[G0atmaster]

HLP will not tolerate any posts of a racist, sexist or bigoted nature. Nor shall we tolerate any attacks of a personal nature.
Lively and interesting debate is encouraged and welcomed. However we ask that members respect the right of free speech. That is to say that as long as a comment isn't of a racist or sexist nature - a member has a right to say it. If you disagree with something that someone has said then feel free to argue a retort on the sole condition that (in keeping with point 2) it is not a personal or bigoted attack. Argue the point; debate the person.
Be nice. If you don't know how, go watch reruns of Mr. Rodgers' Neighbourhood - he's a wonderful example.

[karajorma]

Yes, you're right.  The whole of this thread is unnecessarily ridiculous and un-beneficial by itself already.

Actually he has a point. Keep the spam out of the thread.

[WMCoolmon]

Sry, didn't hit the quote bottun, but rather typed it in manually and made a type or two.

And, no, I'm not being argumentative.  I really don't believe half of those things evil.
For example -  women not becoming priests - it's part of tradition, not because the Church thinks women are any less capable of the job or less worth.
Groups and institutions have some rules they set up - it's their rules and  they have a right to those rules even if you don't like them. It's no big deal.

I don't think you have any standing to say whether it's a big deal or not, given that you're the one who's privileged by the arrangement. Would you be as comfortable with your religion if it told you that you couldn't do certain things just because you were born a certain way? Wouldn't you feel a little offended that God chose to make you in one way, as per His plan, and according to His wishes, and then Man decided to step in and not let you do certain things because of what God made you?

It seems a little contradictory to the religion itself, to me, and I can't see how you would resolve conundrums like that without basically stating that you think that God wants women to be treated differently from men - which is a no-no in today's society, so I can see why you would want to avoid calling attention to something like that.

On a side note, I would be very interested to see how it would change the interpretation of the Bible if somebody went in and interchanged every single gender in the Bible.

[G0atmaster]

I don't think you have any standing to say whether it's a big deal or not, given that you're the one who's privileged by the arrangement. Would you be as comfortable with your religion if it told you that you couldn't do certain things just because you were born a certain way? Wouldn't you feel a little offended that God chose to make you in one way, as per His plan, and according to His wishes, and then Man decided to step in and not let you do certain things because of what God made you?

If it were me, and I truly believed this thing that a person was telling me I couldn't do was something God had built me for, it would only strengthen my resolve.  In the words of a favorite band of mine: "If our God is for us, how can we fail? No surer hope has ever been rested.  But for our adversary's worthy, prepare to be tested."

I'm gonna be honest with you.  I can't play a guitar to save my life.  If someone tells me I can't play a guitar, I'll say he's right.

Now, if someone tells me I can't mix music on a soundboard, I'll prove him wrong, because I feel that's a way I have been called to serve.  It's a gift I have.  It's one of the ways I fit into God's plan.  Playing guitar, not so much. 

1 Corinthians 12:12-20:
The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. If they were all one part, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, but one body.

It seems a little contradictory to the religion itself, to me, and I can't see how you would resolve conundrums like that without basically stating that you think that God wants women to be treated differently from men - which is a no-no in today's society, so I can see why you would want to avoid calling attention to something like that.

It's a biological fact that women, compared to men, have less upper body strength, particularly in the pectoral muscles.  This does not make women less than men, they have their strengths and weaknesses.  They are suited to different tasks.  Just like one individual and the next. 




And in case it was missed, that video I posted wasn't specifically about the post it was in.  Here it is again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msJrL7o6RpU

[Scuddie]

Yes, you're right.  The whole of this thread is unnecessarily ridiculous and un-beneficial by itself already.

Actually he has a point. Keep the spam out of the thread.

Fair enough.  There are better ways to illustrate the stupidity of a thread than by injecting more stupidity into it.

