waterfowl
Member
You make life choices on what you see in the media? That's bad, the media is not exactly what you'd call a purveyor of truth.nick1048 said:
Religious affiliation (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter chookyn
- Start date
lourai*87
~"*_*"~
last_chance said:
Look where this thread went in only a day!!! lol.
Anyway. Of course im in question. Just like so many people i wonder what the real answers are. But im not going to depress myself trying to solve them when i cant. I thought maybe there will come a time when i do chose to follow some sort of belief, but im not going to do that if i dont support my own decision. I just havent put my faith indefinitely in something.
Being non-reliegious isnt about escaping responsibility. You have your own values, religious or not, that governs the things you do.
And also on abortion...it may be wrong, and i dont believe in taking life. But in so many cases it is a better alternative than the life that follows for the child, or the mother. There are always other things to take into consideration. The world isnt so black and white that there is either one thing or the other. All that space in between seems to be ignored by so many people. (im not directing this at any single person, its just in general
)
Well, since we're talking about 'hot' issues now, I'll tell you my opinions on the Pope's conservative policies (since they're made quite clear after his passing). I'm a male and a pretty devout Catholic, and respect the Pope greatly, but I still disagree with some of his rules.
1) No women priests - I disagree. Male priests provide a fatherly figure, which is cool. But we need a maternal figure as well. It will be a great balance, I'm sure.
Plus, from what I can derive from the Bible, all people are equal in God's eyes. And if the Church can tolerate and accept criminals, even murderers, why can't the hierarchy accept devout, caring women?
2) Homosexuality as evil - I disagree. Same reason as before (except for the fatherly - maternal figure bit)
3) No pre-marital sex - I agree. It's not impossible to do, people !
This is probably the most misunderstood rule of them all. It's not there for inconvenience! For the religious, sex is a sacred thing. For Catholics, for example, the sacrament of marriage is not complete without sex (I bet a few of you knows that)!
For the non-religious, it is something that can lead to dire consequences if the couple is not prepared - which is the case for most couples who had pre-marital sex - (eg. unwanted pregnancy, contraception or no contraception), plus divorce rate is higher for those who committed pre-marital sex than those who didn't.
This is because after marriage, there's nothing special about sex anymore. Been here done that, you get over it! What, then, is the point of marriage? Great, you're now officially husband and wife, and (perhaps) your wife's surname will change! Other than that, not much else is added to the relationship. Might as well not have the ceremony (too costly, marriage these days ).
Religious or non-religious, not having sex before marriage strengthens the bond between a man and a woman. Women know our hormones, so they appreciate those who resist them (some even get turned on by it!).
Imagine how special, then, your first sex will be (after marriage of course)! It is a statement (made by a man especially) that 'I'm not in this relationship for sex only' (of course we are in it for sex too, but it's not the centre of it!).
Plus, it now acts as a seal/covenant to the relationship - 'from now on, I will not engage in any other intimate relationships'. Sex will be sooo much more satisfying. Through this, we give meaning to sex - its significance is emphasised.
You see, it's not so much a sin to breach this rule, rather it's made for better LONG-TERM relationships. And don't you think it's true, intuitively?
Well, I'll shut up now. I was going to do more, but it's too much already (sorry!). I hope with the third point, though, some of you realise why the rule exists, and eliminates any misconception involved. If you decide to ignore the rule anyway, then at least you can appreciate the people who follow it. Thanks!
1) No women priests - I disagree. Male priests provide a fatherly figure, which is cool. But we need a maternal figure as well. It will be a great balance, I'm sure.
Plus, from what I can derive from the Bible, all people are equal in God's eyes. And if the Church can tolerate and accept criminals, even murderers, why can't the hierarchy accept devout, caring women?
2) Homosexuality as evil - I disagree. Same reason as before (except for the fatherly - maternal figure bit)
3) No pre-marital sex - I agree. It's not impossible to do, people
!This is probably the most misunderstood rule of them all. It's not there for inconvenience! For the religious, sex is a sacred thing. For Catholics, for example, the sacrament of marriage is not complete without sex (I bet a few of you knows that)!
For the non-religious, it is something that can lead to dire consequences if the couple is not prepared - which is the case for most couples who had pre-marital sex - (eg. unwanted pregnancy, contraception or no contraception), plus divorce rate is higher for those who committed pre-marital sex than those who didn't.
This is because after marriage, there's nothing special about sex anymore. Been here done that, you get over it! What, then, is the point of marriage? Great, you're now officially husband and wife, and (perhaps) your wife's surname will change! Other than that, not much else is added to the relationship. Might as well not have the ceremony (too costly, marriage these days
). Religious or non-religious, not having sex before marriage strengthens the bond between a man and a woman. Women know our hormones, so they appreciate those who resist them (some even get turned on by it!).
Imagine how special, then, your first sex will be (after marriage of course)! It is a statement (made by a man especially) that 'I'm not in this relationship for sex only' (of course we are in it for sex too, but it's not the centre of it!).
