Discrimination against women by Christians

Originally posted by FabianFnas
We all know that the JW cult is discriminating women. And homosexuals, and certainly others groups too.

But this is not uncommon for other christian denominations too.
When the Catholic church let women be preasts, h%ll, catholic priests are not even permitted to have sex with women.

And religions i full. Only the pagan religion is holding women priests high. (Are there more religions that do that?)

When the Catholic church let women be preasts, h%ll, catholic priests are not even permitted to have sex with women.

Well, the Catholic Church doesn't believe it is permitted to ordained women, simply because there is no explicit precedent in tradition. You will find, however, that there exist many married Catholic priests. While celibacy is certainly the norm, there are many married Eastern-rite priests and convert priests who enjoy special exemption. The Catholic Church also univerally permits married men to become deacons. So your characterisation here is not quite accurate.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
The Catholics to my knowledge, do NOT commission female priests. Neither do Lutherans or Southern Baptists. Methodists DO have female ministers (that's what we call our preachers).

I think there needs to be a clarification of terms. Firstly, 'Lutheran' and 'Methodist' are not univocal. There exist many autonomous Lutheran and Methodist communities who may or may not recognise each other's validity. In Germany, for example, Lutherans permits women to be ministers; in other countries, this is not necessarily so and Lutheran communion might actually be divided in one country.

Secondly, it is important to note that terms like 'preacher', 'minister' and 'priest' are not strictly interchangeable. A minister is anyone who has some recognised role in the life of the church. In Catholicism, for example, many laypeople are acknowledged as ministers (including women), such as when they distribute Communion. A priest is a special kind of minister, but his ministry is specially the celebration of the Eucharist. A preacher too is a type of minister but his role is concerned specially with the expounding of Scripture, and he may or may not be a priest (in the Anglican communion, there exist many lay preachers.)

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]When the Catholic church let women be preasts, h%ll, catholic priests are not even permitted to have sex with women.

Well, the Catholic Church doesn't believe it is permitted to ordained women, simply because there is no explicit precedent in tradition. You will find, however, that there exist many married Catholic priests. While celibacy is certa ...[text shortened]... lly permits married men to become deacons. So your characterisation here is not quite accurate.[/b]

If I've understood it correctly, chatolic preists cannot marry.
However, if they are married when entering the preach school (or whatever the name is) they can cannot divorce, and therefore will remain married.
Am I right?

Women preasts cannot marry. Or is it married women cannot be priests?

Originally posted by Conrau K
I think the Catholic Church has an ambiguous view of women, though nothing like what you describe here. Obviously the Church excludes women from any sort of sacerdotal ministry (although many women are pastoral administrators.) In some churches, women may even wear a veil, which I think is a bit like internalised chauvanism. On the other hand, though, women ...[text shortened]... ve special canonical qualifications, advising bishops and religious about matters of church law.

Seems like women in the Catholic Church are allowed to advise, but ultimately have no authority as opposed to the JWs where women are not even allowed to advise. In both cases this is based strictly on gender. Sound right to you?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I understand that Paul's chauvinism was likely a reflection of the times.

I wanted to find out what denominations other than the JWs, if any, continue to hold onto that discriminatory thought pattern today as a part of their views.

I understand that your ignorance is likely a reflection of our times: most folks these days have no desire, patience or fortitude to understand rocks let alone the mammoth buildings with which they are formed.

Your thread title is so far afield of precision that it borders on incoherent, and it certainly fails to establish your desired intent. Instead--- like a fart in church--- it lingers longer in essence even after the shock of its interruption has faded from memory.

"Discrimination" is partiality without merit, normally expressed by either granting certain privileges or denying the same based upon one's status as a member of any number of groups, categories or classifications.

Leadership within the body of Christ is emphatically not a privilege: it is a burdensome, heavy responsibility. And it is granted without merit. What!? That's right: it is bestowed upon men without any consideration as to their social status, intellect, ethnicity or the like. Put forth a little effort, and you will come to the shocking conclusion that God discriminates! He chooses men without merit.

How else does God discriminate? Without any consideration whatsoever for all of the possible candidates He could have chosen to bring forth our salvation, He chose a woman--- totally eliminating any and all men on the face of the planet to be the vessel of our salvation. The nerve of Him!

You know, it almost seems like something is afoot here. It's as though God has a different currency, a different administration than the lame-brained childish policy you wish to conscript upon the world. I wonder which of the two will abide...

