Duggar family values??

Debating issues regarding sexuality

Moderator: Moderators

DanieltheDragon
Savant
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
Location: Charlotte
Been thanked: 1 time

Duggar family values??

Post #1

Post by DanieltheDragon »

http://gawker.com/five-women-sue-duggar ... 1738185507

yet another link to sex abuse and the Quiverfull movement.

Question for debate is there systemic sexual abuse in the Quiverfull movement?
Post 1: Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:48 am Otseng has been banned
Otseng has been banned for having multiple accounts and impersonating a moderator.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1510
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Duggar family values??

Post #31

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to Bust Nak]


There is no need, they already know what I am telling you. They realise it's an artificial restriction
Only if you see some being designed to be fish and some being designed to be birds artificial restrictions. Birds weren’t given wings because wings are better than gills and fish weren’t given gills because gills are better than wings. Both wings and gills are good and gifts. If the bird feels slighted, it’s on him and he doesn’t get it. He doesn’t appreciate what he has been given/his own gifts. He falsely thinks equal must mean same – it doesn’t. Again, that’s on the bird. And how unhappy and unfreeing for him to not get it.

In other words, gill vs lungs, fins vs wings or scales vs feathers. Now lets see you list some of the features that differentiate priesthood from women.
No. Bird vs. fish. Which is better? Should the bird be jealous of the fish and demand he too be a fish?

I mean start explaining what features women does not have that stops them from being priests, not explain why men can't be mothers.
I did so in the very first post. Why can’t an uncle be an aunt? Why can’t a brother be a sister? They don’t share the same nature.

You banged on about birds and fishes, went as far as to say women does not meet the physical requirement of being a priest, but could never name me what physical features women are missing.
They are missing maleness!!!!!!!
1) Women are barred because of theological reasons - namely Jesus didn't pick female disciples,
Well, this is a theological discussion. Women can’t be priests because of what we can know from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
2) This banning of female priests is not based on the words of Jesus, but understood from inference.
Women can’t be priests is based on Jesus actions. They are also based on the Jesus’ words telling us to listen to His Church – that He will guide His Church in all truth.

3) Inference by theologians are not infallible, nor are the proclamations of Popes infallible when they are not speaking from the chair of Peter
Correct. But the Church has been clear that this is a matter of certainty. And less you think it is simply an old tradition, recent Popes have reiterated that the Church’s teaching on this matter remains true and cannot be changed. Google John Paul II and Pope Francis on women ordination.

"On the ordination of women in the Catholic church, the last word is clear," Francis said, citing Pope John Paul II's 1994 letter banning women from the priesthood. "It was given by St. John Paul II and this remains."
https://www.usnews.com/news/world/artic ... be-priests

. 4) Such matter are decided by the Church leadership, either the Pope himself, or by a vote from the College of Bishops.
Yep, that’s how the Church works. Though you reduce this process to some kind of democratic political process. Those who understand how Christ’s Church works recognize the process as guided by the Holy Spirit and the final decision being exactly what God wants for His Church.




Right, you are making my point again - women can't be priests because of theology, as opposed to any physical limitation.
I’ve never argued otherwise. It is you who kept wanting to make it about physical limitation, even though I repeated time after time it is NOT about the talents/skills of a woman vs a man. You kept insisting it should come down to that. But that’s NOT what it is about. So, yes you continue to make your point that you have no clue how or why the Church does it what it does. All you see is women could do the job of a priests just as well as a man – I’ve never argued otherwise. But they can’t be priests because they literally can’t be priests. Just like an uncle cannot be an aunt. They do not have the requirement necessary!

they are barred because God, via the Church, said so.
Uh yes! If by God creating a bird bars the bird from being a fish, then yes God barred birds from being fish.




That goes back to my original point - you are not defending the Church from the charges of sexism, you are defending sexism. You are not saying the Church is not sexist, you are saying it's okay to be sexist in this case - it is beautiful and reasonable.
Obviously I was always rejecting the negative connotation the culture has of sexism and said so from the beginning. It is ok to love dogs because they are dogs and appreciate dogs for all the qualities that dogs have. Would you say that is dogism? And would dogism be wrong/bad? If you want to call the Church sexist – fine – as long as you recognize it isn’t a bad thing and you fail to truly get it.

So it's time for the Church to catch up, and not do things for the sake of tradition, scared or otherwise. It's either that or face a new schism.
Ha, ha, ha . . . bring a new schism on – would weed out Christ’s true Church from those who want to leave His established Church and start their own. As for me, I’ll remain with the Church Christ promised never to leave.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9457
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Re: Duggar family values??

Post #32

Post by Bust Nak »

RightReason wrote: Only if you see some being designed to be fish and some being designed to be birds artificial restrictions. Birds weren’t given wings because wings are better than gills and fish weren’t given gills because gills are better than wings.
Wings and gills aren't artificial restrictions. They are physical limitations. No one is banning birds from having gills, they simply and physically do not have gills. They don't have the bits to be a fish.

