WOMEN AND THE BIBLE

[Vertical Horizon]

---

I know the difference between a right and a privilege.....that's what my point, a privilege can be withdrawn, why can't the church leaders do anything about it, for fairness and equality.....

It's apparent you DON'T know the diffeence between a privilege and a right. Privileges can be given or taken for any reason deemed fit by the granting authority WITHOUT being unfair. It has nothing to do equality. Even Jesus used the parable of the workers (some hired in the morning, some hired in the afternoon, but all getting the same pay) to show this.

Equality and fairness are issues when we talk of RIGHTS. Privileges, on the other hand, are given purely at the discretion of the issuing authority. It doesn't have to give any to anyone.

Priesthood is a privilege. No one can ever claim he has a right to be a priest. NEVER. And right now, there is simply no reason to break with what Jesus did. There is no indication that the Levitical tradition, which Jesus Himself followed, should be broken.

But if you think there is, then show me a REAL ARGUMENT. So far, you haven't given any at all. If you can't, then it's no wonder you aren't having any luck convincing people who think.

I so agree.
I wonder if these people who kept on harping that women should have the right to be priests are women, and if so, wanted to be priests.
But I suspect that they are all just people who just can't do anything other than looking for loopholes of the church so they can rant mindlessly.

[HoundedbyHeaven]

Good luck to your female constituents.....

LOL! Take a good, long, hard look at constituents of the Anglican Church now, for granting such a privilege and other follies! Entire Anglican parishes converting into Roman Catholic ones!

Boy, am I overjoyed that the Catholic Church never got weird with its teaching on the male priesthood of Melchizedek! Same goes with its definition of sacramental marriage as heterosexual alone!

Pax.

[amaw]

as I said, of course, you guys can continue if you believe that folks are not given the privilege because of their gender....go ahead, be happy........ if you believe that through the course of history, it is OK for you that vatican can change the rule from married and father(with children) priests and popes to unmarried and unable to have kids, yet vatican cannot allow women to become priests.....go ahead, be happy......

and I'm not looking for loopholes, and I'm not ranting, and definitely don't have any intention to convince anybody.....I'm just giving my opinion, because I noticed that there is something wrong...I cannot just follow blindly......

and some of you guys are so amazing, even spelled names I know I can't spell correctly...projecting oneself to be a well-thinker, yet cannot even see a simple unjustness.....

......poor women, we claimed to have treated them fairly, yet we don't.

but hey whatever rocks your boat....... you can call me ignorant(or what was that, blinded by my ignorance? ), retarded, stupid, unable to show a real argument....it doesn't matter to me..........and it doesn't affect the reality.

Good Luck guys.

[mannyamador]

I'm just giving my opinion, because I noticed that there is something wrong...I cannot just follow blindly......

And we noticed that your opinion is WRONG because it's based on ignorance of history and poor logic. I am STILL WAITING for you to give even a halfway decent argument in favor of your position. And you still haven't.

and some of you guys are so amazing, even spelled names I know I can't spell correctly...projecting oneself to be a well-thinker, yet cannot even see a simple unjustness.....

You can't seem to grasp the concept of privilege as connected to injustice. There ISN'T ANY in this case. If priesthood were a RIGHT, then you would have a case for claiming women have been treated unfairly, but since it isn't, then you DON'T have a case at all.

Alternative News and Opinion at: -- http://www.phnix.net --
[img width=447 height=60]http://www.phnix.net/phnix_logo02.jpg[/img]

[mariaa]

Bible ... imagine a literary book one thousand years of editing .... recent GENDER Developments only happend in the last couple of years ... and yes Vatican Council forget to edit that part ... and hey Genesis's first chapters speaks of Gender Inequality ...remember women taken from mens ribs ... hahahahahah

[mannyamador]

Bible ... imagine a literary book one thousand years of editing .... recent GENDER Developments only happend in the last couple of years ... and yes Vatican Council forget to edit that part ... and hey Genesis's first chapters speaks of Gender Inequality ...remember women taken from mens ribs ... hahahahahah

The Vatican Council didn't edit ANY part, actually.

[ichor_82283]

Pontus:

The Bible has no flaw.
In my end, the Bible stresses a Patriarchal society.

Women ish:

It's a misconstrued idea that women has no value in the Bible.

Let me site the few women God used in order to become vessel of blessings.

One concrete example is Mary the Mother of Jesus. Can anyone refute her significance?

Who would forget Mary Magdalene? The other Mary's and Joanna who visited Christ on the day of His ressurection? Why has He chosen women to witness and announce His resurrection? The Sisters of Lazarus, the bestfriend of Jesus. (I think they were Mary and Martha).

In the Epistles of Paul in the New Testament, why has God chosen Lydia as one of the first Gentile converts? The prominent Greek women who listened at the market places and synagogue? It is important to point out that the first Christians in Asia minor (as the Bible used it) were mostly women. Take Aquila the wife of Pricila...Why has God chose the woman who bleeds throughout her life to manifest His power? He chose a woman to reveal His power by just touching His garment. Is it not a marvel?

Let me skim through the significant women in the Old Testament:

Sarai or Sarah. Who would have thought the woman who LAUGHS at God when she was informed that at the age of 99 she would be the mother of the chosen people - His Israelites? Refute this.

Who would forget Miriam, the sister of Moses the first prophetess (accdg to me) as one of Moses' advisors?

The second woman God chose for His chosen people- Rebecca, is she not a woman of the Bible worth to be remembered?

The mothers of the great twelve tribes of Israel - Leah and Rachel? Are they not important?

What about the prostitute, Rahab who kept from harm the spies of Israel when God wants to deliver the PROMISED LAND into the hands of Israel?

The queen who makes this famous line: "If I perish, I perish!"...Queen Esther who saves all the Israelites from eradication?

The first Judge (not the judges of the courts) of Israel, Deborah? Is she not a woman favored by God to lead Israel?

What about the nameless widow who cared for the prophet Elijah? Is she not the blessed widow God chose to set as an example for the women of today? The woman of faith?

What about you?

[Bahalina-boy]

ingung ana gyud na sa old testament bai! its sad but true! pero pag abot ni jesus iya man giusab ang treatment sa women..

gi usab?

[tambuk]

uhm, yeah i know about this, but i think these are just metaphorical and not to be followed literally. there are millions of interpretations just about everything, maybe we misinterpreted this one?

or it's old. maybe that was just applicable to the olden times the ancient times. but still to be treated metaphorical. i don't understand fundamentalists. though some or a lot of us were brought up to learn or know that what eve gave adam was a literal apple.

Regarding Heaven & Hell (i just feel like sharing)
I don't know if you know this but the Pope John Paull II back in 1998 said in his papal thing that, heaven and hell are not places, but states of mind. the "inextinguishable fire" and all are just purely metaphorical and mostly if not all are, too.

you could google it to confirm. we jsut cant be too sure of the things we think to be y'know?

"There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt in your Philosophy."

[mannyamador]

Regarding Heaven & Hell (i just feel like sharing)
I don't know if you know this but the Pope John Paull II back in 1998 said in his papal thing that, heaven and hell are not places, but states of mind. the "inextinguishable fire" and all are just purely metaphorical and mostly if not all are, too.

I guess more like states of being. heaven is to be eternally in the presence of God, whom one loves and thus experiences bliss. Hell is to be forever separated from Him because one doesn't love Him.