|
Post by StAnne on Sept 25, 2013 12:33:46 GMT -5
What bothers me is the message that sends about human women and the process of making and having a baby. The miracle of birth is 'too dirty' for a God. What message does that send? That women and their 'functions' are somehow inferior. Once again, the role of women has been negated. Everywhere you turn in religion the woman is less than. I have never liked the message that sends about women. Once again, the role of women has been negated.Is the miracle and honor in the birthing process or is it rather in the carrying, nurturing, and giving flesh and life to one's baby? Wouldn't your stance negate women who have to be delivered by C-sec? You may want to step back long enough from what you just presented to realize that woman is honored and gifted far more than a man in the life-giving process. I think I recall that you have also complained how unfavored women are to have to endure the pains of childbirth (because of Eve's sin). So which is it?
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Sept 25, 2013 13:55:42 GMT -5
What bothers me is the message that sends about human women and the process of making and having a baby. The miracle of birth is 'too dirty' for a God. What message does that send? That women and their 'functions' are somehow inferior. Once again, the role of women has been negated. Everywhere you turn in religion the woman is less than. I have never liked the message that sends about women. Once again, the role of women has been negated.Is the miracle and honor in the birthing process or is it rather in the carrying, nurturing, and giving flesh and life to one's baby? Wouldn't your stance negate women who have to be delivered by C-sec? You may want to step back long enough from the ugliness you just presented to realize that woman is honored and gifted far more than a man in the life-giving process. I think I recall that you have also complained how unfavored women are to have to endure the pains of childbirth (because of Eve's sin). So which is it? I see no inconsistency in Snow's position. I also see no ugliness in it. Your church teaches that the pain experienced by women during childbirth will forever represent, according to the story, the failure of "the first woman". I agree with Snow that this perpetuates a disrespectful view (negation) of this role of women among those who believe the story. Your church also teaches that Jesus did not come into the world through a woman's birth canal. The RC story makes a general symbolic suggestion that the natural female birthing process and the associated parts are unsavory or unworthy in some way. It perpetuates the disrespect (negation) introduced by the first story. Your church perpetuates stories that are disrespectful (negating) of women and their natural role in bringing new life into the world. This is not relieved in any way by the fact that some women bring life into the world via C-section.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 25, 2013 13:59:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Sept 25, 2013 14:36:01 GMT -5
Once again, the role of women has been negated.Is the miracle and honor in the birthing process or is it rather in the carrying, nurturing, and giving flesh and life to one's baby? Wouldn't your stance negate women who have to be delivered by C-sec? You may want to step back long enough from the ugliness you just presented to realize that woman is honored and gifted far more than a man in the life-giving process. I think I recall that you have also complained how unfavored women are to have to endure the pains of childbirth (because of Eve's sin). So which is it? I see no inconsistency in Snow's position. I also see no ugliness in it. Your church teaches that the pain experienced by women during childbirth will forever represent, according to the story, the failure of "the first woman". I agree with Snow that this perpetuates a disrespectful view (negation) of this role of women among those who believe the story. Your church also teaches that Jesus did not come into the world through a woman's birth canal. The RC story makes a general symbolic suggestion that the natural female birthing process and the associated parts are unsavory or unworthy in some way. It perpetuates the disrespect (negation) introduced by the first story. Your church perpetuates stories that are disrespectful (negating) of women and their natural role in bringing new life into the world. This is not relieved in any way by the fact that some women bring life into the world via C-section. The ugliness (although I have changed that, we must have cross-posted) is that any of us should think ourselves better or more knowing than God who created us, gave us our soul, and indeed himself in the flesh on the Cross, for our ransome from sin that we may have eternal life in his glory. It is ugliness to say that the Church teaches things that would denegrate women in any way. It surely does not. The Church in fact teaches the dignity of every human, in fact emphasizes the dignity of every human and the sanctity of life. snow's inconsistencies are as I have already indicated.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Sept 25, 2013 14:48:55 GMT -5
