Burn a Qu'ran Day.

[Jack Weber]

Was it Diocletian or Justinian who banned women from the Catholic Priesthood???

[M.Dancer]

Was it Diocletian or Justinian who banned women from the Catholic Priesthood???

A better question would be who introduced the priesthood? It certainly is not part of the early church.

[Jack Weber]

A better question would be who introduced the priesthood? It certainly is not part of the early church.

True,but there was some sort of demarkation point in early Catholic Church history where women were priests...And then they were'nt.And I'm not sure if this happened under Diocletian or Justinian?

Edited August 24, 2010 by Jack Weber

[dre]

We've been given a NEW Covenent.

And the Saviour was prophesied in,amongst other books,Isaiah...So are many End Time Prophesies...Does the Book of Daniel ring a bell?...Nebuchanedzer's dream???

My Reverend is a woman...

You obviously hate organized religion and have a strong disliking for people of faith.This is something you've made abundantly obvious...

What makes you think you bring a shred of credibility to this debate?

What makes you think you are any authority,whatsoever,on the Biblical texts you despise?

What makes you think you are any authority,whatsoever,on the Biblical texts you despise?

Nothing besides the fact that Iv read some of them, and grown up watching the patriarchial nature of christianity. You can deny it exists all you want but youre only kidding yourself. In any case nobody here is an established authority on anything, including yourself.

You obviously hate organized religion and have a strong disliking for people of faith

I dont dislike theists any more than I dislike people that believe in sasquatches or UFO's.

Edited August 24, 2010 by dre

[Jack Weber]

Nothing besides the fact that Iv read some of them, and grown up watching the patriarchial nature of christianity. You can deny it exists all you want but youre only kidding yourself. In any case nobody here is an established authority on anything, including yourself.

True...Of course,if I thought I had a clue about this topic,I would have read the Holy Bible a few times over...Not just SOME of the texts and formed an incomplete opinion on incomplete information...

And also true,I'm not a Biblical scholar...Of course,I also don't go around angrily calling atheists and agnostics names...Unlike some people...

[dre]

True...Of course,if I thought I had a clue about this topic,I would have read the Holy Bible a few times over...Not just SOME of the texts and formed an incomplete opinion on incomplete information...

Iv read the new testament cover to cover numerous times... And a fair ammount of the Koran as well.

How about you answer these questions for yourself...

Is Christianity a patriarchial religion and has it been that way traditionally?

Is the Christian view of the "traditional family" patriarchial?

Have Christians opposed birth control, reproductive rights and other things central to the womens rights movement?

[Jack Weber]

Iv read the new testament cover to cover numerous times... And a fair ammount of the Koran as well.

How about you answer these questions for yourself...

Is Christianity a patriarchial religion and has it been that way traditionally?

Is the Christian view of the "traditional family" patriarchial?

Have Christians opposed birth control, reproductive rights and other things central to the womens rights movement?

1.Yes..God is described as male...Referred to as Him...

2.Yes it is

3.Some have

[ToadBrother]

Paul was mindful of the huge contribution women were making in the church of the day.

1st Timothy Chapter 2

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

I don't mean to get into a pissing match here, but Paul makes it pretty clear in a few places that women are not supposed to have leadership positions.

Edited August 24, 2010 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

A better question would be who introduced the priesthood? It certainly is not part of the early church.

I doubt it was introduced so much as it evolved. Clearly there were positions of authority, if we read the Acts of the Apostles as history (and I think there are some problems with that, but anyways...). We know that certain churches had gained some prominence by the end of the 1st century, and Rome and Jerusalem were very important ones. We know that the Bishop of Rome had become very important during the 2nd and 3rd centuries, long before Constantine and Justinian.

Unfortunately, we don't have a very good understanding of the early church, the NT giving us hints, perhaps, but hints obscured by later changes and amendment, which effects not only the view of the early church but also of just about everything to do with that period.

