Is this a correct interpretation of the bible?

[Borgia_dude]

@Meriweather

@Borgia_dude

That’s a fair question. Was there a moral reason to allow women to golf at Augusta? Was there a moral reason to allow women to attend Yale?

Is there anything morally wrong with the over 100 countries around the world that restrict women from a variety of professions?

How about instead you answer my question. What is morally wrong with a male priesthood? Let’s focus there, not on golf, not on boys on Ritalin.

The golf example was to demonstrate the morality of inclusiveness that we seek.

Or, you could also answer this: Why don’t you have confidence that Catholic women are quite able to handle any problems they see within the church or the priesthood?

Do you speak for all Catholic women? Catholic women are asking for change including ordination of women.

Why do you think you need to lend your hand? As a male, you don’t think Catholic women have this ability? Your male assessment is that Catholic women have been brainwashed?

Sure the Catholic women have the ability and they are working towards it. Is it ok if I align with them?

[Borgia_dude]

@Guvnah

@Borgia_dude

I’m sorry you didn’t follow the conversation you stepped into. We were talking about the use of tradition to justify discrimination.

Of course YOU were – to besmirch Catholicism’s use of Tradition (capital T) for some of her doctrines.

I’m glad you are up to speed on the conversation now. Tradition was a topic.

[ImRightYoureWrong]

@Borgia_dude

Sure the Catholic women have the ability and they are working towards it. Is it ok if I align with them?

Right. This notion that all women Catholics are united in favor of male-only priesthood is unfounded. I also am severly skeptical that no woman has ever wanted to attempt to become a priest in the Church and got shutdown due to being female or just never tried due to the tradition

[Meriweather]

@Borgia_dude

Do you speak for all Catholic women?

I am a Catholic woman speaking to you. You have yet to answer my very specific question. What is immoral about a male priesthood? I am not talking golf. I am not talking tradition. I am focused on what you find immoral about a male priesthood.

[Borgia_dude]

@Meriweather

@Borgia_dude

Do you speak for all Catholic women?

I am a Catholic woman speaking to you. You have yet to answer my very specific question. What is immoral about a male priesthood? I am not talking golf. I am not talking tradition. I am focused on what you find immoral about a male priesthood.

Are you speaking about a male-only priesthood?

[Optrader]

@Piper

@Optrader

The Bible says ( I’m paraphrasing here) Can two people walk together unless they are in agreement? The same is true in marriage.

In context, the passage Amos 3:3 “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” has nothing to do with two people being in agreement with each other in what they believe.

The sermonizers seized the passage for their sermons and used it to have control over and keep their congregations in line. They are not allowed an original thought you know. They must be spoon fed.

Amos 3:3 Can two walk together, except they be agreed? 4 Will a lion roar in the forest, when he hath no prey? will a young lion cry out of his den, if he have taken nothing? 5 Can a bird fall in a snare upon the earth, where no gin [is] for him? shall [one] take up a snare from the earth, and have taken nothing at all? 6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid?

The original word for “agreed” is yaad. Primitive Hebrew root defined by Strong’s - - - -"To fix upon )by agreement or appointment) by implication to meet (at a stated time), to summon, , , , ,

The word translated “agreed” has nothing to do with the attitude, purpose or nature of two people while walking together. The agreement is to meet and walk together and is not related to walking together in agreement.

They can debate their differences while walking.

My wife and I frequently debate our differences but we still agree to abide by the same rule. Perhaps my analogy wasn’t perfect, yet the point is rules only work among people if they agree. It only takes one to disagree then the rules get tossed out. The same is true of the Bible. Either follow it or don’t, if you take the prerogative to believe this and disbelieve that, then everyone else has the same prerogative. This is why there’s no common agreement on what it says. God is not the author of confusion…

[Meriweather]

@Borgia_dude

Are you speaking about a male-only priesthood?

If you are speaking of the specific, ordained priesthood in the Catholic Church, yes.

[Borgia_dude]

@Meriweather

@Borgia_dude

Are you speaking about a male-only priesthood?

If you are speaking of the specific, ordained priesthood in the Catholic Church, yes.

Ok. Just clarifying as I have no problem with male priests. So your question is, is it immoral to have a male-only Catholic priesthood?

I would say yes although I am having trouble articulating the reason why. Give me a bit to think about it.

[Meriweather]

@Borgia_dude

I would say yes although I am having trouble articulating the reason why. Give me a bit to think about it.

Okay, and feel free to take your time.

[Piper]

@Optrader

My wife and I frequently debate our differences but we still agree to abide by the same rule. Perhaps my analogy wasn’t perfect, yet the point is rules only work among people if they agree. It only takes one to disagree then the rules get tossed out. The same is true of the Bible. Either follow it or don’t, if you take the prerogative to believe this and disbelieve that, then everyone else has the same prerogative. This is why there’s no common agreement on what it says. God is not the author of confusion…

This is a religious discussion forum, not church. There are no rules that we have to all agree to participate, so it is confusing sometimes.

I search for truth. I believe truth transforms lives and even when searching for it can sustain us in times of distress. The truth frees us from being enslaved, that’s why I am drawn to discussion forums. What truth can’t be found in the material realm, is available in the spiritual realm.

[AZslim]

@ImRightYoureWrong

@Guvnah

And this is why people sidestep questions from you libs.

Always twisting sincere explanations into dishonest misinterpretations.

It’s a perfect example if pearls before swine. I made a huge mistake trusting you with my response.

Wow dude…

This is a common reaction I see here. Make a statement. If the response to the statement is not liked, claim the “lib” twisted it and leave in a huff.

