Eto and Echo Gone!

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Um, I think the Gender Equality in Christianity thing is detracting from the main off-topic thing.

Back on topic off topic, I never said they were equal, simply that they were sentient.

As for why they don't organize and prioritize, you don't determine sentence by how many cities you build or files you enter. If they think and communicate their thoughts, they are sentient. Their goal is the same goal as many single unemployed males, as it consists mainly of sitting around and scratching themselves while trying to stay alive. They have no priorities because they have no tasks they need to organize.
Termites are completely goal oriented. They coordinate, they build, they cooperate, and they create using only their bodies and wood fragments towers over 15 feet high, which is especially impressive if you consider the relative size, yet they are the opposite of sentience, mindless automatons.

[InfiniteStarfox]

Ah, but you're forgetting the fact that humans can organize around a goal - or not, as according to their free will. So again, humanity has the edge as it has reason, understanding, and will. We're not mindless, and we can choose to fulfill the greater goals we are capable of. The fact that a termite is like a mindless drone or a gorilla does not show any sign of, shall we say, advanced organizational skill, and that a human generally checks them both (or is capable of doing so) in the categories you bring up illustrates that which seperate us from them.

And yes, organization and priority are very important, otherwise you might turn on a calculator after already typing in the equation, or practice juggling while your house burns down around you. Let's not forget, to have a blue sky above, you first need the sky before you can have the blue, just as you need to have 1 before you have 3. Concepts easy to grasp for a species that is capable of grasping.

Now, I never said a human HAD to fulfill the goals and purpose it has, as I can lift weights or read physics all day to get stronger or smarter, but I don't. You have to realize, whereas a human can build cities, cure disease, and manipulate the world to better all (which is a path toward its ultimate goal of doing good, or it can plan to destroy, making it's goal to stray from the path), this simply is not the case anywhere else. A gorilla can't effectively live for an end nor show any signs of dedication towards goals beyond what it physically feels, and a termite exhibits no sign of free choice to build and create (creating simple structures, mind you). So taken as a whole, the capabilities of rational humanity outweigh that of other living organisms, as a result of my argument beginning from the Aristolean Causes and the concept of the eternal soul and purpose.

Though examples of behavior reminiscent to what humans can do does give your argument weight, you're point is forgetting to compare the full potential of the subjects.
So until there is another creature capable of showing the signs of a rational, understanding soul that exhibits a movement or capacity for freely chosing and striving for a better or worse situation by applying its knowledge, it cannot be said that it is equal to a person, able to both ask and contemplate "why?" as well as pursue its answer.

Maybe I should ask Lilly what she thinks of all this; I've always enjoyed the immaculate, idealistic views of those unfettered by the ills of the dark side of the force. MUHAHA-ah I'm too lazy, and finals are next week. My top short-term Priority? Get the heck out of High School, nice and clean. I better freakin' ace that philosophy final...

[bloodsong]

I have met nuns already fully committed to Christ and the Church, yet they feel cheated because they cannot preside over the most fundamental ritual. Clinging to a patricarchal format simply because that's the way it was 1500 years ago is not in the Church's best interest.

I never saw priests as representations of Christ. I see them as beloved retainers, working for Christ, not a physical conduit. How can they be? Christ is Christ, humanity is supposed to be His followers, not His manifestation. Using this logic, having women serve is not only feasible, it would be desirable. This way, equality before God is reflected in the physical world, which in turn could endear more men and women to Holy Orders.

The sad fact is, with as many priests dying and being removed due to sexual scandals, it IS becoming a numbers game. Like it or not, recruitment may become necessary. Personally, I think having a poster in the youth hall suggesting Holy Orders would be very condusive. It puts it right in the young people's faces and gives them another reason to consider the option. Yes, it is a calling and a committment.
It is "until death do you part". To say, or even insinuate, that a woman is not capable of making such a committment and do it well is discrimination, pure and simple. Women can and should be allowed to take Holy Orders and preside over Mass.

As far as reality goes, that falls under the same problems as truth. It's subjective. Reality is what you choose to make of it.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to bow out of this conversation. I knew we weren't going to see eye to eye, I was hoping for acknowledgement of my view. I can see it's not going to happen, which is quite all right. Hopefully, I've given everyone something to think about.

Blessed be.

[InfiniteStarfox]

I guess you're right that we won't see eye to eye, but don't think I haven't already taken your view into consideration long before our discussion. However, with what I believe about love and marriage, what the Church says does have validity as well.

Now to answer if the priest is Christ, it's no physically, but they do work as a link (like a window) as well as a servant. You have to remember that the Pope acts as the head of the Church on earth and is what represents, but isn't, Christ. The apostolic sucession traced back to Peter and the Apostles follows this, as priests were ordained by their superiors, who were ordained by the pope, who was ordained by the previous pope ultimately leading to Christ ordaining Peter. Christ is not manifest in the priest, like in the Eucharist, but is represented by the Priest in the Mass.