[Shady]

I don't mean to get into a pissing match here, but Paul makes it pretty clear in a few places that women are not supposed to have leadership positions.

I guess that's suppose to be your moral equivalence of Islam's subjugation of women. Have you read the parts of the koran that talk about the difference in status between dark skinned Muslims (Africans) and light skinned Muslims?

[Sir Bandelot]

Never mind the bollocks, dudes.

All you people who want to say, let's accuse the people who are taking Saudi money, you need to get a grip. Because some of the major power structures in this country and in the US, are in love with the Saudis. And some of them are right-wingers.

That old Geirge Bush, he would never burn his koran.

http://issuepedia.org/wikiup/3/30/513.jpg

Whoops...

http://www.newsbleat.com/bush_kiss.jpg

No tongue George, please

[Shady]

Because some of the major power structures in this country and in the US, are in love with the Saudis.

Which major power structures in this country and in the US are in love with the Saudis? Define in love. In your world, does having normal diplomatic relations equate to being in love? And are you suggesting regime change in Saudi Arabia?

[Moonlight Graham]

I don't mean to get into a pissing match here, but Paul makes it pretty clear in a few places that women are not supposed to have leadership positions.

Which i'm sure was a direct order from God and/or Jesus.

Paul kinda seems like a sexist jerk.

[M.Dancer]

1st Timothy Chapter 2

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

I don't mean to get into a pissing match here, but Paul makes it pretty clear in a few places that women are not supposed to have leadership positions.

That would be one of the books that modern scholars doubt Paul wrote, one of the reasons being it is not in keeping with most of his comments concern ing women.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_to_Timothy#The_challenge_to_Pauline_authorship

[M.Dancer]

I doubt it was introduced so much as it evolved. Clearly there were positions of authority, if we read the Acts of the Apostles as history (and I think there are some problems with that, but anyways...). We know that certain churches had gained some prominence by the end of the 1st century, and Rome and Jerusalem were very important ones. We know that the Bishop of Rome had become very important during the 2nd and 3rd centuries, long before Constantine and Justinian.

Unfortunately, we don't have a very good understanding of the early church, the NT giving us hints, perhaps, but hints obscured by later changes and amendment, which effects not only the view of the early church but also of just about everything to do with that period.

TGhomas Cahill repeats the belief that early Bishops were more like treasurers than high priests...the early church being much more democratic than today.

[ToadBrother]

I guess that's suppose to be your moral equivalence of Islam's subjugation of women.

Nope, that's me pointing out that St. Paul wasn't a feminist.

Have you read the parts of the koran that talk about the difference in status between dark skinned Muslims (Africans) and light skinned Muslims?

Have you read the parts of the Bible where you can take rotten children outside the city walls and stone them?

This is what I mean by pissing matches. There's no moral equivalence to any of it, I think both books advocate some pretty evil and repugnant things. The chief difference is that in the West we pulled the teeth of the Church a long time ago. One hopes that in Muslim countries a similar event will happen.

[M.Dancer]

I don't mean to get into a pissing match here

I caution you...I'm a 51 year old male that takes prostate medicine....the steroids of the urinary world

[Shady]

Have you read the parts of the Bible where you can take rotten children outside the city walls and stone them?

No, which parts are those?

[M.Dancer]

No, which parts are those?

Just before the part where the profit asks god for and gets, bears to rip apart the naughty kids who have been teasing him.

Edited August 25, 2010 by M.Dancer

[ToadBrother]

TGhomas Cahill repeats the belief that early Bishops were more like treasurers than high priests...the early church being much more democratic than today.

There's damned little evidence for any view. It's certain that the 1st century church, at least up until the last few years, was by no means the hierarchical entity that it was later to become. Then again, the only time the Church was ever really fully hierarchical was under the Christian Roman emperors. After the fall of Rome, the Church split into two major pieces (you might argue that the Nestorian and Coptic Churches had already diverged, though there was never a complete schism between them and Byzantine Christianity).