Plus, it now acts as a seal/covenant to the relationship - 'from now on, I will not engage in any other intimate relationships'. Sex will be sooo much more satisfying. Through this, we give meaning to sex - its significance is emphasised.
You see, it's not so much a sin to breach this rule, rather it's made for better LONG-TERM relationships. And don't you think it's true, intuitively?
Well, I'll shut up now. I was going to do more, but it's too much already (sorry!). I hope with the third point, though, some of you realise why the rule exists, and eliminates any misconception involved. If you decide to ignore the rule anyway, then at least you can appreciate the people who follow it
. Thanks!
Last edited:
HotShot
-_-
Hmmm...
How Do You Judge Equality? Is The World Equal Now? Then How You Expect The Pope To Bring About Equality, There Are Reasons For Women Not Being Priests. Nothing Got To Do With Equality, This Is Just An Excuse For People Of Not Getting What They Want.
For Example Equality Can Never Been Reached, It Will Never Happen. If Everyone Was Equal (under Gods Eyes) The World Need Not Exist. Inequality Is Needed For Everything Religion, Advancement And Morals.
America Claims To Be Democratic, But It Is Probably The Least Democratic Country. The People Really Dont Have Much Choice There,as The Giants (rich Dudes) Control Them.
One Can Argue That Bill Gates Is A Billionaire And Ethipoans Are A Bunch Of Povos That Are Inequal. They Are Not Equal Are They? One Guy Has Everything He Needs And Whilst The Ehtipoaiosns Struggle To Have What They Need. Therefore Your Comments On The Pope Are Invalid, You Cannot Judge A Person After That Would Inequal To Judge Another. Noone Is Above Or Below Therefore You Cannot Judge Another.
Lol Equality Doesnt Work And Will Not, Point Something That Is Equal And I Will Show An Equality.
If Women Can Be Priest Why Cant You Or I Be Priest Why Can Only Few People Become Priest Isnt That Inequality?
How Do You Judge Equality? Is The World Equal Now? Then How You Expect The Pope To Bring About Equality, There Are Reasons For Women Not Being Priests. Nothing Got To Do With Equality, This Is Just An Excuse For People Of Not Getting What They Want.
For Example Equality Can Never Been Reached, It Will Never Happen. If Everyone Was Equal (under Gods Eyes) The World Need Not Exist. Inequality Is Needed For Everything Religion, Advancement And Morals.
America Claims To Be Democratic, But It Is Probably The Least Democratic Country. The People Really Dont Have Much Choice There,as The Giants (rich Dudes) Control Them.
One Can Argue That Bill Gates Is A Billionaire And Ethipoans Are A Bunch Of Povos That Are Inequal. They Are Not Equal Are They? One Guy Has Everything He Needs And Whilst The Ehtipoaiosns Struggle To Have What They Need. Therefore Your Comments On The Pope Are Invalid, You Cannot Judge A Person After That Would Inequal To Judge Another. Noone Is Above Or Below Therefore You Cannot Judge Another.
Lol Equality Doesnt Work And Will Not, Point Something That Is Equal And I Will Show An Equality.
If Women Can Be Priest Why Cant You Or I Be Priest Why Can Only Few People Become Priest Isnt That Inequality?
ogmzergrush
LOL
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2004
- Messages
- 2,198
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2002
What Is Wrong With You?HotShot said:
...Okay... anyway, perhaps if there is one valid reason why women shouldn't be priests it's this:
Women who have been fighting for position in priesthood and above are mostly those in the developed world, and their cause is completely understandable. However, I think notions such as 'women are inferior to men', or 'Eve was the reason why original sin exists' are not the cause of this inequality in the Church's hierarchy.
The church must also consider the situations in many developing countries, because it's a centralised organisation influencing millions of people around the globe, and its rules must therefore be universal.
How do you think women are being treated in many poor countries (namely in Africa, where Christianity grows fastest)? Unfortunate, but the answer is extremely poorly. A woman in a position of power would probably be ignored or scoffed at. Under such circumstances, having female priests who lead a local church would probably be an unwise choice on the universal church's part: their homilies ignored, the Sunday masses they lead unattended, simply because they are women.
Here, we take things for granted. Of course, I believe we are ready to have women priests, but not in some other parts of the world. The church's rules must be universal - think of the consequences if they are inconsistent relative to where you are on earth! The Catholic church will crumble for sure, and Catholics will be no different than Lutherans (not that it's a bad thing, but then what's the point of that?).
The Church can allow for women priests, but perhaps not now: in time, when women all over the world are given the respect they deserve.
Women who have been fighting for position in priesthood and above are mostly those in the developed world, and their cause is completely understandable. However, I think notions such as 'women are inferior to men', or 'Eve was the reason why original sin exists' are not the cause of this inequality in the Church's hierarchy.
The church must also consider the situations in many developing countries, because it's a centralised organisation influencing millions of people around the globe, and its rules must therefore be universal.
How do you think women are being treated in many poor countries (namely in Africa, where Christianity grows fastest)? Unfortunate, but the answer is extremely poorly. A woman in a position of power would probably be ignored or scoffed at. Under such circumstances, having female priests who lead a local church would probably be an unwise choice on the universal church's part: their homilies ignored, the Sunday masses they lead unattended, simply because they are women.