The same does not apply to priesthood. Women have all the bits but are banned, disallowed, barred, restricted, forbidden from being priests.
Both wings and gills are good and gifts. If the bird feels slighted, it’s on him and he doesn’t get it. He doesn’t appreciate what he has been given/his own gifts. He falsely thinks equal must mean same – it doesn’t. Again, that’s on the bird. And how unhappy and unfreeing for him to not get it.
Right, but the point is, you can point to else physical features of wings and gills, you cannot do the same for priests, therefore this analogy does not hold.
No. Bird vs. fish. Which is better?
Better for what? Swimming? Fish. Flying? Birds. (Mostly.)
Should the bird be jealous of the fish and demand he too be a fish?
A bird cannot be a fish, therefore the question jealousy is quite meaningless.
I did so in the very first post. Why can’t an uncle be an aunt? Why can’t a brother be a sister? They don’t share the same nature.
I get why an uncle cannot be an aunt, I get why a brother cannot be a sister. Those are gender-specific nouns that are tied to biological features of a person. I also get why birds can't be fishes.

Repeatedly pointing to these examples does not in any way help explain why women are barred from priesthood.
They are missing maleness!!!!!!!
As in having specific genes? Specific body parts? Specific body shape? Be specific on how it physically prevents a women from leading congregation. It can't be gender identify since the Church is iffy about that too. We both know you can't do that the way I can point to a wing or a gill, it's about time you drop any argument along the lines of birds and fishes, or brothers and aunts.
Well, this is a theological discussion. Women can’t be priests because of what we can know from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Women can’t be priests is based on Jesus actions. They are also based on the Jesus’ words telling us to listen to His Church – that He will guide His Church in all truth.

Correct. But the Church has been clear that this is a matter of certainty. And less you think it is simply an old tradition, recent Popes have reiterated that the Church’s teaching on this matter remains true and cannot be changed. Google John Paul II and Pope Francis on women ordination.

"On the ordination of women in the Catholic church, the last word is clear," Francis said, citing Pope John Paul II's 1994 letter banning women from the priesthood. "It was given by St. John Paul II and this remains."

Yep, that’s how the Church works. Though you reduce this process to some kind of democratic political process. Those who understand how Christ’s Church works recognize the process as guided by the Holy Spirit and the final decision being exactly what God wants for His Church.
So 4 out of 4. Not bad for someone who don’t understand how the Church works if I do say so myself.

While we are here, just look at the quote provided: "banning women from the priesthood," in contrast to the fact that no man is ever banned from being a mother, they simply aren't. No bird have ever been banned from being a fish, they simply aren't. No brother has ever been banned from being a sister, they simply aren't.
I’ve never argued otherwise. It is you who kept wanting to make it about physical limitation, even though I repeated time after time it is NOT about the talents/skills of a woman vs a man. You kept insisting it should come down to that.
That's because you kept insisting it's some how the same principle for why birds can't be fishes; the same principle for why men can't be mothers; the same principle for why aunts can't be uncles. By invoking these examples you are making it about physical limitation. You can't have it both ways.
But that’s NOT what it is about. So, yes you continue to make your point that you have no clue how or why the Church does it what it does. All you see is women could do the job of a priests just as well as a man – I’ve never argued otherwise. But they can’t be priests because they literally can’t be priests. Just like an uncle cannot be an aunt. They do not have the requirement necessary!
You are doing it again! On the one hand you say you've never argued it was physical limitation; then in the same paragraph argued with the example of uncle and aunt, when uncle cannot be an aunt because of physical limitation. I repeat: you can't have it both ways.

The other alternatively is look at it as linguistic - "aunt" is simply the female version of the noun "uncle." We both know that was not the point you were making, had it been so, the problem can simply be resolved by introducing the word "priestess."
Uh yes! If by God creating a bird bars the bird from being a fish, then yes God barred birds from being fish.
There is no barring here at all, it is due to physical difference between birds and fish. God isn't saying birds are not allowed to be fish, they just aren't the same. The same does not apply to priesthood. God is saying women are not allowed to be priests. How is the difference not completely obvious to you?
Obviously I was always rejecting the negative connotation the culture has of sexism and said so from the beginning. It is ok to love dogs because they are dogs and appreciate dogs for all the qualities that dogs have. Would you say that is dogism? And would dogism be wrong/bad?
Depends, dogs are physically different from other animals, if you are doing some sort banning for dogs that is not relevant to their physical attributes, then that's dogism. As for bad or not, that too depends on how it affect these animals.
If you want to call the Church sexist – fine – as long as you recognize it isn’t a bad thing and you fail to truly get it.
I'll take what I can. I do want to call the Church sexist without explicitly saying whether that is bad or not.
Ha, ha, ha . . . bring a new schism on – would weed out Christ’s true Church from those who want to leave His established Church and start their own. As for me, I’ll remain with the Church Christ promised never to leave.
Both sides would claim that it is the one true Church that Christ promised never to leave. How would you choose, go with traditions, go with the side that makes the better arguments, or just trust the Holy Spirit and go with what you feel?

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1510
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Duggar family values??

