Hello everybody

[Elok]

That depends what you mean by "fundamentally," I'm sure. Certainly women seem to perceive things very differently, in general. But sameness and similarity are necessarily relative; in this case, relative to what? I mean, they're very similar to men if one considers male chimpanzees...

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes, of course they are. (differences in reproductive biology aside)
Who doesn't believe that?

I don't, you see. This is where the fundamental difference lies. It has nothing to do with the Church - it has everything to do with our underlying understanding of the human condition, and of human sexuality. You, probably most everyone here on this site are all on one side. Probably only Agathon and maybe a few others would see things my way.

There's a reason Jaguar said awhile ago that I'm not willing to concede points that the other conservatives are willing to concede - this is part of the reason why - because there are fundamental differences underlying my positions from yours.

[rah]

Oh, so you skipped over the reference to Ephesians 5, where it says that a husband and wife are like the church and the parish? It's all right there rah. Why does the church ask that the husband - who is the husband of the wife, die for his bride, just like Christ did for his church? Why doesn't scripture say that the church should die for Christ, and the wife die for her husband?

And why are priests - required to act in 'personae Christae', in the person of Christ, when they minister to the flock?

Answer these questions, and you'll have your own answer.

I didn't skip it, I just ignored it because I don't see the relevance. This was written when women were basically chattel. Which is quite sexist. Do you think that God has instructed you to treat women Like Chattel because of this quote. Of course not. So I don't think you can use it to say that women aren't equal to men and shouldn't be priests.

Now, let me ask you something, rah. Does it work that way in the corporate world? Would the CEO die to preserve the life of his employees?

What the hell does that have to do with the fact that in the past women weren't allowed to be CEOs.

[MRT144]

On a side-note, I'm told that trend is actually reversed in my church; we attract men more than women. Supposedly it has something to do with Western Christianity focusing more on "feminine" things (empathy, effusive emotions, a stronger emphasis on Christ's meekness and gentleness). Meanwhile we've got all the old Byzantine battle-hymns and a focus on rigorous asceticism, which ostensibly holds more appeal for men. But I have no meaningful personal experience with other churches--this is all just what I hear from converts.

I like it.

[rah]

There's a reason Jaguar said awhile ago that I'm not willing to concede points that the other conservatives are willing to concede - this is part of the reason why - because there are fundamental differences underlying my positions from yours.

Yeah, that just because women don't have cocks, they can't be priests. Priests aren't even supposed to be using it, so why should it matter.

[MikeH]

I don't, you see. This is where the fundamental difference lies. It has nothing to do with the Church - it has everything to do with our underlying understanding of the human condition, and of human sexuality. You, probably most everyone here on this site are all on one side. Probably only Agathon and maybe a few others would see things my way.

There's a reason Jaguar said awhile ago that I'm not willing to concede points that the other conservatives are willing to concede - this is part of the reason why - because there are fundamental differences underlying my positions from yours.

ie. You are sexist. Therefore you hold views consistent with being sexist.

[Jon Miller]

What about transexual priests?

JM

[Ben Kenobi]

That depends what you mean by "fundamentally," I'm sure. Certainly women seem to perceive things very differently, in general. But sameness and similarity are necessarily relative; in this case, relative to what? I mean, they're very similar to men if one considers male chimpanzees...

You're asking me to tell you what Paris smells like, and I can only rely on what others have said. I've not been to Paris myself. I can't see what it's like on the inside.

It's those perceptual differences I'm talking about. I didn't have any sisters so until rather recently, I had very little understanding of women and how they see the world, and how they see the world differently from men.

And I'll be the first to say that I still have an amazing amount to learn. It's like if you were to come across "Jesus wept" and that was all you knew of scripture.

I'm not even certain that women themselves really understand it, and I sure don't. But there are differences, and they are real differences, and it's not doing men (or women) any favors to ignore these differences. Women aren't men, they don't see the world in the same way and thank God for that.

[MikeH]

edit: dp

[MikeH]

ie. You are sexist. Therefore you hold views consistent with being sexist.

And someone who believes people of different ethnicities are fundamentally different is a racist, and tends to hold views consistent with being a racist.

And someone who believes people of different sexualities are fundamentally different is a homophobe, and tends to hold views consistent with being a homophobe.

[MikeH]

That depends what you mean by "fundamentally," I'm sure. Certainly women seem to perceive things very differently, in general.

No they don't. There are (arguably, and I don't think it's in any way proven) some subtle gender trends but these are not greater than the difference between individuals of the same sex.

And the evidence suggests the gender trends might well be environmental and societal rather than genetic.

[rah]

Women aren't men, they don't see the world in the same way and thank God for that.

Great excuse to treat them like second class citizens. Thank God for that.

[MRT144]

Yeah, that just because women don't have cocks, they can't be priests. Priests aren't even supposed to be using it, so why should it matter.

isn't it kind of funny when you put it like that.

[Jon Miller]

Considering the differences of hormones and the differences of reproduction and the differences of brain chemistry, I think there is solid ground for saying that men and women are different.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=girl-brain-boy-brain

Does this mean that what they can do (non-reproductively) is different? Not at all.

JM

[Ben Kenobi]

I didn't skip it, I just ignored it

So, you see why this is a poor argument.

"There's no scriptural evidence saying X"

"Oh, I chose to ignore the scriptural evidence saying X".

Ignore/skip, why are we quibbling over semantics. The point is that you don't care about what I have to say so long as you can say, "Priests are pedophiles". Have you hit your quota yet for today rah?

This was written when women were basically chattel.

Which is why Ephesians 5 argues that each wife should have her own husband and each husband his own wife? It affirms the fundamental equality between men and women.

So I don't think you can use it to say that women aren't equal to men and shouldn't be priests.

Once again, equality of form is not the same as equality of function. Do I need to quote Aquinas here? Because that's where this is coming from...

Does it work that way in the corporate world? Would the CEO die to preserve the life of his employees?

So the answer is no, rah? The CEO isn't told that he should sacrifice his life for the preservation of the flock - I just showed you that a priest is commanded to do this by Christ himself.