Here, we take things for granted. Of course, I believe we are ready to have women priests, but not in some other parts of the world. The church's rules must be universal - think of the consequences if they are inconsistent relative to where you are on earth! The Catholic church will crumble for sure, and Catholics will be no different than Lutherans (not that it's a bad thing, but then what's the point of that?).
The Church can allow for women priests, but perhaps not now: in time, when women all over the world are given the respect they deserve.
HotShot
-_-
its easy
It Easy To Say That Women Are Being Treated Badly Around The World. But Do You Know Why? Its Not Like They Are Doing It For No Reason, Its Still Unacceptable But What Choice Do They Have.
This Used To Happen Heaps But Now Reduced But Still Goes On, What Happens When A Couple Have A Baby (a Poor Couple) And Its A Girl They Go And Kill It. Why? Because They Cant Afford To Maintain It And In The Future The Girl Is An Expense Which They Cannot Afford. Where As A Male Can Deliver Funds Through Marriage And So On.
Its Like A Person Who On A Desert Starving There Is Nothing To Eat, He See's A Dead Body, Viola That His Lunch, Most Of Us Would That Think Thats Sick, Immoral. Etc, But Its Not He Didnt Have A Choice.!
It Easy To Say That Women Are Being Treated Badly Around The World. But Do You Know Why? Its Not Like They Are Doing It For No Reason, Its Still Unacceptable But What Choice Do They Have.
This Used To Happen Heaps But Now Reduced But Still Goes On, What Happens When A Couple Have A Baby (a Poor Couple) And Its A Girl They Go And Kill It. Why? Because They Cant Afford To Maintain It And In The Future The Girl Is An Expense Which They Cannot Afford. Where As A Male Can Deliver Funds Through Marriage And So On.
Its Like A Person Who On A Desert Starving There Is Nothing To Eat, He See's A Dead Body, Viola That His Lunch, Most Of Us Would That Think Thats Sick, Immoral. Etc, But Its Not He Didnt Have A Choice.!
HotShot
-_-
Haha
WAT DO YOU THINK?beccaxx said:
HotShot
-_-
I Am Freaken Crying
SOME BIEATCH CALLED ME WEIRD! FOCK
tOO FOCKEN BAD EVERYONE CALLS ME THAT INIATIALLY/ DONT KNOW WHY?
SOME BIEATCH CALLED ME WEIRD! FOCK
tOO FOCKEN BAD EVERYONE CALLS ME THAT INIATIALLY/ DONT KNOW WHY?
get_born
Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2004
- Messages
- 735
I personaly believe equality will never be achieved... for that to ever possible then men should give birth, women should be the breadwinner and children should tell the adults what to do. There are limits in life and things that are the way that they are because its just natural that way. On the topic of women priests that means god can be male-female-shemale????
HotShot
-_-
........
whatever you said before, still wont make it equal. even men could give birth etc, still wont be equal. men and women have to the same height, weight and strenght, physical and mental ability to be equal.
equality is just another reason to get things done.
whatever you said before, still wont make it equal. even men could give birth etc, still wont be equal. men and women have to the same height, weight and strenght, physical and mental ability to be equal.
equality is just another reason to get things done.
ogmzergrush
LOL
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2004
- Messages
- 2,198
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2002
Is it just me or did you just say there's no such thing as a female breadwinner?last_chance said:
heybraham
Member
you see our world is very deceptive. It is easy to say you don't believe the media but it is hard to really reject their 'truths'. The thing is, the media is a puppet for a higher authority, if they write something the higher authorities don't like, they get fired. They get sued for defamation for writing strong opinions, they can only convey whatever the masters allow them to. You see, the youth, you and i are getting brainwashed everytime we turn on the tv, the radio, the news, and everytime we talk to another peer who is also exposed to the brainwashing. There is no greater deception than brainwashing, forcing upon you to be deceived and believe whatever they are saying.
Religions don't force itself upon you, does not brainwash you, that we should value. Not the media. There is a healthy skeptic which is pragmatic and open and unhealthy one who sticks firm to their own beliefs and reject anything revolutionary. Jesus endorses the former.
Religions don't force itself upon you, does not brainwash you, that we should value. Not the media. There is a healthy skeptic which is pragmatic and open and unhealthy one who sticks firm to their own beliefs and reject anything revolutionary. Jesus endorses the former.
heybraham
Member
my friend, it's not as simple as what Orwell says it is. There are other forces greater than the media or the government (combined) who are at work, whose eventual goal is to rid of all religions and anything unequal but hence taking over the world with a perfect world government which is anything but. equality will only work when people wake from the dream that the world has cast upon them thru the media and government. i cannot tell u what it's like to wake up from it, you can only see it for yourself.HotShot said:
ps. who exactly is the 'POPE'? what justifies his apparent 'authority' from God?
Last edited:
ogmzergrush
LOL
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2004
- Messages
- 2,198
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2002
If it's good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!heybraham said: