The W
Views: 101534984
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
22.12.07 0527
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - New pope! Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next(359 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (49 total)
messenoir
Summer sausage
Level: 45

Posts: 287/449
EXP: 651375
For next: 8794

Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 605 days
Last activity: 472 days
AIM:  
#21 Posted on 19.4.05 2044.14
Reposted on: 19.4.12 2046.32

    The anchors act like the progression of history will allow women to become priests and that the Church is just evil for not shifting their position. Why do they believe that women must someday be priests? Progressivism for the sake of progressivism makes me sick.


Why shouldn't they be priests? The fact they are not is sexism and a blatant misreading of the Bible, and it should make you sick that an entire section of the faith population doesn't have the same opportunities and rights simply because of their genetalia.

redsoxnation
Scrapple
Level: 152

Posts: 4623/7534
EXP: 44032321
For next: 269441

Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 539 days
Last activity: 539 days
#22 Posted on 19.4.05 2049.06
Reposted on: 19.4.12 2056.56
It might have been a few hours early for a birthday present, but a tear had to come to Hitler's eye in hell that one of his youth is now going to sit on the throne of Peter. When Bernard Law and his repeated covering up for pedophiles would have made a better choice for Pope than the former Nazi soldier, that is a very sad day. How he can have moral responsibility over the Church is disgraceful.
BigSteve
Pepperoni
Level: 65

Posts: 484/1091
EXP: 2222409
For next: 113231

Since: 23.7.04
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 2901 days
Last activity: 2629 days
#23 Posted on 19.4.05 2128.16
Reposted on: 19.4.12 2128.16
    Originally posted by Hogan's My Dad
    The church needs to be bashed. It's dangerous.


It's a good thing that you didn't, you know, give any reasons for the danger of the Church. It's always much easier to just throw these things out and see what sticks.

    Originally posted by redsoxnation
    It might have been a few hours early for a birthday present, but a tear had to come to Hitler's eye in hell that one of his youth is now going to sit on the throne of Peter. When Bernard Law and his repeated covering up for pedophiles would have made a better choice for Pope than the former Nazi soldier, that is a very sad day. How he can have moral responsibility over the Church is disgraceful.


No, Bernard Law would have made a much worse choice. Law was the main authority figure that helped to cover up a scandal where priests took advantage of children the Church's most vulnerable member. He chose to do what he did. As far as Ratzinger being a part of Hitler Youth or whatever it was called, you do realize that this wasn't a time for dissent. The man was not even an adult at the time, and yet you incorrectly call him a Nazi soldier.

    Originally posted by Messenoir
    Why shouldn't they be priests? The fact they are not is sexism and a blatant misreading of the Bible, and it should make you sick that an entire section of the faith population doesn't have the same opportunities and rights simply because of their genetalia.


Where does it say anything in the Bible that would lead you to believe that women are wrongly barred from the priesthood because of a misinterpretation of the Bible?

Perhaps it should make me sick, but it doesn't. The clergy are supposed to be a reflection of Jesus, therefore all priests are male.

It's really not a matter of "rights." It seems that a lot of people misinterpret the Catholic Curch to be some kind of democracy. It isn't. If it were, the leader of the Church would be elected by more than 115 people. I don't say this to imply that there is NO room for modernization of the Church, but those who agree with its fundamental principles might be better off finding a different Church to be a member of. (Don't take that as me saying "Like or lump it." I'm just making the point that, by and large, Church doctrine and dogma is meant to be inflexible.)

(edited by BigSteve on 19.4.05 2232)

(edited by BigSteve on 19.4.05 2239)

(edited by BigSteve on 19.4.05 2240)
MollyFan2K2
Blutwurst
Level: 35

Posts: 243/252
EXP: 270186
For next: 9752

Since: 26.6.02
From: Ware, MA

Since last post: 2775 days
Last activity: 2721 days
AIM:  
#24 Posted on 19.4.05 2248.18
Reposted on: 19.4.12 2248.30
    Originally posted by BigSteve
    Where does it say anything in the Bible that would lead you to believe that women are wrongly barred from the priesthood because of a misinterpretation of the Bible?

    Perhaps it should make me sick, but it doesn't. The clergy are supposed to be a reflection of Jesus, therefore all priests are male.