Post #33

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to Justin108]

Can you be specific? The reason a bird cannot be a fish is because it physically does not possess gills, fins, etc. It cannot perform the specific actions a fish can. It cannot breathe under water, swim as well, etc.
The reason a bird cannot be a fish is because it is not a fish – it is a bird. It’s nature is not that of a fish, but of a bird.
Now instead of the vague comparison that a woman priest is like a bird who is a fish, can you explain, specifically, why a woman cannot be a priest?
I have. Many times now, but I will do so again. Because she is not male.
What are they key tasks a priest must be able to perform and why is it absolutely necessary for a man to perform these key tasks?
The priesthood is only as task oriented as motherhood. The primary role of motherhood is not limited to tasks performed. Rather the primary role of motherhood is to be one’s mother. If a mother is not a woman, then she is not a mother.

The only reason mothers are female and fathers are male is as a result of our linguistic distinction between male and female. It's arbitrary.
The term is arbitrary – as we could have denoted zag to be our word for uncle, but the distinction between an aunt and an uncle is not arbitrary. An uncle shares the male nature, while an aunt shares the female nature. That is the distinction.
Just as distinguishing between "waiter" and "waitress" is arbitrary. They both perform the same roles.
You mean they perform many of the same tasks -- I agree. But they don’t perform the same role. A waiter has the role of male nature and waitress female. There is a distinction there and it would be incorrect -- maybe even rude to call a waiter waitress or a waitress waiter.
If your only argument for why women can't be priests is because priests are male by definition, then the question becomes why does the Church not allow priestesses?
Because Christ didn’t, nor did He command the Church to do so.
What can a priest do that a priestess cannot do?
What can a mother do that a care giver cannot? ANSWER: Be the mother.
If you went to a restaurant and asked for a waiter, would you protest if a woman showed up instead just because, technically, shes a waitress?

Of course not. If she is female, I would expect her to be a waitress.

It's an arbitrary distinction.
No, as already discussed. I think most people are pretty clear for the distinction – it isn’t arbitrary at all.



How exactly did the Holy Spirit guide the vote? Did it whisper in everyone's ear what they should vote for? Did God somehow influence the will of the voters? Would that not entail a violation of free will? If God makes people decide things, does this not go directly against our having free will?
That is a topic for another thread – a deep theological question regarding man, God, and free will.
Also, if God guides votes, would one not expect unanimous decisions? If God guided a vote and the outcome was 70/30, did God somehow fail to convince the 30? Why are all votes guided by the Holy Spirit not 100/0?
I know you think this is a logical question, but it really shows your lack of understanding of how God works in our lives. Men are free to believe and think what they want to think, but let’s put it this way . . . God would prevent there ever being a majority of the magisterium from being part of the magisterium in the first place. Get it? The Holy Spirit doesn’t force us to do something, but God will protect His Church from teaching error.

Justin108
Banned
Banned
Posts: 4471
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 5:28 am

Re: Duggar family values??

Post #34

Post by Justin108 »

RightReason wrote:
Now instead of the vague comparison that a woman priest is like a bird who is a fish, can you explain, specifically, why a woman cannot be a priest?
I have. Many times now, but I will do so again. Because she is not male.
Ok so it's not because of practical reasons but for arbitrary ones.
RightReason wrote: The priesthood is only as task oriented as motherhood. The primary role of motherhood is not limited to tasks performed. Rather the primary role of motherhood is to be one’s mother.
But what does it mean to be a mother? Rather, why is it specifically important to have a mother rather than just a parent? Is having a mother somehow better than having a parent? "But a mother is a parent". My point exactly. The fact that she's a female parent in no way improves her ability of raising a child.
RightReason wrote:
The only reason mothers are female and fathers are male is as a result of our linguistic distinction between male and female. It's arbitrary.
The term is arbitrary – as we could have denoted zag to be our word for uncle, but the distinction between an aunt and an uncle is not arbitrary. An uncle shares the male nature, while an aunt shares the female nature. That is the distinction.
What aspects of the male nature is important? What aspects of the female nature is important? Again, be specific. What, specifically, can an aunt do that an uncle cannot? And don't say "well she can be an aunt" because then I'm just going to stop taking you seriously. Other than carry the label of "aunt", what can an aunt do that an uncle cannot?
RightReason wrote:
Just as distinguishing between "waiter" and "waitress" is arbitrary. They both perform the same roles.
You mean they perform many of the same tasks -- I agree. But they don’t perform the same role. A waiter has the role of male nature and waitress female.
How is the "male role" of a waiter any different from the "female role" of a waitress? Is he somehow better at remembering food orders? Is he better at balancing food on the tray? What does it matter if the waitron is either male or female?
RightReason wrote: There is a distinction there and it would be incorrect -- maybe even rude to call a waiter waitress or a waitress waiter.
There is also a distinction between a black waiter and a white waiter in that one is black and one is white. But is there a need to call "black waiter!" any time you wish to order food? No. Because while there is a distinction, the distinction is arbitrary.
RightReason wrote:
If your only argument for why women can't be priests is because priests are male by definition, then the question becomes why does the Church not allow priestesses?
Because Christ didn’t, nor did He command the Church to do so.
He never disallowed it either.

