thenumberone :

I see nothing but unsupported answers for no-women priests and a bunch of different answers for why women should be ok'd for the priesthood.

I did say men were to be the priests and said why. Then I said one of the things that women have been given jurisdiction over. It's in the Jewish Talmud (not biblical) that a man must lay with his wife every 40 days minimum, else it is grounds for the wife to divorce. It also says that sex is not for the man's pleasure, but the woman's. It's derogatory or sexist, its is part of the system (though the large majority of people don't even know what a Talmud is). Women and men together are like a crown of two interwoven precious metals. They are different metals, but of equal value.

The reasons I do not believe women should/can be priests/pastors/whatever are gender roles, the history of God-given priesthoods, and the lack of a biblical mention.

Biologically, men and women are different. I'm sure we all can agree on that. This includes the vocal chords. When a study comes out and polls people about what gender is more persuasive, there is never really a difference. However, when the person does not know they are being tested, "people will be more persuaded by a dominant personality, and that typically is a lower-pitched male voice."

http://www.speechtechmag.com/Articles/?ArticleID=66816

The other biological reason is the fact that men are more like Jesus. Each of us are equal as children of God, but men have a "y" chromosome. I know it seems irrelevant, but Christ is the high priest of Christianity. While I don't hold to a doctrine of "impersona christe", I do hold that the choice of gender for God in his own church was designed.

To give a biological point back, female figures are more persuasive to both males and females. However, the words are supposed to be persuasive, not the speaker. It's about the message, not the messager.

There are 2 God-given priesthoods. The most well known is the Aaronic priesthood. This is the Jewish one for sacrifice and the like. The second is the priesthood of Melchizedek. This one includes non-Jews and operates outside of the mosaic law (no sacrifices, shellfish is ok, etc.). Both priesthoods are all male. The book of Hebrews specifies that Jesus is in the order of Melchizedek. There is not a possibility of female priests in Christianity if we are the continuation of the Melchizedek line.

Finally, there is the omission of Jesus himself. He never says it's cool to have female priests. He could have said that was fine, especially since everyone but the Jews had priestesses in their religions. He could have come at a different time when people really wanted female priests in a male-only-priesthood. He didn't, and I'm very sure God did not oopsie.

thenumberone : No one I heard has ever made those reasons for women not preaching.

Can't live together. See "in good standing".

http://catholicism.about.com/od/catholicliving/f/FAQ_Marriage.htm

And you think you're better than me because I'm holier-than-thou? Doesn't that lump you in the same category? The man doesn't take faith seriously. He should not call himself Christian.

And for the record, I have never before had a problem with a Christian on this board, and you can believe me that none of them agree with me on everything. The majority don't even agree on most.

Edit: Also, my religion actually tells me to correct fellow believers. Perhaps you should learn some tolerance yourself.

patar4097 : Very true, I did use that term wrong. Thank you.

I am being preachy and rude. That is intentional. It is offensive to me that you claim the name of my God and then not only believe that church is not important in your life, your potential fiance's life, and your potential children's lives*, but you are so divorced from God that you don't even know a priest/pastor other than the guy at your school**. Then, on top of all that your last comment disregards Christianity as a whole as the source of Truth and Purity***. First, Islamic's do not marry as we do, and second, even if they did, that man doesn't worship the God you claim to know.

I'm not saying you're not Christian. I am saying that your faith is infantile and before you start a family, you need to figure some things out.

*Faith without works is dead. You don't go to church and haven't for a while. Your children will most likely be raised with that attitude. You probably don't care. This offends me.

**You haven't been to church in so long that you don't even know who goes to one nearby, let alone the priest/pastor. Equally, you aren't looking to go to church and meet someone who can marry you and make a "church home" (since you're starting a family and all).

***It isn't the "holy man" that marries you, it is God that marries. The man doesn't even matter. You don't even need a ceremony. Yet, you'll go get married by a foreign, non-existent god. You disregard the True God's blessing of Purity in exchange for a friend that you "know and trust" to talk at you.

I expect no one to agree with me.

Women should not be priests. I have no problem with women leading anything else, even in other religious aspects (bible study, acolyte, preparing the Table, etc.). I do have a problem with them in the priestly role.

For the philosophical reason, I claim gender roles. Men are the authority in a worship setting and in the familial setting. According to Jewish Oral Law (Talmud), Women actually have authority in the bed room. Nevertheless, there is a split between male and female.

For biblical support other than Paul, I'll reference the priesthood of Aaron and Melchizedek. Both are all male. Those are the only priesthoods we're told God authorizes. I'll also reference that Jesus did not have a female disciple. While having a female disciple might have been fruitless due to the culture, later Christians would have cited this and Paul would not have written as he did. The all male apostle-group is intentional for more than just practical reasons.

I'm not Catholic, but I go to a private Catholic college. In order to get married in the Roman Catholic church you must be confirmed Catholic (Confirmation, Confession, First Communion), and you must be baptized if you haven't been already. you must go through premarital counseling, and if you're sleeping together you must not sleep sleep with each other for 6 months. If you're living in the same place, they will say one of you must leave. Also, priests usually keep a spare bed in case someone just can't afford it.

Because he is a catholic priest, he can only marry you catholic. There is only one way to marry catholic, and it is the method you see above.

It isn't a joke to get married Catholic. They take this seriously. Also, if you divorce and want to remarry, if you do not get granted an annulment by the Catholic church, you cannot marry your second husband/wife in the catholic church; they still see you as married to your ex.

Since from the look of it, you're not Catholic, don't even try to be married Catholic. I would work on finding out what you believe about God first.