I don't think you have any standing to say whether it's a big deal or not, given that you're the one who's privileged by the arrangement. Would you be as comfortable with your religion if it told you that you couldn't do certain things just because you were born a certain way? Wouldn't you feel a little offended that God chose to make you in one way, as per His plan, and according to His wishes, and then Man decided to step in and not let you do certain things because of what God made you?

If it were me, and I truly believed this thing that a person was telling me I couldn't do was something God had built me for, it would only strengthen my resolve.  In the words of a favorite band of mine: "If our God is for us, how can we fail? No surer hope has ever been rested.  But for our adversary's worthy, prepare to be tested."

I'm gonna be honest with you.  I can't play a guitar to save my life.  If someone tells me I can't play a guitar, I'll say he's right.

Now, if someone tells me I can't mix music on a soundboard, I'll prove him wrong, because I feel that's a way I have been called to serve.  It's a gift I have.  It's one of the ways I fit into God's plan.  Playing guitar, not so much.

I think you missed the point entirely.  There's a huge difference between not able, and not allowed.  Let's look at it from a different perspective.  When was the last time you've ever seen someone who was gay, addicted, or non Christian welcomed to your Church?  Or to ANY Church for that matter?  I've known many people whom fit that description in one way or another, and not a single one was welcomed to their places of worship.  My old pastor (before I decided to never return to Church again) was talking about how the state was forcing equal opportunity on them.  At one point he said "I'd rather be thrown behind bars than to accept a gay man playing in my choir."

Well, forgive me for my heresy and blasphemy, but I would think Christ would be very happy knowing that a gay man was singing his praises of love and mercy, rather than not being allowed to.  Christ was (or is, depending on how you look at it) the embodiment of love.  Love does not discriminate, nor does it blame.  It is pure.  Can you say the same about Christ?  Absolutely.  Can you say the same about Christianity?  Absolutely not.

And in case it was missed, that video I posted wasn't specifically about the post it was in.  Here it is again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msJrL7o6RpU

By looking at that video, you have to agree that Christianity should take a long, hard look at itself in how very little it follows the guidelines taught by Christ.  Hell, It'd be more accurate to call it anti-christ.  Just because we were given the gift of love does not give us the right to keep it to ourselves.

[Flipside]

Who was it who said "I like your Christ, and I like your Christians. I hope one day to meet one.".

I think it was Sitting Bull?

[Grizzly]

The decliners declined because they didn't want steve to suffer needlessly. If Christianity... apperently... dismisses that as a wrong thing...

[TrashMan]

I don't think you have any standing to say whether it's a big deal or not, given that you're the one who's privileged by the arrangement. Would you be as comfortable with your religion if it told you that you couldn't do certain things just because you were born a certain way? Wouldn't you feel a little offended that God chose to make you in one way, as per His plan, and according to His wishes, and then Man decided to step in and not let you do certain things because of what God made you?

It seems a little contradictory to the religion itself, to me, and I can't see how you would resolve conundrums like that without basically stating that you think that God wants women to be treated differently from men - which is a no-no in today's society, so I can see why you would want to avoid calling attention to something like that.

What are you talking about here? Urgh... I.. I don't know where to begin even.

1. Men and women are created equal, but they are phisicly different. While there's nothing stopping either to do any job, it's obvious some are better suited for some jobs.

2. There is a thing called social upbringing, culture.. women are treated differently because they are different. Boat sinks? Women and children first. Women, being a fearer/waker sex is a fact and society has adopted to that. After all, if you hear in the news "man kills another man" or "man kills woman", you're somehow more appaled at the second, aren't you? If you really want true equality there should be no difference.. EVER how you talk to, what you talk about and how you behave infront women or man...and we simply know it's not natural. All this equality schtick is running amok and descending into hilarity insted of dealing with real issues.

3. Being treated differently and being considered inferior are two different things.

4. Men becoming priests is part of tradition, as all the 12 apostoles were men. Women can still serve in the Church, altough in a different capacity. Weather the Church actually drops that tradition or not, I really don't care. Point is, they have the right to stick to that tradition.

