The Chatholic Church: Gender Control

It's not really control because followers are not forced to believe in Catholicism. I have the choice to leave, but I don't want to. excommunication is only applied when the most grievous offences are committed. It is a seperation that a person wholly and completely chooses. Males are not more holy. It's simply that a woman has a different role than a man. In the older days, in the jewish temple, women were not even allowed to enter into the sanctuary. Christ bestowed priesthood on men and, so, it is not a woman's place to be ordained.

I thought you were tolerable before. Now I simply can't stand you. How could you willingly let your sex be oppressed because your religion "says so"?

I thought you were tolerable before. Now I simply can't stand you. How could you willingly let your sex be oppressed because your religion "says so"?

Well, that is a shame. I had a feeling that my defending catholicism would lead to people disliking me.
In defense for myself, women are not oppressed, I don't see how them not becoming priests is oppression in any way.

The female sex were the downfall of several Biblical heroes and have been subjected to (widely accepted) gender-role subjugation throughout history until the last century, I don't see how you can claim the oppression is a lie without plugging your ears and closing your eyes.

Churches treating males and females so differently just reeks of 'Seperate But Equal' and we all know how well that works out.

Edit: I suppose I'm technically Agnostic, but for all the hate regarding 'LOLBIGBANG' vs 'LOLINTELLIGENTDESIGN', most people forget that the Big Bang theory was an attempt to imagine how things could have come about without the divine, not intended to be a foolproof theory. It's entirely likely that any explanation regarding the beginning of things is beyond the scope of human comprehension, especially with our limited understanding of how things work.

The female sex were the downfall of several Biblical heroes and have been subjected to (widely accepted) gender-role subjugation throughout history until the last century, I don't see how you can claim the oppression is a lie without plugging your ears and closing your eyes. Churches treating males and females so differently just reeks of 'Seperate But Equal' and we all know how well that works out. Edit: I suppose I'm technically Agnostic, but for all the hate regarding 'LOLBIGBANG' vs 'LOLINTELLIGENTDESIGN', most people forget that the Big Bang theory was an attempt to imagine how things could have come about without the divine, not intended to be a foolproof theory. It's entirely likely that any explanation regarding the beginning of things is beyond the scope of human comprehension, especially with our limited understanding of how things work.

I agree completely. I just cannot imagine how you can't see the oppression of women in religion unless you're making yourself oblivious to it.

I don't see how you can claim the oppression is a lie without plugging your ears and closing your eyes.

I really don't understand why you think women are oppressed in the church. We aren't allowed to become priests because Jesus chose men to do that job. Women have different roles. We are equal to men but we are not the same as them. Men and women were designed differently to do the things that we were specifically designed to do.

I really don't understand why you think women are oppressed in the church. We aren't allowed to become priests because Jesus chose men to do that job. Women have different roles. We are equal to men but we are not the same as them. Men and women were designed differently to do the things that we were specifically designed to do.

What exactly is different about how men were designed that makes them not only better suited, but the ONLY ones suited to be priests?

What's different about women that makes them unable to do it?

Are you really so blind to think that your church thinks that women are EQUAL to men? Let me open your eyes a bit.

I don't expect you to read all of these, but I'm going to make a nice big list for you. I would love it if you DID read all of them and attempt to dispute them, if you can. Unfortunately, I think you enjoy being oblivious to the truth. Don't worry, though, I'm not going to use anything but quotes from the very book that your religion is based on: The Bible.

To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning." "No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square." 3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." 6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."

Even after this, he was spared from the destruction of the city, because he's such an honorable man (hah.)

The king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, whose names were Shiphrah and Puah, 16 "When you help the Hebrew women in childbirth and observe them on the delivery stool, if it is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, let her live."

He said this because he felt that the boys were a threat but the girls were insignificant and could do nothing to threaten his kingdom.


Here's one from the 10th commandment, which I'm sure you know very well as a religious person:

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

Let's analyze: What's listed? House, wife, manservant(male slave), female servant(slave), ox, ass, or anything else that belongs to him. Notice how these are all regarded as PROPERTIES. The Tenth Commandment ITSELF implies that women are the property of their husbands.

"If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do.

This one is a gem. Not only does it say that a man can sell his daughter as a servant, but that she doesn't go free (after the 6 years that a man has to wait to go free) like manservants do.

16 "If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. 17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.

