. Of course vocations and freedom of choice don't establish equality, how could I be so stupid!! It is what we do with our potential! So I guess all those black slaves in the south who worked reeel hard and met their "potential" were equal!!!