Christ never used a cellphone. So using your logic, because Christ never used a cellphone, nor did he command the Church to use a cellphone, the Church should not be allowed to use cellphones.
RightReason wrote:
What can a priest do that a priestess cannot do?
What can a mother do that a care giver cannot? ANSWER: Be the mother.
Being a mother is not an action, it's a state of being. I am asking which action a priestess cannot do.
RightReason wrote:
If you went to a restaurant and asked for a waiter, would you protest if a woman showed up instead just because, technically, shes a waitress?
Of course not. If she is female, I would expect her to be a waitress.
Yes but you didn't ask for a waitress, you asked for a waiter.
RightReason wrote: No, as already discussed. I think most people are pretty clear for the distinction – it isn’t arbitrary at all.
Do you know what arbitrary means?

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1510
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Duggar family values??

Post #35

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to Justin108]
Ok so it's not because of practical reasons but for arbitrary ones.
No. Why is it arbitrary? The Church did not arbitrarily decide to only ordain men. She is doing so because Christ Himself did so and because Christ instituted the priesthood for the priest to be in persona christe in the place of Christ. The Christ incarnate has a male nature – for someone to be in His place they ought to share His nature. So, NO – not arbitrary.

But what does it mean to be a mother? Rather, why is it specifically important to have a mother
I don’t think any of us could quite explain the necessity of mothers – yet they are irreplaceable. They aren’t fathers. They aren’t grandparents. They aren’t sisters, etc. They are mothers. It’s actually odd to me that you too want to reduce motherhood to some kind of task oriented position. You simply don’t get it.

what aspects of the male nature is important? What aspects of the female nature is important?
Anyone who has a special relationship with their aunt or uncle knows that person is who they are because of their nature. We relate to people differently based on their nature – that can be scientifically demonstrated.

How is the "male role" of a waiter any different from the "female role" of a waitress? Is he somehow better at remembering food orders?
Nope – not better – different. Boy you guys are really hung up on better/superior. It isn’t a contest.

He never disallowed it either.
Well, he did say, “He who hears you, hears me . . . “ meaning He speaks thru His Church and has so far prevented His Church from changing this teaching – so that does demonstrate He is disallowing it.
Christ never used a cellphone. So using your logic, because Christ never used a cellphone, nor did he command the Church to use a cellphone, the Church should not be allowed to use cellphones.
Well, if He spoke thru one of the Popes some day about cell phones, then I would listen, but so far He hasn’t.

Being a mother is not an action, it's a state of being.
Bingo! And an awesome, beautiful, uniquely feminine one in which she projects her feminine presence. How wonderful and fortunate!

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 5560
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 244 times
Been thanked: 205 times
Contact:

Post #36

Post by tam »

Peace to you RR,
RightReason wrote: [Replying to tam]


If one is a Bible believing Christian he would have to acknowledge Christ gave authority to His Church.



He would not have to acknowledge that the Church (the Body and Bride of Christ) is the RCC.
Well, he would if he were true to history and the requirements that Scripture speaks about in recognizing Christ’s Church. But yes, I can understand how one could be misinformed or deceived into thinking otherwise.
Well, I have a hard time understanding how one can be misinformed and deceived into believing that the RCC is that Church, considering her history and her fruits.


Your words, 'the church is insisting what Christ says she should', could be spoken by anyone in any denomination who believes theirs is the Church. But it would not prove their point any more than it proves your point.
I could probably rule out the overwhelming majority of these other denominations you suggest by holding them up against how Scripture tells us to recognize the Church. Here’s a start – you can rule out any church that was not founded until after the death of Jesus Christ. If they were, buh buy.

I think you've missed the point. But before we get off on a tangent, I am not pushing for any denomination to be the church. The Church is the Body of Christ (which is made of people). It is not a religion; not a denomination in a religion. It is made up of those people who belong to Christ, anointed with holy spirit.

Quote:
Catholics also affirm that all believers are priests. The only difference is that they call this doctrine the "universal priesthood" instead of "the priesthood of all believers." Catholics quote exactly the same verses Protestants do to show that all believers are priests. The writings of the popes and the councils are very firm on saying that ordinary Christians share a common priesthood. We are all priests who can offer intercessions, praises, and spiritual sacrifices.


Well, there you go.

Seems to defeat your argument with Bust Nak that a woman cannot be a priest ("universal or clergy"), anymore than a fish can be a bird.
I take it you didn’t read the whole thing.



I read everything that you copy-pasted.
What you are referring to is the universal priesthood not the ministerial priesthood. Go back and re read. God intended a universal priesthood as well as a ministerial priest and He intended only males be ordained as priests to His ministerial priesthood. Scripture shows this.
No, scripture does not show this. We can know this from scripture because those who REIGN with Christ as priests and kings are male and female.