I see no inconsistency in Snow's position. I also see no ugliness in it. Your church teaches that the pain experienced by women during childbirth will forever represent, according to the story, the failure of "the first woman". I agree with Snow that this perpetuates a disrespectful view (negation) of this role of women among those who believe the story. Your church also teaches that Jesus did not come into the world through a woman's birth canal. The RC story makes a general symbolic suggestion that the natural female birthing process and the associated parts are unsavory or unworthy in some way. It perpetuates the disrespect (negation) introduced by the first story. Your church perpetuates stories that are disrespectful (negating) of women and their natural role in bringing new life into the world. This is not relieved in any way by the fact that some women bring life into the world via C-section. The ugliness (although I have changed that, we must have cross-posted) is that any of us should think ourselves better than God who created us, gave us our soul, and indeed himself in the flesh on the Cross, for our ransome from sin that we may have eternal life in his glory. snow's inconsistencies are as I have already indicated. You believe the stories and see ugliness in the point of view that Snow expresses. I don't believe the stories and see a systemic devaluing of the female in them that Snow articulates. What are the inconsistencies?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 25, 2013 15:12:59 GMT -5
What bothers me is the message that sends about human women and the process of making and having a baby. The miracle of birth is 'too dirty' for a God. What message does that send? That women and their 'functions' are somehow inferior. Once again, the role of women has been negated. Everywhere you turn in religion the woman is less than. I have never liked the message that sends about women. Once again, the role of women has been negated.Is the miracle and honor in the birthing process or is it rather in the carrying, nurturing, and giving flesh and life to one's baby? Wouldn't your stance negate women who have to be delivered by C-sec? You may want to step back long enough from what you just presented to realize that woman is honored and gifted far more than a man in the life-giving process. I think I recall that you have also complained how unfavored women are to have to endure the pains of childbirth (because of Eve's sin). So which is it? We are gifted in the life giving process. I agree. That's why I don't see any benefit to saying Mary didn't do it the natural human way. I have never complained about pain in childbirth. I have said the concept of original sin is not believable and just another way to negate women by blaming it on Eve. Men can't have children or give life in that sense. But religion has found a way to take a beautiful process and negate it with a story of why women have pain in childbirth being because they are guilty of Original sin.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Sept 25, 2013 16:06:53 GMT -5
But religion has found a way to take a beautiful process and negate it with a story of why women have pain in childbirth being because they are guilty of Original sin. I don't see it that way at all. Perhaps it is because even though we experienced similarities in our early 'religion' - we have had very different experiences going forward.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Sept 25, 2013 16:21:24 GMT -5
But Stanne, it doesn't seem equitable that Jesus being born any other way then the way humans are born that he could be expected to be 100 per cent human without going through the birthing process....this poofing a divine soul/spirit out of a human body without going through the human process IN ORDER that Jesus be 100 per cent human and 100 per cent God can be a possibility...strange that thought! - Is it any greater miracle than Conception by the power of the Holy Spirit with a human mother only?
- Is is any greater miracle than the Incarnation - Jesus' divine nature joined ever after to human nature?
- Is it any greater miracle than Jesus' body returning to life and raising himself Glorified, out of the tomb?
We believe these revelations of God through faith - to which God's grants us a measure of understanding and acceptance of His holy mysteries. (Just as He granted you the understanding of the Holy Trinity - Thanks be to God!)stanne, I'm not denying that such a thing was out of thepowers of God at all....I'm just talking about making sure that Jesus was 100 per cent human to his 100 percent God..... Besides when it is written that someone is born, then the natural process of exiting the womb of the mother via the birth canal is what is expected and yes, in later years C-section were a deviation of being born! But it appears that Mary and Joseph were the only ones that witnessed that birth and for Joseph sake I'd think Mary doing it normally would be leniency from God for Joseph's sake.....otherwords by Joseph helping birth Jesus made Joseph MORE apt to "feel" to be the babes father on earth...being ready to keep the babe safe and healthy and also keep the mother safe and healthy! I hope the Catholics rid themselves of such "fable-like" telling of this "birth of the Lord and let it go as it is written that Jesus was "born"......
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Sept 25, 2013 16:49:43 GMT -5
- Is it any greater miracle than Conception by the power of the Holy Spirit with a human mother only?
- Is is any greater miracle than the Incarnation - Jesus' divine nature joined ever after to human nature?
- Is it any greater miracle than Jesus' body returning to life and raising himself Glorified, out of the tomb?