I don't know about misinterpreting the Bible, but I DO know that way back in its early days when it was still oppressed by the Roman government and had to hold sevices in the catacombs of Rome and all that, women actually held most of the important duties of the services, and there were actually more female "priests", as it were, than male. Kinda funny how much changed as the church developed. Then there is the whole gospel of Mary Magdelene, which while not recognized as part of the Bible nowadays is fascinating in its own right. So women have been a significant part of the religion in the past, its just that these facts aren't exactly what they teach you in CCD.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 1716/1759
EXP: 4962868
For next: 30002

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1375 days
Last activity: 141 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#25 Posted on 20.4.05 0107.34
Reposted on: 20.4.12 0108.34
Maybe this is out there, but regardless of whether you think there should be female priests or no - ultimately the Catholic Church establishes rules for themselves and conduct themselves the way they feel God wants them to. Who could possibly go against that? Any Catholic who would actually, and openly, attempt to become Pope to "liberalize" the church, and make what they see as moral sins perfectly OK isn't a true Catholic and doesn't deserve the office.

If you think women should be priests, one of two things is true. Either the Catholic Church is wrong, doesn't represent the will of God, and you should therefore be free to leave the church and find the one that IS true to God's will, or the Church is following the will of God, and you are essentially telling your creator that He is wrong. I honestly couldn't tell you which is correct - I am not the biggest believer in organized religion myself. But anyone out there who honestly believes that the church needs to change what they believe to be God's law, simply to accommodate modern morality has no real concept of religion.

If you think Catholicism is archaic and wrong, and doesn't represent God's will, then why are you a Catholic in the first place? It isn't a Democracy, where you are allowed to and expected to question your leaders - it is the Vicar of Christ on Earth telling his flock the way they are supposed to behave. To honestly suggest that any Pope should ignore the guidance of his prayers in favor of political policy is pretty laughable to me...
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 77

Posts: 1490/1528
EXP: 4110687
For next: 80461

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2890 days
Last activity: 2732 days
AIM:  
#26 Posted on 20.4.05 0156.17
Reposted on: 20.4.12 0159.01
    Originally posted by redsoxnation
    It might have been a few hours early for a birthday present, but a tear had to come to Hitler's eye in hell that one of his youth is now going to sit on the throne of Peter. When Bernard Law and his repeated covering up for pedophiles would have made a better choice for Pope than the former Nazi soldier, that is a very sad day. How he can have moral responsibility over the Church is disgraceful.


http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050420/D89IUP0O1.html


    In his memoirs, he wrote of being enrolled in Hitler's Nazi youth movement against his will when he was 14 in 1941, when membership was compulsory. He says he was soon let out because of his studies for the priesthood.


You still think it's "disgraceful?"

And James Lileks says it better than I can:


    Iím still astonished that some can see a conservative elevated to the papacy and think: a man of tradition? As Pope? How could this be? As if there this was some golden moment that would usher in the age of married priests who shuttle between blessing third-trimester abortions and giving last rites to someone whoís about to have the chemical pillow put over his face. At the risk of sounding sacreligious: itís the Catholic Church, for Christís sake! Youíre not going to get someone who wants to strip off all the Baroque ornamentation of St. Peterís and replace them with IKEA wine racks, okay?
redsoxnation
Scrapple
Level: 152

Posts: 4625/7534
EXP: 44032321
For next: 269441

Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 539 days
Last activity: 539 days
#27 Posted on 20.4.05 0658.32
Reposted on: 20.4.12 0659.01
    Originally posted by PalpatineW
      Originally posted by redsoxnation
      It might have been a few hours early for a birthday present, but a tear had to come to Hitler's eye in hell that one of his youth is now going to sit on the throne of Peter. When Bernard Law and his repeated covering up for pedophiles would have made a better choice for Pope than the former Nazi soldier, that is a very sad day. How he can have moral responsibility over the Church is disgraceful.


    http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050420/D89IUP0O1.html


      In his memoirs, he wrote of being enrolled in Hitler's Nazi youth movement against his will when he was 14 in 1941, when membership was compulsory. He says he was soon let out because of his studies for the priesthood.


    You still think it's "disgraceful?"