From https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/re ... iests.html

When Paul wrote about there being neither male nor female in Christ (Gal. 3:28), he is discussing our justification through faith, not our roles in the Church. Even in 1 Corinthians 12, when Paul speaks about there being Jews, Greeks, slaves, and free being baptized into the one body of Christ, he mentions that within this one body, there are different parts:

"There are varieties of service, but the same Lord . . . All these are inspired by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills. For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. . . . If the foot should say, 'Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,' that would not make it any less a part of the body. . . . If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? But as it is, God arranged the organs in the body, each one of them, as he chose. If all were a single organ, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, yet one body. . . . Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles . . . Are all apostles?" (1 Cor. 12:5-29).

So, while Paul acknowledges the universality of God's plan for salvation, he's clear that there are different roles within the body of Christ. Men and woman are equal in the eyes of God, but this equality is not synonymous with sameness. They play different roles within the Church, as there are different instruments within an orchestra. Just as the instruments are arranged for a symphony, God has "arranged the organs of the body" (1 Cor. 12:18), and we are not to reconstruct the design that he has established.
Of course there are different roles, gifts, strengths, among the Body of Christ. Paul does not distinguish between gender for these roles.

(Except for that one place in Corinthians where he is speaking in accordance with the law. Roman law - which did not allow a woman to have authority over a man, and for the most part, did not allow a woman to speak in public. On top of that... women were NOT considered by Roman law to be equal to men. And Jewish women were not permitted to even speak in the synagogue or read from the Torah. To find a woman speaking on matters of faith (in the God that the Jews worshiped) would have been a dead giveaway that these women and men were Christians, at a time when Christians were in hiding from the Jews.)


Women tended to push the ambitions of their sons or husbands also. Which is what the mother of two apostles tried to do when she asked Christ to take each of hers sons and place them at his right and left hand. But an apostle had to serve the King (and the Kingdom) first; not her sons (or daughters or spouses, etc). In such cases, it makes sense that such ones could not be chosen for that role.

Please do not mistake me... I am not pushing for acceptance of women priests in the RCC. I am not pushing for anything to do with the RCC (or any other denomination). It is just the doctrine that does not make sense in light of men and women being the Church, the Temple, kings and priests (and this IS a ministerial priesthood).



There are the subjects of the Kingdom (people of the nations who were not Christian, but who are also invited into the Kingdom - both men and women; and the sheep and the goats parable demonstrates WHY they are invited into the Kingdom)
No, as the article already clarified that both men and women are saved does not mean both men and women can be ordained priests.
You're the one putting 'ordained' in front of the word priest. And how much more "ordained" can a priest be than being anointed with holy spirit? That is an 'ordaining' - or rather an anointing - by Christ Himself!

So, while Paul acknowledges the universality of God's plan for salvation, he's clear that there are different roles within the body of Christ.
Different roles due to different GIFTS. Not different roles due to different genders.



Jude is not speaking about clergy and laity; but rather about the 'godlessness' of these men.
Jude was speaking about those attempting to suggest they had authority to speak when they had not been ordained to do so.
Really? And how does Cain fit into that then?
Unless the author is trying to suggest that Cain was not permitted to offer a sacrifice or something, because he was not an appointed priest? That is completely false, so if that is the example the author is using, the author is does not know what she or he is talking about.
Hebrews 11 shows why it is wrong to be jealous when God chooses some over others. Like the article accurately assessed this example involves religious ministry and what our response in obedience to God should be.

(did you mean to say Jude 11?)

God's acceptance of Abel over Cain was because Abel did what was right and Cain did not. Abel was clean... Cain was unclean because of his jealousy and hatred toward his brother.

How does Cain apply to the author's comments regarding being ordained? If he does not, then the author is mistaken on what Jude was speaking about.

It seems your understanding is incomplete. You take the cultural world view and try to make Scripture fit.
I could not care less about the cultural world view. I merely pointed that those who reign with Christ in His Kingdom, who are before the throne of God and render sacred service in His temple are kings and priests made of male and female.

The Church however looks at what is written and what Christ did.
So when the church took part in inquisitions, or in persecuting anyone, or when they handed people over to be executed or burned at the stake for heresy or whatever else... they were looking at what Christ did? What exactly, may I ask, were they seeing from Him that allowed them to do such things?




Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1510
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 12 times

Post #37

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to post 36 by tam]
Well, I have a hard time understanding how one can be misinformed and deceived into believing that the RCC is that Church, considering her history and her fruits.
Because even Peter never screwed up, huh? And I am considering the fruits of Christ’s Church. Only the Catholic Church remains true to many of Christ’s teachings to this day, when practically every other Christian denomination has caved into the fashions of the day. Only the Catholic Church continues to teach the sin of sex outside of marriage, pornography, divorce, contraception, etc. The Catholic Church is the world’s largest charitable organization, feeding, clothing, and spreading the gospel.



The Church is the Body of Christ (which is made of people). It is not a religion; not a denomination in a religion. It is made up of those people who belong to Christ, anointed with holy spirit.
We’ve already had this discussion. Your interpretation is unscriptural. Scripture clearly shows the start of Christ’s Church with a hierarchical structure. Like I said we’ve had this conversation before and I’ve pointed out the problem in thinking the Church in the way you do.