If I recall correctly, there have been several non-JW RHP posters who espoused views similar to that of JWs as shown in the OP. I wonder if any of them were giving the views of their denomination rather than their personal views and if any of them are secure enough in their beliefs to come forward.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
If I recall correctly, there have been several non-JW RHP posters who espoused views similar to that of JWs as shown in the OP. I wonder if any of them were giving the views of their denomination rather than their personal views and if any of them are secure enough in their beliefs to come forward.

your argument is such a stupid straw man of an argument so to warrant a real slagging for buffoonery and ultra-maroonery, for we dont even have a clergy laity distinction, we are all, ordained ministers of the good news, man, women and child.

we set our pattern on the practice of first century christians, where a body of older men, were appointed to take care of the needs of the congregation, as practised and recorded by the apostles in Gods Holy word, the Bible. If you dont like it, you should take it up with the father if you ever get to meet him.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I understand that your ignorance is likely a reflection of our times: most folks these days have no desire, patience or fortitude to understand rocks let alone the mammoth buildings with which they are formed.

Your thread title is so far afield of precision that it borders on incoherent, and it certainly fails to establish your desired intent. Instead- ...[text shortened]... ldish policy you wish to conscript upon the world. I wonder which of the two will abide...

I understand that your ignorance is likely a reflection of our times

LOL, haha thinkofone, see any reflections?

The spirituality forum.

A sure fire place to bring the best out of people.

Most Christian scholar's do not bleive Paul wrote "Timothy" The writing style is different, also there are contradictions. Paul said men and women are equale. He names one women a deacon and a 2nd a apostle.
In Tomothy 2:15 "Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing. If they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety" So women are saved differently then men?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
The spirituality forum.

A sure fire place to bring the best out of people.

These christians sure do work hard at spreading the love don't they?

Originally posted by Thomas Lavery
Most Christian scholar's do not bleive Paul wrote "Timothy" The writing style is different, also there are contradictions. Paul said men and women are equale. He names one women a deacon and a 2nd a apostle.
In Tomothy 2:15 "Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing. If they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety" So women are saved differently then men?

The two letters to Timothy have been accepted from the earliest times as written by Paul and as being part of the inspired Scriptures. The early Christian writers, including Polycarp, Ignatius, and Clement of Rome, all agree on this, and the letters are included in the catalogs of the first few centuries as Paul’s writings. One authority writes: “There are few New Testament writings which have stronger attestation . . . Objections to authenticity must therefore be regarded as modern innovations contrary to the strong evidence from the early church.” 1.

1. New Bible Dictionary, second edition, 1986, edited by J. D. Douglas, page 1203.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
The Catholics to my knowledge, do NOT commission female priests. Neither do Lutherans or Southern Baptists. Methodists DO have female ministers (that's what we call our preachers).

American Lutherans also have female ministers; my nephew was baptized by a wonderful woman named Pastor Connie.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I think there needs to be a clarification of terms. Firstly, 'Lutheran' and 'Methodist' are not univocal. There exist many autonomous Lutheran and Methodist communities who may or may not recognise each other's validity. In Germany, for example, Lutherans permits women to be ministers; in other countries, this is not necessarily so and Lutheran communion mi ...[text shortened]... y or may not be a priest (in the Anglican communion, there exist many lay preachers.)

Correct. To clarify, the United Methodist Church admits female priests. Indy Metodists do what they want. The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod does NOT admit female priests, where as the other main brance (ELCA I think?) is more liberal and may have voted the practice in. Southern Baptists categorically denounce the practice. I was referring to the major institution(s), and you're right, there are MANY offshoots -- so many it's hard to pinpoint exactly whic belief system is which anymore.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
If I recall correctly, there have been several non-JW RHP posters who espoused views similar to that of JWs as shown in the OP. I wonder if any of them were giving the views of their denomination rather than their personal views and if any of them are secure enough in their beliefs to come forward.

Sort of. There are women in positions of power in the Curia. Women also lead religious orders. Obviously though they are all ultimately responsible to the Pope, a man. I don't think that this ultimately is a gender issue. It is more particularly a clerical issue. The Catholic Church still tends to favour clerics over lay people. It is not clear to me why this should be so. Many positions in the Vatican do not require ordination (in fact, they might be opposed to it -- why should an ordained man spend most of his on non-pastoral administrative issues in the Church?)