4. If you make your own little club you can make your own rules for that club. I don't have to like them. You club can have a "no parrents allowed" sign..or whatever else..no dogs,  natives only, only for people living in this town, only for members of this party...whatever.


As far as todays society goes, it going down hte drain fast...so I'm not really concerned with what it considers a no-no...since todays society is as stupid as it ever was.

[TrashMan]

There's a huge difference between not able, and not allowed.  Let's look at it from a different perspective.  When was the last time you've ever seen someone who was gay, addicted, or non Christian welcomed to your Church?

The last time? Three days ago...

[jdjtcagle]

Who was it who said "I like your Christ, and I like your Christians. I hope one day to meet one.".

I think it was Sitting Bull?

It's in my sig if it's the one I'm thinking about

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.  --Mohandas Gandhi

[karajorma]

Well he knew it was a famous Indian. He just picked the wrong continent.

[Flipside]

Well, Sitting Bull did come up with some good quotes, one of my personal favourites is -

'I was very sorry when I found out that your intentions were good and not what I supposed they were. '

[Rian]

1. Men and women are created equal, but they are phisicly different. While there's nothing stopping either to do any job, it's obvious some are better suited for some jobs.

2. There is a thing called social upbringing, culture.. women are treated differently because they are different. Boat sinks? Women and children first. Women, being a fearer/waker sex is a fact and society has adopted to that. After all, if you hear in the news "man kills another man" or "man kills woman", you're somehow more appaled at the second, aren't you? If you really want true equality there should be no difference.. EVER how you talk to, what you talk about and how you behave infront women or man...and we simply know it's not natural. All this equality schtick is running amok and descending into hilarity insted of dealing with real issues.

3. Being treated differently and being considered inferior are two different things.

4. Men becoming priests is part of tradition, as all the 12 apostoles were men. Women can still serve in the Church, altough in a different capacity. Weather the Church actually drops that tradition or not, I really don't care. Point is, they have the right to stick to that tradition.

No, women are treated differently because the culture says we’re different. The physical and other differences are not significant enough on their own to merit treating us like delicate little flowers.

Any differences among human beings are going to be broadly distributed. Even if women are less physically proficient in some ways on average, there are still plenty of women who are stronger than plenty of men. You don’t seriously believe that a female professional athlete is going to be weaker than a male couch-surfer, do you? But that’s what you end up saying when you paint with such a broad brush.

If epithets like “weaker” don’t mean to suggest that women are inferior, then I’m very mistaken indeed. The fact is that women were considered inferior through much of history, as they are in some parts of the world today, and the fact that women are still treated differently just shows that we’ve got some progress to make yet.

Besides, physical differences have nothing at all to do with a woman’s ability to serve as a priest. And sorry, but refusing to allow women into the priesthood does not say “we’re adhering to a tradition,” it says “we don’t trust women to do the job.” Tradition alone isn’t enough justification for keeping women out of what some see to be their calling – especially since that tradition emerged in a time and culture when women were still considered property.

If an individual woman is unable to perform a specific role, then chances are she won’t seek it out. Women do not need culture – or thousand-year-old institutions – telling us what we can and can’t do, when we’re perfectly capable of deciding for ourselves. Personally, I’d make a lousy priest. That doesn’t mean another woman wouldn’t be an inspiring success, and in some sects they have been. Telling that woman that she can’t serve her beliefs in the best way she can, just because she’s a woman, is wrong.

And I never asked to be first off the boat. Hell, I’d rather swim than see that used as justification for such an archaic viewpoint.

[Colonol Dekker]

I feel better when i'm chivalrous.

[General Battuta]

women, being a fearer/waker sex

Trashman, did you actually just say that women are a weaker sex?

I am literally trembling with rage. That is sexist and misogynistic, and I believe it violates the forum code of conduct. What's more, it's absolutely reprehensible.

