But they also refuse to protect women’s rights. How can you agree with this?
And what rights are those, Christian? Does Exxon want to take away the vote from women? Check this out:http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/community_women_invest.aspx
I am not saying that they are trying to stop women voting. I was just saying they are not agreeing to stop discrimination based on sexuality and gender. And that means not protecting women's rights.
Christian ,what are women's rights? the right to have an abortion? What kind of right is this to kill a human being? it could be an unborn little girl. What right that unborn would have?
Benedicta is it ok for me to discriminate against women? I am asking as this is what discrimination based on gender is, and you seem to have no problem with that.
Be specific, Christian, how is Exxon Mobil discriminating against women? You haven't made a case.
No I think you are missing my point completely. In the first comment I said they also refuse to protect w omens rights.From the article it says"For the 14th straight year, ExxonMobil shareholders overwhelmingly have rejected a proposition to incorporate into the company’s written non-discrimination policy language explicitly prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity."Please realize gender identity is not the same as sexual orientation, so its discrimination against women and men for that matter. This is all I was highlighting I am not bringing specific issues against the company.
"Sexual orientation" and "gender identity" are gay speak. The Australian Human Rights Commission now say there are 23 genders! This has absolutely NOTHING to do with women's rights. It has everything to do with advancing the gay agenda. Once again I applaud Exxon Mobil!
Fair enough. And according to that I can discriminate against women then, as if we define culture according to god then women are not equal to men.
That statement is untrue, Christian. As a matter of fact, the most perfect human (outside of Christ in His human nature) is Mary, the Mother of God. As Wordsworth said, she is "our nature's solitary boast." It was the Church that raised women from their second class status and made them equal to men. In the history of the Church women have been founders of religious orders, hospitals, schools, and other apostolates. They have been advisers to popes. Read Proverbs' description of the ideal wife. She is the keeper of the keys, runs the household, and has a small business on the side. You said you were once a believer (on your blog?), but you obviously were not a Catholic.
You are right I was not a catholic.The reason I made the last comment was that in Leviticus it talks about the worth of males and females. And its clear that God favors men as their worth is double females, and sometimes even more.
I too support Exxon Mobil, even though they're an evil oil company. ;-) They've been holding firm for a long time. Good on them. Also, it would be bad enough if it were just a nebulous "we support gay rights" sort of statement that a corporation makes. Now-a-days, there's "divirsity training", corporate re-education camps, if you will that people are forced to take...And the red herring above, gender identity, has NOTHING to do with women. It's transgender double-speak.
Christian, the new covenant superseded the old covenant. Many of the laws of the old covenant were made because of the state of mankind. For example, the statement "an eye for an eye" limited punishment. The sinned against person could not, in justice, inflict more punishment than the damage inflicted on him. This was in a time when people commonly killed others for small infractions. Look at the way Jesus treated women. Christian principles led to the laws of chivalry that put women on a pedestal. It was certainly a better place than women's position today as nothing more than recyclable sex objects.
And, Lynn, you are absolutely right. The brain-washing is fierce and, judging from some of those who leave comments, it's been very effective. I feel sorry for parents who have to answer to God for affirming their children's sins.
Ok but the new testament says:Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. 1 Corinthians 14:34-36as well as Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing.1 Timothy 2:11-15Don’t see God putting women on a pedestal here. So not sure how the new covenant is better than the old one.
First of all, you can't take that passage out of context. Paul is talking in that chapter about behavior during liturgy. Obviously from earlier statements in the chapter there is dissension in the community and it sounds like liturgical worship has become something of a free-for-all. Paul's letters are all aimed at encouraging and correcting the church communities he established.St. John Chrysostom has an explication of the text that talks about the women chattering as in the marketplace. (Frankly, I don't see much difference today with the Church after Mass being a social hall - and it is particularly the women who are guilty.) Bishops and priests are the liturgical teachers, hence the admonition for the women to be silent. Only the ordained priest or deacon may read the gospel and preach. The bishop, then and now, is the primary teacher in his diocese and all lay persons, both men and women, can only teach under his authority. And they may not preach during Mass.I had to laugh. When I looked up the text in my bible I had a note in the margin that reads, "What does this mean? If the Bible is inspired, how is this to be understood?" It certainly does NOT mean that women have no teaching role. That would be ridiculous since women are the first teachers of their children. Paul doesn't leave men off the hook either. Read the next chapter about the qualifications for bishops and deacons. I wish most of our clergy today met those qualifications.I think this verse could fuel an entire course! But it certainly does not mean that women were disrespected in the community or not equally valued by God.
And that’s why all bishops and deacons et c etc in the catholic church are men. No discrimination then?It has been nice to debate again Mary Ann, I appreciate your honest and true manner.
I've been appreciating our conversation also, Christian.If the male only priesthood is discrimination, it's God's discrimination. The Church is the "bride of Christ." Christ was a man. The priesthood and minor ordination are restricted to men for the simple reason that the bride requires a bridegroom not another bride. We talk about the priest being "in persona Christi." Christ was a man; a woman cannot take His place as the bridegroom. It's as simple as that. Pope John Paul II made it clear that women can never be priests because the Pope and the magisterium do not have the authority to change Christ's institution of the priesthood as limited to men. It is no more discrimination than it is discrimination that only women can bear children and only men can father them.Men and women are different and complimentary. God did not make us to be in competition with each other, but to complete each other, either by marriage or by chaste friendship. Francis had Clare, Dante had Beatrice, Benedict had his sister Scholastica. We need each other to understand the larger picture of human relations.There is no discrimination about it!
I suppose this is where I and you part ways on what we believe. I just can't see how women are less equal to men when it comes to preaching/teaching. It sounds to me that Pope John Paul II was making the chauvinist excuse, or the so called god escape clause.Also I don't think we can talk about being a priest as the same as having children. In the one case (pregnancy) we are biologically different in the other (brain mass) we are biologically the same.
I'm scratching my head, Christian. You have no problem ignoring the biology when it comes to gays. Do you find it discriminatory that Jesus called God "Father?" Some of the feminists want to purge the bible of male pronouns even when scripture talks about Jesus -- as though he wasn't a man. Consider for a minute. If you believed in God, and God made it clear what HIS WILL was with regard to the liturgical life of HIS CHURCH, would God's decision to call only men to the priesthood be "chauvinist?" Actually, one of the biggest arguments against the priesthood from my perspective is the women who want to be priests. The Women's Ordination Conference objects to most Church teachings including most relating to marriage and sexuality. Which indicates, I think, the central problem here. Christ is the "new Adam." The Church is the "new Eve." It is not an insignificant relationship even though you want to make it so. None of this has nothing to do with equality. Women are equal to men in dignity and in God's eyes. In fact, women have been given many gifts. We are actually spiritually smarter than men. That's why women are often much more pious and interested in spiritual things than men are. We are simply not made for the priesthood which is not a job or a career. It is God's call, not man's and He did not call women. It has nothing to do with brain mass or being smart.But since we are not speaking the same language, I will stop. Without faith, you are unlikely ever to understand what I am talking about.
Haha This comment is hysterical! Brain washing causes people to be gay? So I suppose brain washing has caused millions of people around the world to be gay. That's a whole lot of brain washing. As for parents, you are suggesting that they abandon their children for something they can't change? I feel sorry for children of parents like you.
Oh no, there's no attempt to influence children. That's why at a lesbian pride event the women were chanting, "Recruit, recruit, recruit." And one honest gay, Daniel Villarreal admits it. http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=9797http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/activist-admits-gays-really-do-mean-to-indoctrinate-our-children/Where did I say parents should abandon their children? Parents should no more abandon their "gay" (definition: those who act on same-sex attraction) children than their other sinning children. But neither should they affirm their children in their sins. Most parents who dare to stand up to their acting out kids are shunned by the kids not vice versa. Parents should treat their children the same way Jesus treated the woman taken in adultery -- encourage them to sin no more. It's not worth losing heaven for a little x-rated pleasure in this world. Hell is a very unpleasant place judging from the visions some saints had of it.
Post a Comment