SoL@R :



Perfectly fine =)


play4fun :


Revelation 6:10-11


They cried out with a loud voice, “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?" Then they were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brothers should be complete, who were to be killed as they themselves had been.


Revelation 7:9-14



After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!” And all the angels were standing around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures, and they fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, saying, “Amen! Blessing and glory and wisdom and thanksgiving and honor and power and might be to our God forever and ever! Amen. Then one of the elders addressed me, saying, “Who are these, clothed in white robes, and from where have they come?”I said to him, “Sir, you know.” And he said to me, “These are the ones coming out of the great tribulation. They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.


Those saints crying out are the same saints singing to the Lord. I think we can get that established pretty easy. Also, it should be easy to establish that chapter 7, just like chapter 6, is analogical, but we don't even have to do that here. John has established a timeline. Chapter 6 passage is about before/during the undefined "tribulation", and chapter 7 is after. This is before and after final judgment as well.



Luke 23:39-43



One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!" But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong. And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”


But, don't forget Jesus was in hell/hades/prison/whatever you wanna cal it for three days. So how was he with the thief in paradise? He was with the spirits in φυλακ?, prison, not to the spirits in παραδείσ?, paradise. Jesus and the thief had no interaction.



Remember, I don't believe in soul sleep because it fits my philosophy. I created the philosophy because the teaching that the soul still lives after death is not shown or proven biblically. The soul would have to gain powers upon dying that it didn't have in life. This would mean death is good. If you believe death is good, or even has been made good, please read Genesis 3.


2 Kings 2:11



And as they still went on and talked, behold, chariots of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.


This does nothing to my theory. Elijah still has a body and will never experience death. My issues with common teachings are "after death". I do not believe it possible for people to act while dead.

EDITS: I can't get it formatted right. Oh well.

play4fun : I got slammed with 2 projects and a research paper. I'm sorry I haven't been participating, especially because I said I would. I am finished with the first project, though.

Brigand : That's odd... I have never heard the term and I'm Lutheran as well. LCMS is largely english based though, maybe its a german term?

I see only 2 realistic outcomes of this right now.

1. N. Korea attacks S. Korea. Japan and the US back immediately. China (who is slowly becoming more pissed off) doesn't help N. Korea. Korea is united.

2. China attacks N. Korea and sets up a puppet government.

Brigand : What faith/denomination are you?

What is Saturday? We have Good Friday and Resurrection Sunday (Easter), and Google tells me its "Holy Saturday", but I'm thinking a more proper name would be Hiding-from-Pharisees-and-Romans Saturday.

Just kidding =)

We focus on what Jesus was doing, not the Apostles.

That's a really awkward thing to put in there by mistake, lolololololol

SoL@R : Haha, attacking the argument, not the person. We are all on the same team, im just trying to "organize the troops", if you will.

"...it would be throwing away what you think is right."

You haven't said what you think is right yet. What does our God do that you believe is evil?

"I dont believe any being, man or god, has the right to control others, even if said being created them."

Funny thing, my God agrees with you. Some times I actually wish he did take away freewill on occasion, but he doesn't.

smotpoker86 : "Now would you care to tell me where God put his signature on this 'painting'?"

If there were a "signature" to the "painting", it would be Order.

I was even more confused because "money is the root of all evil" is in the bible. However, it is "the love of money is the root of all evil." I had no idea what to choose, lol.

play4fun :

I deny any truth to a rapture theology. Revelation is a complex book that does not need to be read and given a 6 year old interpretation. Nothing makes me angrier than a really, really bad interpretation (I'm looking at you, Jehovah's Witnesses!). However, I'll ignore it for the time being.

"They will be with Christ until the end times as well as the saints who died in the Great Tribulation..."

This is a vision. John sees souls crying out, "How long? How long?". That does not mean the souls actually cry out. That means John sees souls crying out. Big difference. This is no deception by God though, as some would claim. I personally cry out, "How long? How long?" as do Christians around the world. This is a pressing issue. John answers the question. "...Rest a little longer, until the number of (your) fellow servants and (your) brothers should be complete."

The main focus of the book as a whole is the view of putting their hope on temporal things."

Isn't your, "...the soul when a person dies is to go to heaven if they are saved" temporal? Heaven has a timeline in your mind. If it doesn't, you never get out of heaven and you contradict scripture. If you have a timeline, heaven is a temporal good. God is the only non-temporal good. This is what Qoheleth speaks of. We can only have a relationship with God eternally through a resurrection. This is what Paul speaks of. This is what everyone then spoke of! This is what no one understands today.

"That same day is when the thief died, so when Jesus said today he will be with Christ in paradise, it can just mean that the thief will be with Jesus when He ascended to heaven."

Is that "today"? No... That is 53 days later. Maybe if the thief on the cross was... SLEEPING?????? =)

Aquinas is also already assuming that there is a spiritual paradise. If Aquinas were here, I would challenge his metaphysics first. Aquinas agrees with Aristotle that we are composites of body and soul. However, if Txgangsta were to lose his body, Txgangsta would have a "change of substance" and not actually be Txgangsta any more. Therefore, when Txgangsta loses his body, he can't go to a spiritual paradise because he does not exist. I don't think you believe that, so I cannot attack your metaphysics. Aquinas and I would have fun. He's also my favorite. =)

"If your philosophy does not match up with scripture, you need to double check on both revelations and figure out what is missing."

I think my philosophy matches perfectly with scripture. Its just such a foreign concept that no one really understands it. Everyone believes in rapture or some variant of heresy and refuses to examine such thoughts because I'm the tiniest minority there ever was.

Edit: I am having major formatting issues...
Edit2: Old Post Editor is wonderful =)

play4fun : I was summoned. I'm in. See y'all April 1st.