We believe these revelations of God through faith - to which God's grants us a measure of understanding and acceptance of His holy mysteries. (Just as He granted you the understanding of the Holy Trinity - Thanks be to God!)stanne, I'm not denying that such a thing was out of thepowers of God at all....I'm just talking about making sure that Jesus was 100 per cent human to his 100 percent God..... Besides when it is written that someone is born, then the natural process of exiting the womb of the mother via the birth canal is what is expected and yes, in later years C-section were a deviation of being born! But it appears that Mary and Joseph were the only ones that witnessed that birth and for Joseph sake I'd think Mary doing it normally would be leniency from God for Joseph's sake.....otherwords by Joseph helping birth Jesus made Joseph MORE apt to "feel" to be the babes father on earth...being ready to keep the babe safe and healthy and also keep the mother safe and healthy! I hope the Catholics rid themselves of such "fable-like" telling of this "birth of the Lord and let it go as it is written that Jesus was "born"...... No, I know you're not denying God's power. Joseph knew from the very beginning that this was a miraculous event - by the visit from the angel. I hope the Catholics rid themselves of such "fable-like" telling of this "birth of the LordTo a good number here, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is 'fable-like' - but now not to you. The doctrines proclaimed by the church are protected by Jesus' promise that the church would not teach error; and by the power given to bind and loose.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Sept 25, 2013 16:50:10 GMT -5
- Is it any greater miracle than Conception by the power of the Holy Spirit with a human mother only?
- Is is any greater miracle than the Incarnation - Jesus' divine nature joined ever after to human nature?
- Is it any greater miracle than Jesus' body returning to life and raising himself Glorified, out of the tomb?
We believe these revelations of God through faith - to which God's grants us a measure of understanding and acceptance of His holy mysteries. (Just as He granted you the understanding of the Holy Trinity - Thanks be to God!)stanne, I'm not denying that such a thing was out of thepowers of God at all....I'm just talking about making sure that Jesus was 100 per cent human to his 100 percent God..... Besides when it is written that someone is born, then the natural process of exiting the womb of the mother via the birth canal is what is expected and yes, in later years C-section were a deviation of being born! But it appears that Mary and Joseph were the only ones that witnessed that birth and for Joseph sake I'd think Mary doing it normally would be leniency from God for Joseph's sake.....otherwords by Joseph helping birth Jesus made Joseph MORE apt to "feel" to be the babes father on earth...being ready to keep the babe safe and healthy and also keep the mother safe and healthy! I hope the Catholics rid themselves of such "fable-like" telling of this "birth of the Lord and let it go as it is written that Jesus was "born"...... No, I know you're not denying God's power. Joseph knew from the very beginning that this was a miraculous event - by the visit from the angel. I hope the Catholics rid themselves of such "fable-like" telling of this "birth of the LordTo a good number here, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is 'fable-like' - but now not to you. The doctrines proclaimed by the church are protected by Jesus' promise that the church would not teach error; and by the power given to bind and loose.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 25, 2013 20:02:16 GMT -5
I see no inconsistency in Snow's position. I also see no ugliness in it. Your church teaches that the pain experienced by women during childbirth will forever represent, according to the story, the failure of "the first woman". I agree with Snow that this perpetuates a disrespectful view (negation) of this role of women among those who believe the story. Your church also teaches that Jesus did not come into the world through a woman's birth canal. The RC story makes a general symbolic suggestion that the natural female birthing process and the associated parts are unsavory or unworthy in some way. It perpetuates the disrespect (negation) introduced by the first story. Your church perpetuates stories that are disrespectful (negating) of women and their natural role in bringing new life into the world. This is not relieved in any way by the fact that some women bring life into the world via C-section. The ugliness (although I have changed that, we must have cross-posted) is that any of us should think ourselves better or more knowing than God who created us, gave us our soul, and indeed himself in the flesh on the Cross, for our ransome from sin that we may have eternal life in his glory. It is ugliness to say that the Church teaches things that would denegrate women in any way. It surely does not. The Church in fact teaches the dignity of every human, in fact emphasizes the dignity of every human and the sanctity of life.snow's inconsistencies are as I have already indicated. Oh -really?
So, anne, you are saying that it is, "ugliness" to say that the Church teaches things that would denegrate women in any way. It surely does not."