    And James Lileks says it better than I can:


      Iím still astonished that some can see a conservative elevated to the papacy and think: a man of tradition? As Pope? How could this be? As if there this was some golden moment that would usher in the age of married priests who shuttle between blessing third-trimester abortions and giving last rites to someone whoís about to have the chemical pillow put over his face. At the risk of sounding sacreligious: itís the Catholic Church, for Christís sake! Youíre not going to get someone who wants to strip off all the Baroque ornamentation of St. Peterís and replace them with IKEA wine racks, okay?








Someone in their memoirs states after the fact that they weren't really a Nazi, they just went along with it? Wow, that's up there with 'I was only following orders'. Funny how no one was ever a Nazi in Germany, at least after the war went bad. The original Christians getting thrown to the lions for following their beliefs would really have loved this new Pope.
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 97

Posts: 1371/2708
EXP: 9015438
For next: 301920

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 17 days
Last activity: 2 days
#28 Posted on 20.4.05 0724.52
Reposted on: 20.4.12 0725.02
Just two points, not intended to defend or bash the new pope.

1. At no time was membership in the Nazi Party anywhere near a plurality. In fact after seizing power, the leadership was concerned that too many wanted to join since Germans wanted to get ahead. But in reality, hardcore true believers were at most 20%.

2. Most were "encouraged" to get their kids in the Hitler Youth which was initially modelled after other youth leagues of the day. They rightly thought that getting them young would make them fanatic and they were right. However many just joined to avoid trouble. I give the Pope the benefit of the doubt.
Corajudo
Frankfurter
Level: 58

Posts: 375/810
EXP: 1533935
For next: 43620

Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 166 days
Last activity: 6 days
#29 Posted on 20.4.05 0757.21
Reposted on: 20.4.12 0758.43
Someone in their memoirs states after the fact that they weren't really a Nazi, they just went along with it? Wow, that's up there with 'I was only following orders'. Funny how no one was ever a Nazi in Germany, at least after the war went bad. The original Christians getting thrown to the lions for following their beliefs would really have loved this new Pope.

So, a 14 year old who was enrolled in Nazi youth by school officials is the same as the leader of a concentration camp?

At 14, I didn't choose where I went to school, church, summer camp, what time I went to bed, what food I ate or anything. I can only imagine how much less control a 14 year old in Nazi Germany would have over his membership in Nazi youth. Obviously, even his parents did not have control over that issue. As such, I don't see how a 14 year old could be held accountable for that. And, if they released him from Nazi youth, then it seems to me evidence enough that he was hardly a Nazi fanatic, even at 14 after the initiation/indoctrinization period.

EDIT: Also in WW2, he was drafted into an anti-aircraft unit in the German army but deserted before the end of the war. Given that information, I'd hardly classify him as a hard core Nazi who was 'just following orders.'

(edited by Corajudo on 20.4.05 0806)
Jobberman
Kishke
Level: 44

Posts: 299/426
EXP: 605151
For next: 6138

Since: 2.1.02
From: West Palm Beach, FL

Since last post: 141 days
Last activity: 103 days
#30 Posted on 20.4.05 0829.10
Reposted on: 20.4.12 0831.08
Reading various articles, it doesn't sound like he "enrolled" in the Hitler Youth. It sounds like membership was mandatory.

(edited by Jobberman on 20.4.05 0929)
ShotGunShep
Frankfurter
Level: 59

Posts: 615/836
EXP: 1589184
For next: 83954

Since: 20.2.03

Since last post: 2597 days
Last activity: 2484 days
#31 Posted on 20.4.05 0959.43
Reposted on: 20.4.12 1001.07
    Originally posted by MollyFan2K2
    I don't know about misinterpreting the Bible, but I DO know that way back in its early days when it was still oppressed by the Roman government and had to hold sevices in the catacombs of Rome and all that, women actually held most of the important duties of the services, and there were actually more female "priests", as it were, than male. Kinda funny how much changed as the church developed. Then there is the whole gospel of Mary Magdelene, which while not recognized as part of the Bible nowadays is fascinating in its own right. So women have been a significant part of the religion in the past, its just that these facts aren't exactly what they teach you in CCD.

How do you know this?

And sure there are plenty of heretical and gnostic gospels. They have Jesus doing all sorts of strange stuff, but that doesn't make them true.