Quote:
What you are referring to is the universal priesthood not the ministerial priesthood. Go back and re read. God intended a universal priesthood as well as a ministerial priest and He intended only males be ordained as priests to His ministerial priesthood. Scripture shows this.


No, scripture does not show this.
Yes, it does. Christ appointed only males to be the leaders of His Church.
We can know this from scripture because those who REIGN with Christ as priests and kings are male and female.
Like I said, we are talking about two different things. Yes, all are equally saved, but that has nothing to do with those appointed to be leaders in Christ’s Church.








Of course there are different roles, gifts, strengths, among the Body of Christ. Paul does not distinguish between gender for these roles.

(Except for that one place in Corinthians where he is speaking in accordance with the law. Roman law - which did not allow a woman to have authority over a man, and for the most part, did not allow a woman to speak in public. On top of that... women were NOT considered by Roman law to be equal to men. And Jewish women were not permitted to even speak in the synagogue or read from the Torah. To find a woman speaking on matters of faith (in the God that the Jews worshiped) would have been a dead giveaway that these women and men were Christians, at a time when Christians were in hiding from the Jews.)
Pretty sure Jesus, the savior, was not subject to cultural norms and afraid of shaking things up. He could have selected women as His apostles if He wanted to do so. He did not.

Different roles due to different GIFTS. Not different roles due to different genders.
Why shouldn’t our gender be considered a gift?
The Church however looks at what is written and what Christ did.


So when the church took part in inquisitions, or in persecuting anyone . . .or whatever else... they were looking at what Christ did?
Tell me, when you’ve sinned, were you looking at what Christ did? Does your screwing up mean you are clueless about Scripture, Jesus, and what He said and did? Or are you human and sometimes get things wrong?
What exactly, may I ask, were they seeing from Him that allowed them to do such things?
This is a low comment and has nothing to do with my point which is we can see from Scripture and take our cues from Scripture and what Jesus Himself did (appointed only males to be leaders in His Church) to know what Christ expects of us.

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 5560
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 244 times
Been thanked: 205 times
Contact:

Post #38

Post by tam »

Peace to you RR,
RightReason wrote: [Replying to post 36 by tam]
Well, I have a hard time understanding how one can be misinformed and deceived into believing that the RCC is that Church, considering her history and her fruits.
Because even Peter never screwed up, huh?


He certainly did, and if we were following Peter, then we would follow him in his errors. We are supposed to be following Christ.

But we are not talking about an individual sinning, someone we are not supposed to be following to begin with (unless we are following them in their faith - meaning we also are to listen to Christ).
And I am considering the fruits of Christ’s Church.


You are considering the fruits that are good but ignoring the fruits that are bad. All denominations have some good fruits; all denominations have some truth.

Only Christ has all truth.
Only the Catholic Church remains true to many of Christ’s teachings to this day, when practically every other Christian denomination has caved into the fashions of the day.
That is assuming the RCC was true to His teachings to begin with, and she has certainly meandered away from His teachings at various (and continuous) times in her existence.
Only the Catholic Church continues to teach the sin of sex outside of marriage, pornography, divorce, contraception, etc.


Well, that's not true (except perhaps contraception being a sin, which was not a teaching of Christ). I can think of multiple denominations that teach sex outside of marriage, porn and divorce, etc, to be sins.
The Catholic Church is the world’s largest charitable organization, feeding, clothing, and spreading the gospel.
The RCC has the most money as well; and not all attained through honest means.

I am not knocking the charitable stuff. Yet, most denominations have charitable stuff. That is a clear teaching from Christ. Nor does it matter who gives the most, but rather it was the woman who gave the most out of what she had, who received praise from Christ.


The Church is the Body of Christ (which is made of people). It is not a religion; not a denomination in a religion. It is made up of those people who belong to Christ, anointed with holy spirit.
We’ve already had this discussion. Your interpretation is unscriptural.


We have had this conversation and nothing I wrote above is unscriptural.

And God put everything under His feet and made Him head over everything for the church, which is His body,
Ephesians 1:22, 23


Multiple verses also describe Christians as being members of the Body of Christ. Therefore, the Church is the Body of Christ, as described in Ephesians, and that Church/Body is made of people, with Christ as their head.



Quote:
What you are referring to is the universal priesthood not the ministerial priesthood. Go back and re read. God intended a universal priesthood as well as a ministerial priest and He intended only males be ordained as priests to His ministerial priesthood. Scripture shows this.


No, scripture does not show this.
Yes, it does. Christ appointed only males to be the leaders of His Church.
Well, technically "A" male is THE leader of His Church. That much is correct. Because CHRIST is the leader of His Church; the Head of His Body.
We can know this from scripture because those who REIGN with Christ as priests and kings are male and female.
Like I said, we are talking about two different things. Yes, all are equally saved, but that has nothing to do with those appointed to be leaders in Christ’s Church.

You are talking about two different things. But they are the same.
Of course there are different roles, gifts, strengths, among the Body of Christ. Paul does not distinguish between gender for these roles.

