Jimmy's A Legend Posted December 5, 2008 Share Posted December 5, 2008 Ok my essay is "should women have the same roles as men in religeon" To get a higher mark i need some belifs and opinions...so if you guys could help me I would be really really thankful NOTE: I don't want this to turn out to be a fight over religeon and poeple getting angry over eachother Thanks JAL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucyinthesky Posted December 5, 2008 Share Posted December 5, 2008 Let's rock, Lucia! First of all, the first cults and religions were orienteted on maternal deities, and the wonder of birth. In the first cultures, women had (as far as it can be said now) a very high status and probably also a big role in religion. So you could say that in the most natural state of human being, womenalready were considered very important. The second argument coming in my mind is, that women are known to be more emotional and maybe also more accesible for the supernatural than men (take the oracle of Delphi as an example, or Hildegard von Bingen). And since emotion and relevation plays a big part in religions, women might be very appropiate for these functions. Another point is that women can clearly be as intelligent and rational as men. This is proven and it is completely silly not to use all spiritual resources that one has. If I think a little bit, there might be more arguments, so let me meditate a bit. OMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronniedawg Posted December 5, 2008 Share Posted December 5, 2008 I dunno......I mean, Eve being created by one of Adam's spare ribs and all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy's A Legend Posted December 5, 2008 Author Share Posted December 5, 2008 Let's rock, Lucia! First of all, the first cults and religions were orienteted on maternal deities, and the wonder of birth. In the first cultures, women had (as far as it can be said now) a very high status and probably also a big role in religion. So you could say that in the most natural state of human being, womenalready were considered very important. Can me stupid but I actually have never heard that side of the story before, do you possibly have any proof of where it came from? Ronniedawq ^ [iYukon Corelius] I will search her up, thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucyinthesky Posted December 5, 2008 Share Posted December 5, 2008 Can me stupid but I actually have never heard that side of the story before, do you possibly have any proof of where it came from? Ronniedawq ^ [iYukon Corelius] I will search her up, thanks! Okay, you're definitely not stupid. But take the Venus of Willendorf as an example for the adoration women had thenvenus of willendorf, or the cult of magna mater in ancient Rome. Or- another example of ancient Rome - the Vestal Virgins who were most worshipped and had a high status in the society... I don't have the books by the hand to research more in the moment...sorry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lzfan715 Posted December 6, 2008 Share Posted December 6, 2008 I believe that women should be able to have just as a high place in religion, but many religions don't believe that. I know where I go to church (not by choice), that women have prescribed rule. They are to be in the kitchen cooking, quiet, and having children. I think that's wrong. Women have every right to be active in religion, and every other way of life. They can rationalize as well as men, have opinions, thoughts, and should be able to freely express them within a church but unfortunatly that isn't always possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirchzep27 Posted December 6, 2008 Share Posted December 6, 2008 wing it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virginia Posted December 6, 2008 Share Posted December 6, 2008 This is another reason I am not a practicing Catholic. I believe women should be able to be priests, and that priests should be able to get married or be in relationships. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted December 6, 2008 Share Posted December 6, 2008 In Catholicism, women can't be priests or deacons, but they can have other duties. I've got no problem with that. Not saying they're less of human beings, it's just tradition. Depends on the religion and severity we're talking though. I mean, surely the women in Saudi Arabia should be treated wayyy better, and should more religious say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirchzep27 Posted December 6, 2008 Share Posted December 6, 2008 When i was a kid, the ministers wife ran the sunday school and while they were at that church their son had been in college and was in a car accident and was paralyzed. In those several yrs of me sort of growing up and graduating from church, it certainly made for some inspiring thoughts related to god and the bible. they were great folks and mrs moon was from sweden i think. They were really good, i'm glad they were able to balance their job and have some personality while doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I have got a horsey Posted December 6, 2008 Share Posted December 6, 2008 In Catholicism, women can't be priests or deacons, but they can have other duties. I've got no problem with that. Not saying they're less of human beings, it's just tradition. Depends on the religion and severity we're talking though. I mean, surely the women in Saudi Arabia should be treated wayyy better, and should more religious say. Tradition can only last so long before it becomes irrelevant. The male domination of men in religion is only because of the traditional parochial societies where Christianity/Judaism/Islam came from. We as a society have decided that gender equality is the way we wish to live, so therefore you can't have an organisation such as the Christian church which exists as a mixed gender establishment using 'tradition' as an excuse for the continuation of the inequality of the sexes. Having an annual parade through the streets is a good tradition. Telling women they can't be priests because only men have ever done it is merely a sign of a fear of change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted December 6, 2008 Share Posted December 6, 2008 It's not a fear of change at all. I just think the priesthood is a calling for men. Women can join the sisterhood if they wish. People don't like it, there are other religions out there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I have got a horsey Posted December 6, 2008 Share Posted December 6, 2008 It's not a fear of change at all. I just think the priesthood is a calling for men. Women can join the sisterhood if they wish. People don't like it, there are other religions out there Yeah, but why is the prieshood only a calling for men? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted December 6, 2008 Share Posted December 6, 2008 All Twelve Apostles were handpicked by Jesus. All Twelve were men. The priesthood continues that line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I have got a horsey Posted December 6, 2008 Share Posted December 6, 2008 All Twelve Apostles were handpicked by Jesus. All Twelve were men. The priesthood continues that line. Yeah, but St Paul, in one of his letters to the Corinthians, said women should always have their heads covered, and never speak in church and to abdicate to the ultimate authority of their husbands... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted December 6, 2008 Share Posted December 6, 2008 Some traditions are worth keeping. Also, the latter is not Church doctrine, nor has it been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I have got a horsey Posted December 6, 2008 Share Posted December 6, 2008 Some traditions are worth keeping. Also, the latter is not Church doctrine, nor has it been. But surely preventing women from being Priests is an indication of adhering to the institution rather than inspiration from Jesus's teachings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted December 6, 2008 Share Posted December 6, 2008 But surely preventing women from being Priests is an indication of adhering to the institution rather than inspiration from Jesus's teachings Why didn't he pick women to join the Apostles? Women have their part, the priesthood is not one of those parts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted December 6, 2008 Share Posted December 6, 2008 But surely preventing women from being Priests is an indication of adhering to the institution rather than inspiration from Jesus's teachings It's more an indication of adhering to the Old Testament, when the role of a priestess was equated with that of a temple prostitute. Because the priest is seen as a bridge between sinners and God, a human sin offering to bring the congregation closer to absolution and salvation, the role of priest has historically been restricted to males in the practice of Judaism. In the early days of civilization, women's roles most often were that of child-bearers for the sake of survival of the community, primarily meant for marriage or holy matrimony for the sake of procreation. Deuteronomy 23:17 (NLT) “No Israelite man or woman may ever become a temple prostitute.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I have got a horsey Posted December 6, 2008 Share Posted December 6, 2008 Why didn't he pick women to join the Apostles? Women have their part, the priesthood is not one of those parts Ah well this is where Jesus and certainly St Paul become very interesting... We have letters from St Paul or attributed to St Paul expressing his views on women and their status. Now St Paul was running around with Jesus for 3 years or so, jesus the guy we've all been talking about for 2,000 years. St Paul was one of the original hand picked apostles, the only thing bigger than being an ex-Beatle. So given St Paul's views on women, we've only got certain options: a ) That Jesus shared similar views to St Paul (which disappoints me because I would expect more from the Son of God) b ) That St Paul held views different to Jesus... (well, would you be disagreeing with the Son of God?) c ) Jesus never expressed any opinions on women and St Paul, after spending 3 years with Jesus, ended up not being very enlightened and merely echoed the prevailing attitude of his time. So we either have Jesus himself being sexist, or St Paul thinking his opinions were more valid than Jesus's, or the founder of the Catholic Church who spent all this time with God son, established his church and held views and opinions no more enlightened than the views of ordinary people at the time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted December 6, 2008 Share Posted December 6, 2008 Whoa, Yukon slow down bud, I think you misunderstood me. I'm not saying Jesus degraded women or something. I'm simply saying that the priesthood is a continuation of the Apostles or sorts. They were men, so are priests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted December 6, 2008 Share Posted December 6, 2008 c ) Jesus never expressed any opinions on women and St Paul, after spending 3 years with Jesus, ended up not being very enlightened and merely echoed the prevailing attitude of his time.If I had to choose, I pick c, but for different reasons. Jesus did not consider women lesser beings. He never made any form of reference like that. St. Paul, a great man, was definitely intelligent. However, the difference between him and Jesus was that (in my beliefs anywho) Paul was all man yet no part God. He learned a lot from Jesus, but he was still human. He was still somewhat of a product of the times occasionally. He still committed sins as we all do. Just how things work. I wouldn't go nearly as far to say he wasn't enlightened, but rather, he wasn't perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUCK'EYE' DOC Posted December 6, 2008 Share Posted December 6, 2008 Ah well this is where Jesus and certainly St Paul become very interesting... We have letters from St Paul or attributed to St Paul expressing his views on women and their status. Now St Paul was running around with Jesus for 3 years or so, jesus the guy we've all been talking about for 2,000 years. St Paul was one of the original hand picked apostles, the only thing bigger than being an ex-Beatle. So given St Paul's views on women, we've only got certain options: a ) That Jesus shared similar views to St Paul (which disappoints me because I would expect more from the Son of God) b ) That St Paul held views different to Jesus... (well, would you be disagreeing with the Son of God?) c ) Jesus never expressed any opinions on women and St Paul, after spending 3 years with Jesus, ended up not being very enlightened and merely echoed the prevailing attitude of his time. So we either have Jesus himself being sexist, or St Paul thinking his opinions were more valid than Jesus's, or the founder of the Catholic Church who spent all this time with God son, established his church and held views and opinions no more enlightened than the views of ordinary people at the time... Just a note here: St. Paul was not one of the original twelve apostles and there is no evidence that he ever met Jesus before his crucifixion. If you remember, Paul was originally Saul, and he persecuted Christians. He was converted to Christianity when he was on the road to Damascus and had a vision of the reserected Jesus. So St. Paul was not running around with Jesus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted December 6, 2008 Share Posted December 6, 2008 Jesus never expressed any opinions on women and St Paul, after spending 3 years with Jesus, ended up not being very enlightened and merely echoed the prevailing attitude of his time. So we either have Jesus himself being sexist, or St Paul thinking his opinions were more valid than Jesus's, or the founder of the Catholic Church who spent all this time with God son, established his church and held views and opinions no more enlightened than the views of ordinary people at the time... Jesus spoke cautiously because He knew the Pharisees would find fault in Him. Matthew 10: 16, "Behold, I am sending you forth like sheep in the midst of wolves. Be therefore wise as serpents, and guileless as doves. But beware of men; for they will deliver you up to councils, and scourge you in their synagogues, and will be brought before governors and kings for My sake, for a witness to them and to the Gentiles. But when they deliver you up, do not be anxious how or what you are to speak; for what you are to speak will be given you in that hour." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted December 6, 2008 Share Posted December 6, 2008 Just a note here: St. Paul was not one of the original twelve apostles and there is no evidence that he ever met Jesus before his crucifixion. If you remember, Paul was originally Saul, and he persecuted Christians. He was converted to Christianity when he was on the road to Damascus and had a vision of the reserected Jesus. So St. Paul was not running around with Jesus. True, but he was certainly influenced by Him no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.