Rian is right. A female athlete is a hell of a lot stronger than a male couch potato. I believe, in fact, that the strength overlap is something like seventy percent. That's right -- 70% of women are just as strong as comparable men.

Trashman, Goatmaster, you are absolutely wrong that women are unsuited to some jobs. Weak people are unsuited to some jobs. If a woman can pass a physical fitness test then she should damn well be able to do the job. Anyone with a modicum of education -- or experience with athletic women -- should know that most women can pass these tests.

I am nauseated by some of the things the men in this thread are saying.

[jdjtcagle]

Women can do anything a man can do.  Culturally they haven't.  The bible's claim to be timeless helps us understand that this was the way things were back then.

This has to do with the doctrine that it was the man's responsibility to watch over the family and it still is a duty.  We allow women Elders. The women in my church can be some of the most powerful pastors, evangelist, and leaders and not just for women but the entire church.  It is scriptural that there were great women of the bible.

In Ephesians chapter five Paul instructed the Ephesian wives to submit to their authority saying, "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing" (Ephesians 5:23-24).

To the husbands Paul said:

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it.... So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth it and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church.... Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband (Ephesians 5:25, 28-29, 33).

The wives are to submit to their husbands in everything. Before all the men say "amen," let us look at the flip-side of the coin. The husband is instructed to love his wife as he loves himself, and even as Christ loved the church. If a husband loves his wife like he is supposed to, she will have no problem submitting to him as she is supposed to. When both elements of love and submission are present in a relationship there will be perfect working order. When proper love is not present, however, submission becomes rather difficult and is viewed negatively rather than positively.

Among the many jobs of a minister his main job is to perfect the saints, bringing them to maturity in Christ. The ultimate end is for the saints to have an established faith and walk with God, growing up in the Head which is Jesus Christ (Ephesians 4:14-15). The job of the minister is to unite the hand of God and the hand of man, then step back once the union is complete. His role becomes one of guidance. The minister does not act as a mediator between God and man. The priesthood is over. We are all individual priests before God (I Peter 2:9).

Think about it this way if a women is called to bring people to Christ, then why would we stop her?
That doesn't really make much sense.

Some ministers make all the spiritual decisions for their saints. This takes the responsibility of working out one's own salvation before God with fear and trembling and gives it to the ministers. This is not Scriptural. Look at what Paul said concerning this in the book of Philippians:

Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Do all things without murmurings and disputings (Philippians 2:12-14).

[Rian]

The wives are to submit to their husbands in everything. Before all the men say "amen," let us look at the flip-side of the coin. The husband is instructed to love his wife as he loves himself, and even as Christ loved the church. If a husband loves his wife like he is supposed to, she will have no problem submitting to him as she is supposed to. When both elements of love and submission are present in a relationship there will be perfect working order. When proper love is not present, however, submission becomes rather difficult and is viewed negatively rather than positively.

Sorry, submission as prescribed social role is always a negative thing. To say otherwise is like saying it’s ok to own slaves so long as you’re nice to them.

Let’s repeat this: Women are not property. To say that they are required to submit – even to a loving husband – is to deny a hundred years or more of human progress.

[jdjtcagle]

The wives are to submit to their husbands in everything. Before all the men say "amen," let us look at the flip-side of the coin. The husband is instructed to love his wife as he loves himself, and even as Christ loved the church. If a husband loves his wife like he is supposed to, she will have no problem submitting to him as she is supposed to. When both elements of love and submission are present in a relationship there will be perfect working order. When proper love is not present, however, submission becomes rather difficult and is viewed negatively rather than positively.

Sorry, submission as prescribed social role is always a negative thing. To say otherwise is like saying it’s ok to own slaves so long as you’re nice to them.

Let’s repeat this: Women are not property. To say that they are required to submit – even to a loving husband – is to deny a hundred years or more of human progress.