Also, I didn't insinuate anything. Do you consider it discrimination that a man can't give birth to a child? A man can never know such a pain and joy. Or can a woman ever father a child? It's contradictory to our nature, not discrimination. My point is, that though they may want to, a mother cannot be a father and a father a mother. Though one may ACT to fulfill the role of the other, naturally you cannot be what you are not.

It is difficult to percieve the immaterial ideals of the Church on this, because a priest does not fall under the physical consequences of a loving marriage (i.e., sex and children).
However, the rules must still apply as if the person were, as the covenant recognizes things in the same magnitude of both physical and spiritual being one, as the person is still human. How can you love something only in part, and still call it love? A marriage takes into account all aspects as much as possible to fully love a person's successes and shortcomings - to fail to do so can lead to a failure to understand, which would lead to a failure to give yourself fully and in the best way, which is the point of a marriage. A priest's 'marriage' to God and the Church must observe the role he must take and the requirements on all levels of existence, including the fact that a Father would have to be male. Though this sounds daunting, this is the true nature of a covenant like this. A man can become a biological father, which I repeat is not discrimination, and the Church parallels this. That is all there is too it.

And finally, truth is not subjective as there is always an overall effect. Though you may not see the consequences in full of your actions, those consequences exist. What your actions accomplish is what is, and what is, is the truth. It comes down to what your aim was, and what actions must be taken to reach perfection (which is the logical final point of creation). The truth exists in perfection, and the only real truth in this world is what leads us to that perfection. Hence, as perfection exists, as good exists, so does truth.

But yeah, let's agree that we disagree in viewpoints. If the Church decided to leave out biology in its practice, then of course women would make excellent priests. However, you have to respect their decisions, as they have sound reason behind it.

[Ellian]

Originally posted by Infinite StarFox:
...then of course women would make excellent priests.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, you see, StarFox, in my church they do, as I?m evangelic. No offense intended, though.

And without intending to be mean, I would like to add a saying of the Zuni indians: "There is no truth. There are only stories." Feel free to diasgree, of course. [img]smile.gif[/img] I perfer to think of truth - as we know it - as a man-made concept. Please let me clarify this a bit: While something as universal truth might very well exist, I doubt that any human being is in possession of it.
It?s somewhat like with mathematics: Things which could be described mathematically do not act the way they do because the laws of math say so, but these mathematical laws were created to describe nature as observed by science, while still being a model and not necessarily the only way to describe things. There was a mathematician who proved that our concept of mathematics is not the only possible one, but I forgot the name... might look it up, if you are interested.
So my conclusion on this issue is basically simple: While I freely admit that I?m not capable of seeing the whole picture, I daresay that there is not a single human being who is.

By the way, StarFox, you have my sympathies for having to fight those mindlessly religion-bashing fools so often. Some people just don?t get it that even atheism is a belief like anything else, and not any more scientific or rational.

But I don?t want to stir up things further. Let?s remember some basic values. Shouldn?t we all, apart from religion and politics, just be able to be friends regardless of different ideologies? I would just like to advocate the peaceful coexistence of different beliefs. Many religions have been abused to justify just those very things that are basically contrary to their nature. I dare call myself a Christian but still have to agree to bloodsong on a lot of points, as well as I accept your point of view on some others. So beat me, whoever likes to. I?ll gladly turn the other cheek. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Maybe we should really finish this topic off...

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ May 22, 2004 06:13 PM: Message edited by: Ellian ]</font>

[InfiniteStarfox]

Remember, I'm only reasoning for the Catholic Church and explaining its mentality, as I've taken the time to figure it out. Of course, a lot of Protestant faiths have variations, as they originated from a break with Catholicism, and the difference on this issue has more to do with the differing emphasis on several Sacraments, but that's another can of worms.

And I've come across that math theory, it states that our number system is based on the fact we have 10 fingers, and developed from that. So Homer Simpson's ten would be our eight, for example. But the idea of the value is set, we just use limited language and writing to describe the quantity of the form, which is what Plato would argue. So we know the number and what it means, we just give the idea of 5 a symbol to represent it, to make things easier.

Oh, and I agree with you that people do not know the whole truth. However, that doesn't mean you can stop striving for it, and as long as you genuinely do your best in all you do, you can't say you didn't try. You may not see it all yet, but the more you do, the better, right?

And finally, I agree that the world should work for peace. Any true religion works to better the individual, and teach them how to become a better person for others. Again, the whole idea of all points are to be directed toward the one focal point of creation - perfection. But realize that there are those who do not understand this, and desire to destroy for the sake of destruction and must be stopped. Unfortunately, the only way to stop the fanatics and truly dangerous is by force, because it is all they understand. As we are not perfect, we do not have the ability to stop and create from everything, but we can stop a greater evil with a lesser one. All we can do is what we can, to the best of our ability.

[cheesemaster125]

Check out this forum [img]graemlins/sleepy.gif[/img]