I'm guessing you have been duped by the lying fictionalist Dan Brown.
Jaguar
Knackwurst
Level: 107

Posts: 2839/3273
EXP: 12858366
For next: 232987

Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 258 days
Last activity: 59 days
#32 Posted on 20.4.05 1009.34
Reposted on: 20.4.12 1011.25
    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    Maybe this is out there, but regardless of whether you think there should be female priests or no - ultimately the Catholic Church establishes rules for themselves and conduct themselves the way they feel God wants them to. Who could possibly go against that? Any Catholic who would actually, and openly, attempt to become Pope to "liberalize" the church, and make what they see as moral sins perfectly OK isn't a true Catholic and doesn't deserve the office.

    If you think women should be priests, one of two things is true. Either the Catholic Church is wrong, doesn't represent the will of God, and you should therefore be free to leave the church and find the one that IS true to God's will, or the Church is following the will of God, and you are essentially telling your creator that He is wrong. I honestly couldn't tell you which is correct - I am not the biggest believer in organized religion myself. But anyone out there who honestly believes that the church needs to change what they believe to be God's law, simply to accommodate modern morality has no real concept of religion.

    If you think Catholicism is archaic and wrong, and doesn't represent God's will, then why are you a Catholic in the first place? It isn't a Democracy, where you are allowed to and expected to question your leaders - it is the Vicar of Christ on Earth telling his flock the way they are supposed to behave. To honestly suggest that any Pope should ignore the guidance of his prayers in favor of political policy is pretty laughable to me...


And if the Pope came out tomorrow and said, "I was praying last night and I had a vision where God told me that the Church needs to accept women as members of the priesthood," you would say what?

That's the problem with God. We don't know who He's talking to (if anyone) or what He's saying.

-Jag
jfkfc
Liverwurst
Level: 69

Posts: 560/1177
EXP: 2767807
For next: 101951

Since: 9.2.02

Since last post: 158 days
Last activity: 5 days
#33 Posted on 20.4.05 1052.03
Reposted on: 20.4.12 1054.12
Apparently, Benedict XVI is 78. Isn't that rather old, as the previous pope was elected in his late fifties?
    Originally posted by Jaguar
    And if the Pope came out tomorrow and said, "I was praying last night and I had a vision where God told me that the Church needs to accept women as members of the priesthood," you would say what?
As long as he doesn't announce that his vision proclaimed for baseball to completely and immediately abandon the designated hitter, we should probably be ok...
whatever
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 594/1743
EXP: 4986551
For next: 6319

Since: 12.2.02
From: Cleveland, Ohio

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 11 hours
#34 Posted on 20.4.05 1145.12
Reposted on: 20.4.12 1147.48
    Originally posted by jfkfc
    Apparently, Benedict XVI is 78. Isn't that rather old, as the previous pope was elected in his late fifties?

Yes, he's the oldest Pope elected in 300 years. Apparantly the conclave decided to have a "transitional" Pope instead of one who would be long-serving to follow arguably one of the more popular and influential Popes in recent history.

(edit)
Also, regarding the people who are trolling due to his past, apparantly Israelis and several Jewish groups have cited his role in Jewish-Catholic reconciliation as atonement for his wartime membership.
Click Here (story.news.yahoo.com)

My personal opinion - *we* don't know this man or his inner thoughts, so to cast judgement fully in either direction would be erroneous. Since it appears his actions since that time show a person who is very thoughtful, intelligent, and peaceful, I would tend to believe his claims of enforced enrollment.

(edited by whatever on 20.4.05 1253)
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 97

Posts: 1372/2708
EXP: 9015438
For next: 301920

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 17 days
Last activity: 2 days
#35 Posted on 20.4.05 1234.04
Reposted on: 20.4.12 1237.15
To add to the "Nazi now Pope" theme some are espousing. Nazi's and their leadership HATED Christianity in general and Roman Catholics in particular. After the war was won Hitler and Co. were going to solve the "Church Question". While some church leaders supported Nazism, it was because they feared Communism more. Nazi violence against people of God was frequent, especially in Catholic areas such as Bavaria.