(Except for that one place in Corinthians where he is speaking in accordance with the law. Roman law - which did not allow a woman to have authority over a man, and for the most part, did not allow a woman to speak in public. On top of that... women were NOT considered by Roman law to be equal to men. And Jewish women were not permitted to even speak in the synagogue or read from the Torah. To find a woman speaking on matters of faith (in the God that the Jews worshiped) would have been a dead giveaway that these women and men were Christians, at a time when Christians were in hiding from the Jews.)
Pretty sure Jesus, the savior, was not subject to cultural norms and afraid of shaking things up. He could have selected women as His apostles if He wanted to do so. He did not.
I was talking about Paul and Paul's words.
Different roles due to different GIFTS. Not different roles due to different genders.
Why shouldn’t our gender be considered a gift?
You missed the point. You brought up Paul speaking about different roles... but Paul spoke about different roles as per the different gifts being given. He even described some of those gifts. (tongues, healing, teaching, etc) He never mentioned gender with regard to those roles. Indeed, the gifts being given were generic, as in they could have been given to men OR women; however God sees fit.

The Church however looks at what is written and what Christ did.


So when the church took part in inquisitions, or in persecuting anyone . . .or whatever else... they were looking at what Christ did?
Tell me, when you’ve sinned, were you looking at what Christ did? Does your screwing up mean you are clueless about Scripture, Jesus, and what He said and did? Or are you human and sometimes get things wrong?
Besides the fact that I am not telling anyone to obey and follow me... but am instead pointing to Christ... you are missing the point. Obviously the RCC does not always look at what is written or at what Christ did. They can and have been wrong, on numerous occasions. So you stating, "the church is insisting what Christ says she should", is a meaningless statement. Because it can be shown that she also insists upon things that Christ did not say she should, and even things that He specifically spoke against.


What is the point of Christ warning us against false apostles and false christs, or of Him teaching us to test the inspired expressions, or to test to see if men are true or false apostles, if we only ever had to remain with the RCC? No matter what it does or teaches, even if it teaches in direct opposition to Christ?



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1510
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 12 times

Post #39

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to tam]

He certainly did, and if we were following Peter, then we would follow him in his errors. We are supposed to be following Christ.
So, did Jesus tell Peter, “He who hears you, hears me� or not? Yeah, that’s what I thought.
You are considering the fruits that are good but ignoring the fruits that are bad.
No, I am recognizing all human beings (except Jesus and Mary) are sinful and Christ left human beings in charge of His Church, so yes, we can expect some within the Church to screw up. Of course, this doesn’t negate Christ’s Church. The fact that the Church is made up of fallible human beings does not diminish the Church.
Only Christ has all truth.
Christ promised to remain with His Church and Scripture describes the Church as the pillar and foundation of truth – sooooooo . . .

Quote:
Only the Catholic Church remains true to many of Christ’s teachings to this day, when practically every other Christian denomination has caved into the fashions of the day.


That is assuming the RCC was true to His teachings to begin with, and she has certainly meandered away from His teachings at various (and continuous) times in her existence.
She has never erred in her teachings on matters of faith and morals.

Quote:
Only the Catholic Church continues to teach the sin of sex outside of marriage, pornography, divorce, contraception, etc.


Well, that's not true (except perhaps contraception being a sin, which was not a teaching of Christ). I can think of multiple denominations that teach sex outside of marriage, porn and divorce, etc, to be sins.
Yes, some other denominations get some stuff right, but not everything – just as you acknowledge the Catholic Church stands alone in its recognition of the sin of contraception (which as has been previously discussed is Scriptural and contrary to God’s law). And it seems more and more the Catholic Church stands alone in its courage to remain true to Christ’s teachings regarding homosexual acts. Yep, like I said the Catholic Church stands alone today in remaining true.

The RCC has the most money as well; and not all attained through honest means.
If the Catholic Church has had some sinful men in its ranks who used dishonest means to obtain money that would be wrong, but it is absolutely absurd to think such constitutes the majority of the Church’s money or to think such was ever condoned by the Church.
Multiple verses also describe Christians as being members of the Body of Christ. Therefore, the Church is the Body of Christ, as described in Ephesians, and that Church/Body is made of people, with Christ as their head.
I take no argument with this, but that’s not what we’re talking about.
Well, technically "A" male is THE leader of His Church. That much is correct. Because CHRIST is the leader of His Church; the Head of His Body.
Great observation. Christ is male. So was Peter . . . “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I shall build my church.� “He who hears you, hears me� “Whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven.�

Sounds like a leadership role to me.







Pretty sure Jesus, the savior, was not subject to cultural norms and afraid of shaking things up. He could have selected women as His apostles if He wanted to do so. He did not.


I was talking about Paul and Paul's words.
I know you were – all the more odd considering it was Jesus – not Paul who chose Peter and the Apostles.




Why shouldn’t our gender be considered a gift?