It's important to note that the first 17 verses of chapter 22 of Exodus address restitution for stealing or damaging someone elses property. The basic point of these two verses is that if a man sleeps with a father's virgin daughter, the man has to pay the father for the "damage" to his property. The damage to the property is the fact that the man took the virginity of the daughter, meaning she's worth less (since the father cannot sell her virginity to her future husband that would be decided by the father.) On top of all this, the man must marry the daughter, regardless of what she wants, unless the father refuses.

1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Say to the Israelites: 'A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. 3 On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. 4 Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. 5 If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding.

This one is pretty self-explainatory. I suppose giving birth to a girl makes a woman more impure than giving birth to a boy? That's odd, since men and women are supposed to be equal.

Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her.

And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

These all have to do with adultery. Notice how not a single one refers to the fact that the man is doing any wrong to his own wife, only that he is doing wrong to the husband of the woman he is sleeping with. Adultery was defined as a man sleeping with a married woman or a woman engaged to be married. If a man were to sleep with an unmarried woman, he did no wrong to his wife. Married men were free to visit prostitutes.

"And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver."

So a girl is worth less than a boy. But surely this must be wrong! Your church thinks men and women are equal, right?

Numbers 5:11-31 describes a lengthy magical ritual that women were forced to perform if their husbands suspected them of having had an affair. A priest prepared a potion composed of holy water mixed with sweepings from the floor of the tabernacle. He proclaimed a curse over the potion and required the woman to drink it. If she were guilty, she would suffer greatly: her abdomen would swell and her thighs waste away. There is no similar magical test for husbands suspecting of having an affair with another woman.

8 "Say to the Israelites, 'If a man dies and leaves no son, turn his inheritance over to his daughter. 9 If he has no daughter, give his inheritance to his brothers. 10 If he has no brothers, give his inheritance to his father's brothers. 11 If his father had no brothers, give his inheritance to the nearest relative in his clan, that he may possess it. This is to be a legal requirement for the Israelites, as the LORD commanded Moses.' "

Looks to me like women are pretty much fucked in this scenario, with the exception of a daughter with no brothers.

10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.

Equality, huh? Doesn't sound like she has any sort of choice.

13 If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, "I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity," 15 then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. 16 The girl's father will say to the elders, "I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, 'I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.' But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity." Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver [a] and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives. 20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.

So if a girl is not a virgin when married, she's killed. I challenge you to find such a law for men. I assure you, it doesn't exist.

"If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife...."

So if a virgin girl is raped, she must marry her rapist, regardless of what she wants.

1 If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house...

Divorce could only be initiated by the husband. The wife could not divorce her husband, even if he wanted to. Sounds to me like she's his property.

16 That evening an old man from the hill country of Ephraim, who was living in Gibeah (the men of the place were Benjamites), came in from his work in the fields. 17 When he looked and saw the traveler in the city square, the old man asked, "Where are you going? Where did you come from?" 18 He answered, "We are on our way from Bethlehem in Judah to a remote area in the hill country of Ephraim where I live. I have been to Bethlehem in Judah and now I am going to the house of the LORD. No one has taken me into his house. 19 We have both straw and fodder for our donkeys and bread and wine for ourselves your servants—me, your maidservant, and the young man with us. We don't need anything." 20 "You are welcome at my house," the old man said. "Let me supply whatever you need. Only don't spend the night in the square." 21 So he took him into his house and fed his donkeys. After they had washed their feet, they had something to eat and drink. 22 While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, "Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him." 23 The owner of the house went outside and said to them, "No, my friends, don't be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don't do this disgraceful thing. 24 Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But to this man, don't do such a disgraceful thing." 25 But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. 26 At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight. 27 When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. 28 He said to her, "Get up; let's go." But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home. 29 When he reached home, he took a knife and cut up his concubine, limb by limb, into twelve parts and sent them into all the areas of Israel. 30 Everyone who saw it said, "Such a thing has never been seen or done, not since the day the Israelites came up out of Egypt. Think about it! Consider it! Tell us what to do!"

Another self-explainatory one. Also quite disgusting.

3Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

Doesn't get any clearer than that.

7A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

Clear as crystal, just like the last one.

34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

How dare you speak in church, wench!

22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

I'll admit, I'm getting tired of basically copying the same thing over and over, but hopefully I'm proving my point. This is a recurring theme in your religion, regardless of whether or not you see it.

11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women[a] will be saved[b] through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

This is a pretty clear one as well, however it also refers to women being priests. It basically says that women shouldn't be priests because Eve was decieved by the snake and Adam was not. So basically, women are susceptable to sin. I guess they think men are better? Maybe molesting little boys isn't a sin.

7Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.

The weaker partner.

4Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.

"They" is referring to the older women. This says that the older women can teach the younger women to do all of those things, including to be subject to their husbands.





I guess that will be all for now. I've spent like 3 hours now doing this, and I think this is more than enough to open your eyes, assuming that's possible. At the very least, dispute it. I'd rather not feel like my time was wasted.

Actually, I feel like doing a little bit of summarization and drawing a few conclusions. However, I'm going to just do it in this post, since the last one is already monsterous.

Have you ever wondered why these things are part of your religion? Why does God look down on women like that?

The answer, in my opinion, is because God isn't the one writing. Men wrote the bible. Men teach and taught the sermons. Women, a lot of times, weren't even ALLOWED TO LEARN about the bible. I kid you not. Isn't it obvious that this is simply a case of the people in power keeping it that way? The men say "well God says so, it's right here in the bible! He says we're superior to you." This keeps them in power, so that they can maintain control over women.

Perhaps that's why women often weren't allowed to read about the bible? Perhaps that's why women aren't allowed to be priests? There's no logical reason for "God" to desire those things. Men desire those things. This allows and allowed men to be free to do whatever they wanted. They could sleep around, they could kill, they could treat "their women" however they wanted and get away with it. However, women weren't given the same freedom.

Now, I'm not saying that things are as bad now as they were back then. I'm just saying, this is a VERY STRONG theme in the Bible. I don't see how you could possibly have read the bible and not seen it.

Anyway, I'll be awaiting your response.

Thanks for doing what I was entirely to lazy to do.

Edit: Some of that was actually even worse than I thought. I may have to pick up a Bible now...

Actually, I feel like doing a little bit of summarization and drawing a few conclusions. However, I'm going to just do it in this post, since the last one is already monsterous. Have you ever wondered why these things are part of your religion? Why does God look down on women like that? The answer, in my opinion, is because God isn't the one writing. Men wrote the bible. Men teach and taught the sermons. Women, a lot of times, weren't even ALLOWED TO LEARN about the bible. I kid you not. Isn't it obvious that this is simply a case of the people in power keeping it that way? The men say "well God says so, it's right here in the bible! He says we're superior to you." This keeps them in power, so that they can maintain control over women. Perhaps that's why women often weren't allowed to read about the bible? Perhaps that's why women aren't allowed to be priests? There's no logical reason for "God" to desire those things. Men desire those things. This allows and allowed men to be free to do whatever they wanted. They could sleep around, they could kill, they could treat "their women" however they wanted and get away with it. However, women weren't given the same freedom. Now, I'm not saying that things are as bad now as they were back then. I'm just saying, this is a VERY STRONG theme in the Bible. I don't see how you could possibly have read the bible and not seen it. Anyway, I'll be awaiting your response.

!k_a!your wrong about that men wrote the bible theres a coulpe of books in it they are ruth and ezra

I thought you were tolerable before. Now I simply can't stand you. How could you willingly let your sex be oppressed because your religion "says so"?

Aren't you a supreme mod? It seems to me that as one, your biased opinions on her seem to be more of a detriment to this topic than most other posts regarding the matter. I've seen you do the same here http://zelaron.com/forum/showthread.php?t=46155

Your opinions are wrong.

(whole contents of his post)

I would expect that a Supreme Mod wouldn't be spamming in the Forum News and Discussion forum, Yawgmoth.

Then, you said this here http://zelaron.com/forum/showthread.php?t=46306

In the real reality, your facts are wrong.

(Same here, whole contents of your post)

It seems that this is the exact situation, different words. Don't we have a rule against treated new members badly? "I thought you were tolerable before. Now I simply can't stand you." Get over yourself, you pushed her away because she really can't defend herself here. All she's trying to do is defend her beliefs. What if I told you, with credible evidence, that air is oppressing men. Would you defend it saying it's never oppressed you?

I felt I'd stay out of it until she stopped wanting to come here. I may not agree with your or her feelings about the Catholic church in any way, but because she's a human being in control of her own opinions and her own life, I have to trust that when she says she doesn't feel controlled, then she isn't controlled.

It may not be what you believe, and it may turn out that it's true, but if she isn't oppressed and doesn't feel that women should be priestess's, then she's not and they shouldn't be.

God left the priesthood in the control of the Levites, more specifically in the hands of Aaron and his sons. It doesn't not say that the daughters of Aaron should have the authority, but the sons.