Honestly, I respect that - but were talking about religion (in other words) in a perfect "Christian" world this is the teaching.

This is not a mandate for slavery against women, but merely a form of conduct made by both man and women to honor Christ.  This does NOT include abusive or downright wrong/slave behavior, hence the "perfect world" words I spoke earlier.

[Zoltan]

Trashman, did you actually just say that women are a weaker sex?

I am literally trembling with rage. That is sexist and misogynistic, and I believe it violates the forum code of conduct. What's more, it's absolutely reprehensible.

Rian is right. A female athlete is a hell of a lot stronger than a male couch potato. I believe, in fact, that the strength overlap is something like seventy percent. That's right -- 70% of women are just as strong as comparable men.

Trashman, Goatmaster, you are absolutely wrong that women are unsuited to some jobs. Weak people are unsuited to some jobs. If a woman can pass a physical fitness test then she should damn well be able to do the job. Anyone with a modicum of education -- or experience with athletic women -- should know that most women can pass these tests.

I am nauseated by some of the things the men in this thread are saying.

I completely agree that if a woman is qualified for something she should have both the right and opportunity to do the said thing. However, I think you underestimate the physical disparity between men and women. Though in actuality my last statement is somewhat moot as women are denied many opportunites simply based on their gender. There is of course another side to this, but I won't go into the travesty that is affirmative action...

And of course no one should have to submit, as a person, to another. Chain of command as a professional? Sure. But as an individual, never.

[TrashMan]

Any differences among human beings are going to be broadly distributed. Even if women are less physically proficient in some ways on average, there are still plenty of women who are stronger than plenty of men. You don’t seriously believe that a female professional athlete is going to be weaker than a male couch-surfer, do you? But that’s what you end up saying when you paint with such a broad brush.

It is the common traits that are used to describe a group. Genetics favors man when it comes to strength and endurance. It's true there are very strong women, but no woman can be stronger than a strong man. To explain it in simpler terms, think of it as a RPG.  Both males and females start with 10 Strength, but males get a +2 bonus to strength. Trough extensive training they each can increase that strength by 4... and while such a women is stronger than that couch potato male who didn't train, the male who trained kept that +2 onus and remains stronger.

If epithets like “weaker” don’t mean to suggest that women are inferior, then I’m very mistaken indeed. The fact is that women were considered inferior through much of history, as they are in some parts of the world today, and the fact that women are still treated differently just shows that we’ve got some progress to make yet.

It means what it means.."less strong".. or "not as strong". There's nothing inferior in that. But yes, women have been and in some places still are treated as inferiors.

Besides, physical differences have nothing at all to do with a woman’s ability to serve as a priest. And sorry, but refusing to allow women into the priesthood does not say “we’re adhering to a tradition,” it says “we don’t trust women to do the job.” Tradition alone isn’t enough justification for keeping women out of what some see to be their calling – especially since that tradition emerged in a time and culture when women were still considered property.

Did I ever say that strength has any bearing on a priests job?
This is not a issue of trust, but it is tradition. It is as much of a justification as the group wants it to be. For me it's a no-brainer. While you really can get offended by that there never was the intention of offense or implication of inferiority behind that and that's what matters. I can't very well stop you or anyone else from being offended, but then again people can get offended over everything these days.

If an individual woman is unable to perform a specific role, then chances are she won’t seek it out. Women do not need culture – or thousand-year-old institutions – telling us what we can and can’t do, when we’re perfectly capable of deciding for ourselves. Personally, I’d make a lousy priest. That doesn’t mean another woman wouldn’t be an inspiring success, and in some sects they have been. Telling that woman that she can’t serve her beliefs in the best way she can, just because she’s a woman, is wrong.

If you don't like the rules some group has, don't join it.
The Church isn't enforcing those rules on anyone and it probably will change them in the future, but the point is that a group has the right to those rules. If I want to open a male only club tomorrow I can do it.