Discrimination against women by Christians

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
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: “The ...[text shortened]... hurch.” 1.

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

Well said.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes i understand you nim-cow-poop, thats why i want you to quote it in full!

you dont know and yet you are able to instruct others about discrimination, well well, how many Jehovahs witness women have come forward to you and stated that they have been discriminated against.

you engaged in a reply war with thinkofone asking him for a passage.

you know what would have been more productive? to quote that passage yourself and make him understand.


but then again what is it to understand. watchtower quoted what they thought was relevant and derived from there that a woman may speak her opinion in church (and everywhere else) but not to "[enter] into disputes with a man. She is not to belittle his appointed position or endeavor to teach the congregation. ".

it is kind of like "yes, mary, objection noted about Dave's plan to invest in Unicorns INC, now be quiet. Dave, continue."

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...

your attempt at sarcasm is pitiful. please reboot and try again.

really now, hasn't anyone but a handfull here skimmed some basic debating rules?
what have you contributed to the debate here? he posted an excerpt from watchtower, the official JC magazine. this excerpt is obviously supporting the discrimination of women. he asked what other religions if any support discrimination in any degree.
instead of debating you attacked someone who hasn't even spoken to you, hasn't insulted any religion and presented a valid point. who is the ignorant ham now?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
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 appointe ...[text shortened]... Bible. If you dont like it, you should take it up with the father if you ever get to meet him.

yeah, you still haven't addressed the topic. are you avoiding the question again. i am surprised: this totally unlike you Reveal Hidden Content

watchtower supports the idea that a woman should not enter a debate with a man. doesn't say if she is allowed to do that if the man is clearly insane.

in case nobody noticed, let's clarify something.


this topic isn't about paul. paul may have or may have not written the timothy letters. not important. what are important are the words written in it. the one who wrote them realized women are supposed to stay home and take care of the children. many of them didn't even read. so obviously to minimize ignorant individuals to enter discussions, this rule had to be passed.
this thread ISN'T about that either.


this thread is about a watchtower article about a supposedly JC stance on women. contemporary women. as in today. as in women just as educated as men. this thread is about whether other religions have a similar stance on the rights of women. to expand, this thread might also be about how logical it is to keep holding an ancient text written for ancient time as law.

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- ldish policy you wish to conscript upon the world. I wonder which of the two will abide...

If you ever wonder how those who advocate discrimination are able to "justify" it to themselves, you need only look at yourself. In order to do so you have had to resort to changing the very definition of "discrimination" and nonsensically pinning your argument on "privilege" vs. "burden". That you use God as a weapon to further your discrimination (just like the KKK) makes it all the more appalling. Your rationalizations are highly developed.

Originally posted by Conrau K
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 ...[text shortened]... should an ordained man spend most of his on non-pastoral administrative issues in the Church?)

I probably could have been more explicit. I thought that within the context, it would be be understood to be "spiritual" authority for lack of a better term. I don't know what would be the proper Catholic terminology, but hopefully you understand what I mean.

I don't think that this ultimately is a gender issue. It is more particularly a clerical issue

Maybe I don't understand you here, but not allowing women to have "spiritual" authority because of gender is very much a gender issue. If by "clerical" you are speaking of priests and the like, then recasting it as "clerical" changes nothing. Women are not allow to be priests, so it is about gender.

Often fundamnetalists take themselves the right to discriminate. When they are discriminated themsselves they are whining heavily, but still keep their right to discriminate.

"I don't like being discriminated because I excercize my right to discriminte women! I am simply better than women!"
Change the word 'women' to 'homosexuals', 'muslims', 'porkeaters' or whatever suitable.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
your attempt at sarcasm is pitiful. please reboot and try again.

really now, hasn't anyone but a handfull here skimmed some basic debating rules?
what have you contributed to the debate here? he posted an excerpt from watchtower, the official JC magazine. this excerpt is obviously supporting the discrimination of women. he asked what other religions if ...[text shortened]... o you, hasn't insulted any religion and presented a valid point. who is the ignorant ham now?

your attempt at sarcasm is pitiful. please reboot and try again.
It's probably just me, but your constructive criticism rings a touch hallow. If--- as you suggest--- my attempt did not strike its intended sarcastic chord, how on earth could you have adduced my intent? I contend that my aim, execution and result were all in perfect harmonious tandem, exemplary in every aspect.

... what have you contributed to the debate here?
Challenged the ill-placed assertions of the protagonist.

who is the ignorant ham now?
The one expounding when refrain was the order of the day.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
If you ever wonder how those who advocate discrimination are able to "justify" it to themselves, you need only look at yourself. In order to do so you have had to resort to changing the very definition of "discrimination" and nonsensically pinning your argument on "privilege" vs. "burden". That you use God as a weapon to further your discrimination (just ...[text shortened]... e the KKK) makes it all the more appalling. Your rationalizations are highly developed.

If you ever wonder how those who advocate discrimination are able to "justify" it to themselves, you need only look at yourself.
The mirth.

Have you no idea that we all discriminate? There is none able to keep themselves from discrimination; it is a basic function of agency. Its spectrum runs the gamut from loyalty for the truth to self-induced implosion--- and along the way, other agents are sometimes left excluded for any number of reasons. When properly applied, discrimination aids in maintaining the integrity of agents. When improperly applied, discrimination leads to the denial of existence for other agents.