Then, anne, are you also denying that these quotes were made by any of the church fathers? 20 Vile Quotes Against Women By Religious Leaders From St. Augustine to Pat RobertsonThe media’s most unabashed misogynists are actually tame compared to their ideological ancestors, which include the biggest names in Christian history. June 30, 2013 | With diatribes about entertainers who invite rape and moms who are destroying America by supporting their families...with ignorant arguments about fetuses that masturbate, and females who might as well if they use contraception, and fetal personhood that trumps the personhood of females...it’s tempting to think that Christian conservatives have reached some new pinnacle of hating women and sexuality. But the sad reality is that even the media’s most unabashed misogynists like Michele Bachmann, Michael Burgess, Lou Dobbs and Juan Williams are actually tame compared to their ideological ancestors, including some of the biggest names in Christian history. In past centuries, men who were hailed as church fathers, patriarchs, doctors, and even saints boldly expressed their view that females are inferior and loathsome, and they explained at length why God shared their perspective. Lest we fall into the conservative trap of thinking that the past was somehow better than the nasty messes we face today, it’s worth pondering some of the lovely tidbits the Church has thought fit to preserve and promote in the centuries since Christianity was founded.
Here are some of the most savory. They come from three waves of religious leaders: “Fathers” of the Catholic Church, Protestant reformers, and American patriarchs who inherited the mantle of both. Church Doctors and Fathers· " [For women] the very consciousness of their own nature must evoke feelings of shame."– Saint Clement of Alexandria, Christian theologian (c150-215) Pedagogues II, 33, 2 · " In pain shall you bring forth children, woman, and you shall turn to your husband and he shall rule over you. And do you not know that you are Eve? God’s sentence hangs still over all your sex and His punishment weighs down upon you. You are the devil’s gateway; you are she who first violated the forbidden tree and broke the law of God. It was you who coaxed your way around him whom the devil had not the force to attack. With what ease you shattered that image of God: Man! Because of the death you merited, even the Son of God had to die... Woman, you are the gate to hell." – Tertullian, “the father of Latin Christianity” (c160-225) · " Woman is a temple built over a sewer." – Tertullian, “the father of Latin Christianity” (c160-225) ·" Woman was merely man's helpmate, a function which pertains to her alone. She is not the image of God but as far as man is concerned, he is by himself the image of God." – Saint Augustine, Bishop of Hippo Regius (354-430) · " Woman does not possess the image of God in herself but only when taken together with the male who is her head, so that the whole substance is one image. But when she is assigned the role as helpmate, a function that pertains to her alone, then she is not the image of God. But as far as the man is concerned, he is by himself alone the image of God just as fully and completely as when he and the woman are joined together into one." – Saint Augustine, Bishop of Hippo Regius (354-430) ·" Woman is a misbegotten man and has a faulty and defective nature in comparison to his. Therefore she is unsure in herself. What she cannot get, she seeks to obtain through lying and diabolical deceptions. And so, to put it briefly, one must be on one's guard with every woman, as if she were a poisonous snake and the horned devil. ... Thus in evil and perverse doings woman is cleverer, that is, slyer, than man. H er feelings drive woman toward every evil, just as reason impels man toward all good." –Saint Albertus Magnus, Dominican theologian, 13th century
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 25, 2013 20:34:49 GMT -5
But Stanne, it doesn't seem equitable that Jesus being born any other way then the way humans are born that he could be expected to be 100 per cent human without going through the birthing process....this poofing a divine soul/spirit out of a human body without going through the human process IN ORDER that Jesus be 100 per cent human and 100 per cent God can be a possibility...strange that thought! - Is it any greater miracle than Conception by the power of the Holy Spirit with a human mother only?
- Is is any greater miracle than the Incarnation - Jesus' divine nature joined ever after to human nature?
- Is it any greater miracle than Jesus' body returning to life and raising himself Glorified, out of the tomb?