Sorry to ramble but this crap pisses me off. Not that it is mentioned but the harping on it in certain quarters. I am not even Catholic and find is childish.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 1717/1759
EXP: 4962868
For next: 30002

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1375 days
Last activity: 141 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#36 Posted on 20.4.05 1342.49
Reposted on: 20.4.12 1344.33
    Originally posted by Jaguar
    And if the Pope came out tomorrow and said, "I was praying last night and I had a vision where God told me that the Church needs to accept women as members of the priesthood," you would say what?

    That's the problem with God. We don't know who He's talking to (if anyone) or what He's saying.

    -Jag


He is the Pope. If you are a Catholic, you believe God DOES communicate with him. If the Pope came out and said that, then you have to believe he is telling the truth.

But there is a big difference between that, and urging the election of a Pope who might believe that things need to be changed. If the Pope makes that change, then you accept it, and move on. But it is presumptuous as a Catholic to think you can URGE that kind of change. Changes to the way the church is run are between God and the Pope - not what the flock and their political maneuvering might come up with.

(edited by Pool-Boy on 20.4.05 1144)
BigSteve
Pepperoni
Level: 65

Posts: 485/1091
EXP: 2222409
For next: 113231

Since: 23.7.04
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 2901 days
Last activity: 2629 days
#37 Posted on 20.4.05 1347.47
Reposted on: 20.4.12 1349.33
    Originally posted by ShotGunShep
      Originally posted by MollyFan2K2
      I don't know about misinterpreting the Bible, but I DO know that way back in its early days when it was still oppressed by the Roman government and had to hold sevices in the catacombs of Rome and all that, women actually held most of the important duties of the services, and there were actually more female "priests", as it were, than male. Kinda funny how much changed as the church developed. Then there is the whole gospel of Mary Magdelene, which while not recognized as part of the Bible nowadays is fascinating in its own right. So women have been a significant part of the religion in the past, its just that these facts aren't exactly what they teach you in CCD.

    How do you know this?

    And sure there are plenty of heretical and gnostic gospels. They have Jesus doing all sorts of strange stuff, but that doesn't make them true.

    I'm guessing you have been duped by the lying fictionalist Dan Brown.


I totally agre with you, SGS. The whole gnostic gospel/Mary Magdalene seems to me to have no real historical evidence. There are obviously some things that would make one question this issue, but most scholars I've seen and read (not necessarily Catholic ones, either) have said that the historical evidence for this theory is very small and that we would likely have known about this as fact before now, if indeed it were a fact. Not only that, but the liberties that Brown took with the historical gospels that he used were pretty egregious, in my opinion, as on at least one key point he filled in words on a broken parchment and quoted it as fact. That said, I want to make clear that I actually liked the novel and thought it was a good read, but I think quoting the particular theories that it contains as fact would be irresponsible.

    Originally posted by redsoxnation
    Someone in their memoirs states after the fact that they weren't really a Nazi, they just went along with it? Wow, that's up there with 'I was only following orders'. Funny how no one was ever a Nazi in Germany, at least after the war went bad. The original Christians getting thrown to the lions for following their beliefs would really have loved this new Pope.


Can you honestly say that those two "excuses" are the same? This is a man who was just a teenager at the time. Do you think that you would have done differently? I'm not at all excusing Nazism in any sense, but am saying that, in this case, I think it's clear that the man didn't do anything morally reprehensible, nor did he want to be in there in the first place. This Article (jpost.com) from the Jerusalem Post is a very good look at the Pope's "Nazi" past as well as many of the ways that he has reached to the Jewish community. And note that this isn't coming from the man himseld or his memoirs, or even the Catholic Church.

    Originally posted by Jaguar

    And if the Pope came out tomorrow and said, "I was praying last night and I had a vision where God told me that the Church needs to accept women as members of the priesthood," you would say what?

    That's the problem with God. We don't know who He's talking to (if anyone) or what He's saying.


Well, if the pope said it, than that would be what we (as Catholics) believe. A key issue for Catholics is that, as Pool Boy touched on, the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on Earth. Essentially, he is meant to be the liason between God and man so to speak.

Does anyone know if any other Christian faiths have a spiritual leader analogous to the Pope? I'm unaware of any, but I could be very wrong as my knowledge of Protestantism is relatively slim.