You missed the point.
Uuummm . . . pretty sure you did.
You brought up Paul speaking about different roles... but Paul spoke about different roles as per the different gifts being given. He even described some of those gifts.
Yep, he described how the body is made up of different parts. Why do you rule out gender as a gift from God?
Indeed, the gifts being given were generic, as in they could have been given to men OR women; however God sees fit.
And what we know from Scripture, how did God see fit? He appointed men as His Apostles.






Besides the fact that I am not telling anyone to obey and follow me... but am instead pointing to Christ... you are missing the point.
Once again, Christ Himself insisted we listen to His Church – odd that you take such offense at that.
Obviously the RCC does not always look at what is written or at what Christ did. They can and have been wrong, on numerous occasions. So you stating, "the church is insisting what Christ says she should", is a meaningless statement. Because it can be shown that she also insists upon things that Christ did not say she should, and even things that He specifically spoke against.
Wrong. Christ promised to remain with His Church and that the gates of hell will not prevail against it. Therefore, we can and should trust His Church that He has entrusted to us. My words are only meaningless if you believe Christ’s were.

What is the point of Christ warning us against false apostles and false christs, or of Him teaching us to test the inspired expressions, or to test to see if men are true or false apostles, if we only ever had to remain with the RCC?
The point is -- to not have ONE, HOLY, AUTHORITATIVE Church we can go to be assured we are getting it right would be contrary to God’s promise and illogical to think such could ever make sense. Without that set up – as set up by Christ Himself – we’d pretty much have thousands of groups all teaching different things all insisting they each have it right. That was what we were warned against. We were warned not to leave Christ’s Church and follow these false prophets because they complained about this or that within Christ’s Church. These false prophets claimed they know what’s what – that they know better than Christ’s Church – follow me, they say, but when you do you have no assurance of anything. It now becomes the word according to Calvin, or Wesley, or Graham, or Fox, or Luther, or the church of scientology, or the church of the body of Christ, or the church of latter day saints, or the church of believers, etc.

Justin108
Banned
Banned
Posts: 4471
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 5:28 am

Re: Duggar family values??

Post #40

Post by Justin108 »

RightReason wrote:
Ok so it's not because of practical reasons but for arbitrary ones.
No. Why is it arbitrary? The Church did not arbitrarily decide to only ordain men. She is doing so because Christ Himself did so
1. Where did Christ ever say "there shall be no priestesses"?
2. Even if Christ decided it, it can still be arbitrary. As long as there is no practical reason for it, it is arbitrary.

arbitrary
ˈɑ�bɪt(rə)ri/
adjective

based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.


Did Christ decide that only men can be ordained for a particular, sensible reason? Or did Christ decide he just wants ordained men... because he likes it that way?

But first, you'll need to show me where Christ said "only men can be ordained".
RightReason wrote: The Christ incarnate has a male nature – for someone to be in His place they ought to share His nature.
Christ is also perfect. He has a perfect nature. Do you believe all priests also have perfect natures?
RightReason wrote:
But what does it mean to be a mother? Rather, why is it specifically important to have a mother
I don’t think any of us could quite explain the necessity of mothers – yet they are irreplaceable.
I disagree. A homosexual male couple can raise a child just as well as any heterosexual couple.
RightReason wrote: They aren’t fathers. They aren’t grandparents. They aren’t sisters, etc. They are mothers. It’s actually odd to me that you too want to reduce motherhood to some kind of task oriented position. You simply don’t get it.
"You simply don't get it" is not an argument.
RightReason wrote:
what aspects of the male nature is important? What aspects of the female nature is important?
Anyone who has a special relationship with their aunt or uncle knows that person is who they are because of their nature. We relate to people differently based on their nature – that can be scientifically demonstrated.
Can you try to be less vague please? I asked you "what aspects of their nature is important?" and you respond with "it's important because of their nature". That's not an answer... It's like asking "why is the sky blue?" and getting a response that "it's blueness is important to the sky". That's not an answer.
RightReason wrote:Anyone who has a special relationship with their aunt or uncle knows that person is who they are because of their nature.
And in what way is their gender particularly important? I have a special relationship with my uncle, and his male-ness is in no way relevant to that relationship. There's this thing called a "personality". Is that what you mean? Do priests have better personalities than priestesses?
RightReason wrote:
How is the "male role" of a waiter any different from the "female role" of a waitress? Is he somehow better at remembering food orders?
Nope – not better – different. Boy you guys are really hung up on better/superior. It isn’t a contest.
Specifically, how are they different? And don't say "because they have different natures". I want specifics.
RightReason wrote:
He never disallowed it either.
Well, he did say, “He who hears you, hears me . . . “ meaning He speaks thru His Church and has so far prevented His Church from changing this teaching – so that does demonstrate He is disallowing it.
Ok so you're reverting back to "the Catholic Church says so so it must be true"? Well if that's your argument, then I'm done here. Any debate that rests on "because my Church says so" is utterly pointless and a complete waste of time.

But just a quick question. If what the Church decides automatically reflects Christ's will, does the same apply to what the Church does? If a Catholic Priest is found molesting a child, does that reflect Christ's will as well?

Post Reply