[AZslim]

@Optrader

@Piper

@Optrader

The Bible says ( I’m paraphrasing here) Can two people walk together unless they are in agreement? The same is true in marriage.

In context, the passage Amos 3:3 “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” has nothing to do with two people being in agreement with each other in what they believe.

The sermonizers seized the passage for their sermons and used it to have control over and keep their congregations in line. They are not allowed an original thought you know. They must be spoon fed.

Amos 3:3 Can two walk together, except they be agreed? 4 Will a lion roar in the forest, when he hath no prey? will a young lion cry out of his den, if he have taken nothing? 5 Can a bird fall in a snare upon the earth, where no gin [is] for him? shall [one] take up a snare from the earth, and have taken nothing at all? 6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid?

The original word for “agreed” is yaad. Primitive Hebrew root defined by Strong’s - - - -"To fix upon )by agreement or appointment) by implication to meet (at a stated time), to summon, , , , ,

The word translated “agreed” has nothing to do with the attitude, purpose or nature of two people while walking together. The agreement is to meet and walk together and is not related to walking together in agreement.

They can debate their differences while walking.

My wife and I frequently debate our differences but we still agree to abide by the same rule. Perhaps my analogy wasn’t perfect, yet the point is rules only work among people if they agree. It only takes one to disagree then the rules get tossed out. The same is true of the Bible. Either follow it or don’t, if you take the prerogative to believe this and disbelieve that, then everyone else has the same prerogative. This is why there’s no common agreement on what it says. God is not the author of confusion…

Part of this discussion is that people interpret the bible so differently.

[Optrader]

@AZslim

@Optrader

@Piper

@Optrader

The Bible says ( I’m paraphrasing here) Can two people walk together unless they are in agreement? The same is true in marriage.

In context, the passage Amos 3:3 “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” has nothing to do with two people being in agreement with each other in what they believe.

The sermonizers seized the passage for their sermons and used it to have control over and keep their congregations in line. They are not allowed an original thought you know. They must be spoon fed.

Amos 3:3 Can two walk together, except they be agreed? 4 Will a lion roar in the forest, when he hath no prey? will a young lion cry out of his den, if he have taken nothing? 5 Can a bird fall in a snare upon the earth, where no gin [is] for him? shall [one] take up a snare from the earth, and have taken nothing at all? 6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid?

The original word for “agreed” is yaad. Primitive Hebrew root defined by Strong’s - - - -"To fix upon )by agreement or appointment) by implication to meet (at a stated time), to summon, , , , ,

The word translated “agreed” has nothing to do with the attitude, purpose or nature of two people while walking together. The agreement is to meet and walk together and is not related to walking together in agreement.

They can debate their differences while walking.

My wife and I frequently debate our differences but we still agree to abide by the same rule. Perhaps my analogy wasn’t perfect, yet the point is rules only work among people if they agree. It only takes one to disagree then the rules get tossed out. The same is true of the Bible. Either follow it or don’t, if you take the prerogative to believe this and disbelieve that, then everyone else has the same prerogative. This is why there’s no common agreement on what it says. God is not the author of confusion…

Part of this discussion is that people interpret the bible so differently.

Yup. Absolutely they do. That’s the biggest reason I’m a fundamentalist. Lotta smart and educated people in this forum, but I wouldn’t trust any of them with my eternity. That’s why I believe God made salvation so simple to understand. Because he knew that human beings were going to argue about the rest…

[ImRightYoureWrong]

Add on the personal attack that I’m being deliberately “dishonest” and compared to “swine” just because I see a priest being required to male so that they can “speak in 1st person” as Jesus, as being theatrical. Atheists also get labeled as “bitter” and “angry” if we critically examine others assertions or beliefs

Maybe there’s some sort of verse about casting stones I can quote.

[ImRightYoureWrong]

As much as I think fundamentalists are incorrect in their beliefs, they do seem to be the most consistent in how they use the Bible in their lives. Usually the arguments against fundamentalism are between science/bible not bible vs bible if that makes sense.

[Meriweather]

@AZslim

If the response to the statement is not liked, claim the “lib” twisted it and leave in a huff.

In many cases is not leaving in a huff. Whether the other party is deliberately twisting or simply continually misunderstands or misinterprets what the other is saying, the hard truth is that the two are not on the same train of thought. Whomever the other party believes he is in a discussion with, it is not the first party, it is someone else s/he has created in his/her own mind. Who wants to be a third party to that? Shrug.

[ImRightYoureWrong]

@Meriweather

Whomever the other party believes he is in a discussion with, it is not the first party, it is someone else s/he has created in his/her own mind.

You don’t read my posts. How are you taking sides on this issue? I simply voiced my opinion that priesthood sexual orientation based on reading Jesus in 1st person is theatrical. I was immediately called dishonest and “swine” and for some reason “lib”.

[Meriweather]

@AZslim

Part of this discussion is that people interpret the bible so differently.

I see that as part of the power of the Bible. People bring in different perspectives.

[Guvnah]

@ImRightYoureWrong

“swine”

Smart people know I did not call you swine.

That’s just another dishonest misrepresentation on your part.

[Optrader]

@ImRightYoureWrong

As much as I think fundamentalists are incorrect in their beliefs, they do seem to be the most consistent in how they use the Bible in their lives. Usually the arguments against fundamentalism are between science/bible not bible vs bible if that makes sense.

Which is why God separated salvation from other non salvation issues. Creation vs. evolution is not a salvation issue for example. If a person ends up in Hell, it’s not going to be because they disbelieved in Adam and Eve. Nor does believing in Adam and Eve get you a pass into Heaven either. If you never accept Christ as savior, it’s all moot, it won’t matter what else you were right about.