(edited by BigSteve on 20.4.05 1450)
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 1718/1759
EXP: 4962868
For next: 30002

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1375 days
Last activity: 141 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#38 Posted on 20.4.05 1505.38
Reposted on: 20.4.12 1521.10
Mormons do - the President of the Mormon church is basically believed to be a prophet who can speak directly with God...
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan
Level: 109

Posts: 1681/3428
EXP: 13813641
For next: 146049

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 132 days
Last activity: 132 days
#39 Posted on 20.4.05 1802.35
Reposted on: 20.4.12 1804.07
Honestly through general lack of concern, I never knew the church thought the pope could communicate directly with God. Now with this knowledge, I ask, how can you "elect" a person to speak with God? I mean, one minute, the guy doesn't hear God's voice, then the Cardinals vote and all of a sudden the guy hears the voice?
MollyFan2K2
Blutwurst
Level: 35

Posts: 244/252
EXP: 270186
For next: 9752

Since: 26.6.02
From: Ware, MA

Since last post: 2775 days
Last activity: 2721 days
AIM:  
#40 Posted on 20.4.05 1816.19
Reposted on: 20.4.12 1816.23
    Originally posted by BigSteve
      Originally posted by ShotGunShep
        Originally posted by MollyFan2K2
        I don't know about misinterpreting the Bible, but I DO know that way back in its early days when it was still oppressed by the Roman government and had to hold sevices in the catacombs of Rome and all that, women actually held most of the important duties of the services, and there were actually more female "priests", as it were, than male. Kinda funny how much changed as the church developed. Then there is the whole gospel of Mary Magdelene, which while not recognized as part of the Bible nowadays is fascinating in its own right. So women have been a significant part of the religion in the past, its just that these facts aren't exactly what they teach you in CCD.

      How do you know this?

      And sure there are plenty of heretical and gnostic gospels. They have Jesus doing all sorts of strange stuff, but that doesn't make them true.

      I'm guessing you have been duped by the lying fictionalist Dan Brown.


    I totally agre with you, SGS. The whole gnostic gospel/Mary Magdalene seems to me to have no real historical evidence. There are obviously some things that would make one question this issue, but most scholars I've seen and read (not necessarily Catholic ones, either) have said that the historical evidence for this theory is very small and that we would likely have known about this as fact before now, if indeed it were a fact. Not only that, but the liberties that Brown took with the historical gospels that he used were pretty egregious, in my opinion, as on at least one key point he filled in words on a broken parchment and quoted it as fact. That said, I want to make clear that I actually liked the novel and thought it was a good read, but I think quoting the particular theories that it contains as fact would be irresponsible


Actually, I've never read ANY of Dan Brown's novels. I learned about all this from religion classes (past and present) in college. The closest book at hand I have here is "An Anthology of Sacred Texts By and About Women" edited by Serenity Young, which actually stetches over every religion from various forms of paganism to Islam to Shinto to tribal religions. "The Gospel of Mary" covers pages 55-57. The introduction to the text states that the date of the text is uncertain, but a fragment in the original Greek existed as early as the 3rd century AD. There is also a copy in the Vatican library that my professor once studied and did some translation work with, so it does exist. I know that it is a gnostic gospel and is not acknowledged by the church NOW, but the Bible has gone through many revisions over the centuries, and at one point it is probable that it actually was in the Bible. Whether you choose to believe that it was part of the Bible at one time, or a fake text written later by someone else in attempt to destablize the Catholic Church or whatever, it makes sense to me to approach the text with at least enough openmindedness to assume that it COULD be true. (By the way, I am a practicing Roman Catholic, so I'm not pursuing this argument to try and prove church coverups or something like that. Congrats Benedict XVI!)

Also, I wasn't using the Gospel of Mary as proof in an argument towards the inclusion of women as priests, it was just an aside. The first part, about women holding important positions in the church at its beginning, when it could be said to be closest to the original teachings of Jesus Christ (IE before Thomas Aquinas and Augustine and such) was a point towards the inclusion of women.

(edited by MollyFan2K2 on 20.4.05 1917)
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 NextThread ahead: The "special relationship"
Next thread: A poem from my brother stationed in Iraq
Previous thread: What is warfare without irony?
(359 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - New pope!Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.237 seconds.