Your attempt to paint the whole of the spectrum with just one brush, with just one color is morally repugnant.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]If you ever wonder how those who advocate discrimination are able to "justify" it to themselves, you need only look at yourself.
The mirth.

Have you no idea that we all discriminate? There is none able to keep themselves from discrimination; it is a basic function of agency. Its spectrum runs the gamut from loyalty for the truth to self ...[text shortened]... paint the whole of the spectrum with just one brush, with just one color is morally repugnant.[/b]

Still playing word games? Or have you simply lost the context of "discrimination" on this thread?

I'll make it easy for you
Fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination:

Discrimination is a sociological term referring to the treatment taken toward or against a person of a certain group in consideration based solely on class or category. Discrimination is the actual behavior towards another group. It involves excluding or restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to other groups.

What is "morally repugnant" is your advocation of discrimination against women.

No matter how many rationalizations you may come up with, your position will remain "morally repugnant".

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Still playing word games? Or have you simply lost the context of "discrimination" on this thread?

I'll make it easy for you
Fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination:
[quote]Discrimination is a sociological term referring to the treatment taken toward or against a person of a certain group in consideration based solely on class or category. Di ...[text shortened]... any rationalizations you may come up with, your position will remain "morally repugnant".

Crazy how folks can use the same words, same definition and still come up with 'south' instead of 'four.'

You take the currently politically acceptable implication for discrimination and lose the forest for the bark of a tree... and yet you continue to employ discrimination in your daily routine without even blinking. Why give yourself such a free pass while excluding all others who employ the same basic human agency function?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I probably could have been more explicit. I thought that within the context, it would be be understood to be "spiritual" authority for lack of a better term. I don't know what would be the proper Catholic terminology, but hopefully you understand what I mean.

[b]I don't think that this ultimately is a gender issue. It is more particularly a clerical ...[text shortened]... erical" changes nothing. Women are not allow to be priests, so it is about gender.[/b]

I probably could have been more explicit. I thought that within the context, it would be be understood to be "spiritual" authority for lack of a better term. I don't know what would be the proper Catholic terminology, but hopefully you understand what I mean.

It is not exactly clear what you mean by 'spiritual authority'. This is not terminology seen in a Catholic context.

Maybe I don't understand you here, but not allowing women to have "spiritual" authority because of gender is very much a gender issue. If by "clerical" you are speaking of priests and the like, then recasting it as "clerical" changes nothing. Women are not allow to be priests, so it is about gender.

You may think so but I think that analysis is naive. Certainly, if the Church permitted women to be ordained, then there would certainly no longer be any perceivable gender inequality. However, a great number of talented laypeople would still be marginalised and still disempowered. Permitting women to be ordained would not solve the underlying structural problem of clericalism.

To illustrate: in a strict theological sense, ordination to the priesthood confers the power to celebrate Eucharist, absolve in confession and anoint the sick; it gives the authority to preach and to give public benediction. And that's it. However, juridically, ordination confers a lot of other powers. For example, only an ordained canon lawyer can be a judge -- which means only a priest can nullify a marriage or judge some other contentious dispute of ecclesiastical law. It also confers privileges. A suitably trained priest may have the opportunity to work in Rome, in the curia, deciding issues of liturgy, doctrine, administration and so on. None of these additional powers and privileges need be exclusively attached to the priesthood.

That is the whole problem of clericalism. Allowing women's ordination would not remedy this problem. A better solution would be to share these clerical responsibilities with laypeople -- let women, appropriately trained as canon lawyers, to sit as judges; let women, with the appropriate theological qualifications, to resolve theological disputes; let women be cardinals even and be able to elect the Pope. In the past, there have been many lay cardinals (the most recent was 150 years ago.) I think this equal distribution of power between clerics and laity alike better empowers women as well as all laypeople.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Crazy how folks can use the same words, same definition and still come up with 'south' instead of 'four.'

You take the currently politically acceptable implication for discrimination and lose the forest for the bark of a tree... and yet you continue to employ discrimination in your daily routine without even blinking. Why give yourself such a free pass while excluding all others who employ the same basic human agency function?

Evidently are either "playing the idiot" or are incapable of wrapping your mind around the concept that the meaning of a word can be dependent on context. Can't say as either is a good thing.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]I probably could have been more explicit. I thought that within the context, it would be be understood to be "spiritual" authority for lack of a better term. I don't know what would be the proper Catholic terminology, but hopefully you understand what I mean.

It is not exactly clear what you mean by 'spiritual authority'. This is not terminology s er between clerics and laity alike better empowers women as well as all laypeople.[/b]

It is not exactly clear what you mean by 'spiritual authority'. This is not terminology seen in a Catholic context.

Well, like I said, "I don't know what would be the proper Catholic terminology...". I was hoping you'd be willing and able to try to discuss this outside of the Catholic jargon.

As for the rest of your post, try to keep in mind the topic of this thread. It seems evident that there is discrimination against women by the RCC. Women are not given the same opportunities as men simply because of their gender. Until they are, the gender issue will remain. That you also perceive an issue with how responsibilities are divided between clerics and lay people is beside the point.