"How could you willingly let your sex be oppressed because your religion 'says so'"? This is nothing but an opinion and I think what I said above on her opinions shatters it's legitimacy.

and hotdog, I'll quote some stuff for you. It's not an answer to your question; you can have your victory if you want it.

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

And Moses said unto God, Behold, [when] I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What [is] his name? what shall I say unto them? 14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

Suffering often motivates people to seek God, and as they draw close to Him, they can understand Him better. Often people won't pay attention to God unless they're suffering and are acutely aware of their need for Him. Turning to God can open the door to strength, courage and miracles.

Aren't you a supreme mod? It seems to me that as one, your biased opinions on her seem to be more of a detriment to this topic than most other posts regarding the matter. I've seen you do the same here http://zelaron.com/forum/showthread.php?t=46155

I don't really understand what you mean. This is the opinion and debate forum. We were debating the topic. It's not like I was flaming her.

If anyone is biased here, it's you. If it had been any other member I was debating with, you never would have said a word. You're just jumping to the defense of your girl (which, while respectable, is still biased.)

It seems that this is the exact situation, different words. Don't we have a rule against treated new members badly? "I thought you were tolerable before. Now I simply can't stand you."

We have rules against treating new members badly in the Introduce Yourself forum. When they start expressing their beliefs in the way that she did, she's asking for a debate. Either way, debating with new members is not against the rules. A debate is a two-sided thing. She's completely free to not participate in it.

Either way, it's not your place to tell me the rules. If you think I'm breaking any rules, talk to Chruser or WetWired.

Get over yourself, you pushed her away because she really can't defend herself here. All she's trying to do is defend her beliefs. What if I told you, with credible evidence, that air is oppressing men. Would you defend it saying it's never oppressed you?

It's not my fault she's defending an undefendable position. What do you expect, that I simply not contest her views because there's no way she can defend them?

My goal is to educate. Your significant other seems to be somewhat blind to the oppression of her sex within the Catholic church, and Christianity/Religion in general. I've attempted to prove my point in a pretty professional manner (see LONG ASS POST on the first page.)

When you have credible evidence that air is oppressing men, we can address that situation. I would most likely believe you, depending on how credible your evidence was. The difference between that and this, though, is that your significant other not only doesn't believe there is any gender oppression, but she defends it as well, saying things such as "it's not a womans place to be in the priesthood" or whatever. She's clearly been taught to actually believe that bullshit, and I think it's disgusting. Quite honestly, I'm not so much disgusted by her as I am by her church. That's why I actually took the time to attempt to educate.

I felt I'd stay out of it until she stopped wanting to come here. I may not agree with your or her feelings about the Catholic church in any way, but because she's a human being in control of her own opinions and her own life, I have to trust that when she says she doesn't feel controlled, then she isn't controlled.

Or perhaps she has been taught that way.

Do you know how many people are unknowingly under the control of others in our world? Clever people can control others very easily. It's called manipulation. When a bunch of old men get together and decide to write a book about GOD "written by" GOD and preach that it was "written by" GOD and GOD says that men are better than women, that's called manipulation. A bunch of like-minded gentlemen basically had the most brilliant idea ever for forcing their ideals onto the masses.

It may not be what you believe, and it may turn out that it's true, but if she isn't oppressed and doesn't feel that women should be priestess's, then she's not and they shouldn't be.

In her opinion, which is based on what she has been taught by the priesthood.

God left the priesthood in the control of the Levites, more specifically in the hands of Aaron and his sons. It doesn't not say that the daughters of Aaron should have the authority, but the sons.

According to the Bible, which has questionable legitimacy. The Bible also says a lot of other insane nonsense, do you follow it as well?

"How could you willingly let your sex be oppressed because your religion 'says so'"? This is nothing but an opinion and I think what I said above on her opinions shatters it's legitimacy.

Of course it is an opinion. This is the OPINION AND DEBATE forum. No shit.

However, my opinion is backed up by quite a lot of information, specifically from the Bible itself. If you claim that the church doesn't oppress women, dispute my evidence.

Let me make it quick for you, though. You can't. The evidence I compiled in my long ass post is indisputable and undeniable. At the very least, if you're going to disagree, do it in a better way than "she doesn't feel oppressed so she isn't." As I stated above, plenty of people are under the control of others and do not realize it. It's called manipulation.

All I was attempting was to defend her, I don't have the time nor patience to actually dispute the topic.

But I will say this. You talk of being manipulated and how wrong it is. Ever heard that Satan's most cunning trick is convincing people that he doesn't exist?