Since the Protestant reformation (and earlier if you count the failed reform movements) various churches have tried to make all sorts of claims about the Early Church that, usually, were pretty self-serving. Every Christian movement major and minor from the Anabaptists to the Methodists to the wild array of Baptist splinter groups in the 19th and 20th centuries have all claimed they were following the original church organization.

What is clear was that early on the church in Jerusalem did have some degree of pre-eminence. How much is hard to tell, there is considerable difference in opinion. Certainly by the 2nd century we saw the evolution of what must have been the governing structures that were to come into full flower under Constantine and the later Christian emperors. How much of these were already in the works and how much were Roman "innovation" is something that will likely keep scholars battling until the sun burns out.

[M.Dancer]

What is clear was that early on the church in Jerusalem did have some degree of pre-eminence. How much is hard to tell, there is considerable difference in opinion. Certainly by the 2nd century we saw the evolution of what must have been the governing structures that were to come into full flower under Constantine and the later Christian emperors. How much of these were already in the works and how much were Roman "innovation" is something that will likely keep scholars battling until the sun burns out.

The status of Jerusalem as the focal point would have been short lived. The christian church along with their jewish brothers would have fled with the destruction of jerusalem by Titus.

The Pastoral Epistles, in contrast, seem to describe a four-fold leadership structure, with two pairs of two groups of leaders:

Bishops (Episkopoi) = "Overseers, Supervisors"; appointed through "laying on of hands" by apostles or previous leaders (1 Tim 3:1-7; cf. Titus 1:7-9); and

Deacons (Diakonoi) = "Minister, Servants"; assistants to the bishops; responsible for practical matters like care of the poor (1 Tim 3:8-13)

&

Widows (Chërai) = "Older Women who do not remarry"; cared for by the church and serve the community, esp. teaching the younger women (1 Tim 5:3-16; cf. Titus 2:3-5)

Elders (Presbyteroi) = "Older Men who are respected"; teaching, preaching, probably forming a type of "community council" (1 Tim 5:1, 17-22; cf. Titus 1:5)

http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Paul-Pastorals.htm

[Jack Weber]

Nope, that's me pointing out that St. Paul wasn't a feminist.

Have you read the parts of the Bible where you can take rotten children outside the city walls and stone them?

This is what I mean by pissing matches. There's no moral equivalence to any of it, I think both books advocate some pretty evil and repugnant things. The chief difference is that in the West we pulled the teeth of the Church a long time ago. One hopes that in Muslim countries a similar event will happen.

That is precisely the difference.The Protestant Reformation ultimately had a geat calming effect on the way individuals deal with matters of faith.Once the Roman Catholic church was no longer able to force itself on everyone in Europe,and no longer claim it was the only way to Christ,faith became more individualistic.

The problem with Islam is,it has never gone through a reformation that openly defied the edicts of the absolutists.I suspect there are alot of Muslims who are ashamed at the actions of some of the more fundimentalist sects of that faith,but really have very few avenues to speak what's on their mind.

[Shady]

The problem with Islam is,it has never gone through a reformation that openly defied the edicts of the absolutists.

Yes, and the Imam of the proposed mosque at Ground Zero refuses to believe in any need for reformation within Islam.

[DogOnPorch]

Jack: The problem with Islam is,it has never gone through a reformation that openly defied the edicts of the absolutists.I suspect there are alot of Muslims who are ashamed at the actions of some of the more fundimentalist sects of that faith,but really have very few avenues to speak what's on their mind.

Well there are...but they usually have death threats attached.

[Guest TrueMetis]

The problem with Islam is,it has never gone through a reformation that openly defied the edicts of the absolutists.I suspect there are alot of Muslims who are ashamed at the actions of some of the more fundimentalist sects of that faith,but really have very few avenues to speak what's on their mind.

I would disagree on that considering the huge differences between many of the sects of Islam.