What if you're wrong? You spend all this time convincing her to believe what you believe. Who's manipulating now?

All I was attempting was to defend her, I don't have the time nor patience to actually dispute the topic. But I will say this. You talk of being manipulated and how wrong it is. Ever heard that Satan's most cunning trick is convincing people that he doesn't exist? What if you're wrong? You spend all this time convincing her to believe what you believe. Who's manipulating now?

What do you mean? I'm not trying to convince her that her religion is a lie. I'm trying to SHOW her that her religion oppresses her gender.

I can't, by any means, prove that her religion is right or wrong about God or Satan or whoever else. I can, using facts, prove that her religion is oppressing her gender.

What exactly are you defending her from? I'm not attacking her, I'm debating with her. If you want to defend her, defend her side. Otherwise, you just look like a biased boyfriend. And a dumbass.

And do you not think she can defend herself? I guess she's just incapable of doing so because she's a woman, right?

And do you not think she can defend herself? I guess she's just incapable of doing so because she's a woman, right?

Not at all. But I do want to apologize, I was kinda pissed and because of that I misinterpreted either the situation or what you said.

So, just to put me on a side, I don't feel that the Catholic church oppresses women. I feel that, just as you were given the job of a moderator, God gave men the job of priesthood. We have certain roles that we must play in life. The only real reason why people seem to think that a man doesn't necessarily have to work the field and that a women doesn't have to be a housewife, is because no one wants to fill those roles. No one wants to be told what to do, because "we're in control of our own lives." Which is fine and dandy if we're all alone and we evolved from nothing. But, given that the people of the Christian faith believe in God, that they believe in obedience to God's laws, they wish to be obedient and the wish to serve.

Everyone wants to lead their own life, and some aren't cut out for servitude, yet others love that calling and enjoy it. Given that they believe and most likely enjoy their faith, the have no problem fulfilling those roles.

I hope this is a better post than before, and I hope it can further the discussion.

So, just to put me on a side, I don't feel that the Catholic church oppresses women. I feel that, just as you were given the job of a moderator, God gave men the job of priesthood.

Well that covers one of the many ways I've shown that the church oppresses women. Have you read the long post I made on the first page? Women not being included in the priesthood is only one example of it. All it shows is that the recurring theme of gender oppression in the Catholic church is still going strong. There are still many other examples of gender oppression in the past and in the bible.

she's a human being in control of her own opinions and her own life, I have to trust that when she says she doesn't feel controlled, then she isn't controlled.

Thankyou, dear. For defending me and all. It means a lot to me.

It's not my fault she's defending an undefendable position. What do you expect, that I simply not contest her views because there's no way she can defend them?

I'm going to try to defend it. I have a few quotes from the bible i can use. I just have to organize them.

Yea, Midnight, please don't take any of our posts the wrong way. I don't think anyone thinks you are dumb or anything for defending and enjoying your religion. It's just some of us have issues understanding how you can fully embrace it sometimes, you know? We all have our doubts about many things throughout our lives. I, and apparently KA, just doubt that a religion was divinely created that preaches inequality to the sexes and has given justification to countless generations of men who indulged in rampant sexism (and a lot of times virtual slavery) of your sex.

Yea, Midnight, please don't take any of our posts the wrong way. I don't think anyone thinks you are dumb or anything for defending and enjoying your religion. It's just some of us have issues understanding how you can fully embrace it sometimes, you know? We all have our doubts about many things throughout our lives. I, and apparently KA, just doubt that a religion was divinely created that preaches inequality to the sexes and has given justification to countless generations of men who indulged in rampant sexism (and a lot of times virtual slavery) of your sex.

Thank you for this. I appreciate it a lot. I also do understand where you're coming from with all of this, and I respect you guys for your views.

Thank you for this. I appreciate it a lot. I also do understand where you're coming from with all of this, and I respect you guys for your views.

I'm glad to have given you something of value. You're a good gal and I'd hate for our sometimes unsympathetic wording to push you away.

Yea, Midnight, please don't take any of our posts the wrong way. I don't think anyone thinks you are dumb or anything for defending and enjoying your religion. It's just some of us have issues understanding how you can fully embrace it sometimes, you know? We all have our doubts about many things throughout our lives. I, and apparently KA, just doubt that a religion was divinely created that preaches inequality to the sexes and has given justification to countless generations of men who indulged in rampant sexism (and a lot of times virtual slavery) of your sex.

This is the truth.