We believe these revelations of God through faith - to which God's grants us a measure of understanding and acceptance of His holy mysteries. (Just as He granted you the understanding of the Holy Trinity - Thanks be to God!)No, of course it's not a greater miracle. It's just that in my 66 years I have never heard of such a thing. How exactly did Jesus exit the womb of Mary anyway?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 25, 2013 20:50:41 GMT -5
But religion has found a way to take a beautiful process and negate it with a story of why women have pain in childbirth being because they are guilty of Original sin. I don't see it that way at all. Perhaps it is because even though we experienced similarities in our early 'religion' - we have had very different experiences going forward. I know you don't see it that way. But many women do see it that way. The Bible is not a book about the value of women and imo does a great deal of harm against women. I personally do not like the message the Bible sends us about the value of women. We are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one because I can't understand how you can't see it, and you can't understand how I could see it. Just the way it is.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Sept 25, 2013 21:46:44 GMT -5
So, anne, you are saying that it is, "ugliness" to say that the Church teaches things that would denegrate women in any way. anne, are you also denying that these quotes were made by any of the church fathers?1. There are NO teachings by the Church that denegrate women. Quite the opposite. 2. The Church fathers wrote their own OPINION. Church teaching comes from from the Pope and/or Magisterium as Solemn Magisterium and Ordinary Magisterium. 3. The quotes above would need to be source identified to be believable. Otherwise, they are not believable without source or context. A church father may have quoted another source - and that is then lifted from a church father paper as if he were the original source. However, I cannot find these at all.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 25, 2013 22:24:45 GMT -5
So, anne, you are saying that it is, "ugliness" to say that the Church teaches things that would denegrate women in any way. anne, are you also denying that these quotes were made by any of the church fathers?1. There are NO teachings by the Church that denegrate women. Quite the opposite.2. The Church fathers wrote their own OPINION. Church teaching comes from from the Pope and/or Magisterium as Solemn Magisterium and Ordinary Magisterium. 3. The quotes above would need to be source identified to be believable. Otherwise, they are not believable. A church father may have quoted another source - and that is then lifted from a church father paper as if he were the original source. However, I cannot find these at all. Oh! come on Anne, you know very well that those quotes came from the "church fathers!"
You are always anxious to quote the "church fathers" when they favor you!
If you can't find them, it is only because you don't want to find them!
You are only showing just how biased & what blinders that you really have on!
Sorry, for such a rant, but good lord,! sometimes one just can't help but get P***ed off!
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Sept 25, 2013 22:31:01 GMT -5
1. There are NO teachings by the Church that denegrate women. Quite the opposite.2. The Church fathers wrote their own OPINION. Church teaching comes from from the Pope and/or Magisterium as Solemn Magisterium and Ordinary Magisterium. 3. The quotes above would need to be source identified to be believable. Otherwise, they are not believable. A church father may have quoted another source - and that is then lifted from a church father paper as if he were the original source. However, I cannot find these at all. Oh! come on Anne, you know very well that those quotes came from the "church fathers!"
You are always anxious to quote the "church fathers" when they favor you!
If you can't find them, it is only because you don't want to find them!
You are only showing just how biased & what blinders that you really have on!
Sorry, for such a rant, but good lord,! sometimes one just can't help but get P***ed off! I found one of the quotes. But not written by the author you posted. Show us the sources. They have reference numbers. We still have to see the context.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Sept 25, 2013 22:53:24 GMT -5
Oh! come on Anne, you know very well that those quotes came from the "church fathers!"
You are only showing just how biased & what blinders that you really have on!
Sorry, for such a rant, but good lord,! sometimes one just can't help but get P***ed off! BTW, they are your quotes - you are the one responsible for providing original source and context. What you have shown is that you can go to a site and grab some quotes - even if not correctly attributed. But. Let me give you an example. By herself woman is not of the image of God. The man, on the other hand, alone, is the image of God. —Augustine What he really wrote ... On The Trinity Book XII
Chapter 7.— How Man is the Image of God. Whether the Woman is Not Also the Image of God. How the Saying of the Apostle, that the Man is the Image of God, But the Woman is the Glory of the Man, is to Be Understood Figuratively and Mystically.
(in this paragraph writing about - oddly enough - why man should not cover his head and why woman can cover her head ... but coming to the conclusion part ...)
12. For, as not only most true reason but also the authority of the apostle himself declares, man was not made in the image of God according to the shape of his body,but according to his rational mind. ...
More here ... www.newadvent.org/fathers/130112.htm
This is illustrative of why one must see the source and context.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Sept 25, 2013 22:57:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Sept 25, 2013 23:38:16 GMT -5
Your Tertullian quote ... Tertullian had already left the Church to join a stricter movement ... in about 210. Probably Post-Montanist: 16. Adversus Valentinianus (Against the Valentinians) 17. ad Scapulam (To Scapula, Proconsul of Africa), 18. De Spectaculis (Of the Games), 19. De Idololatria (Of Idolatry) 20., 21. De cultu Feminarum, lib. I & II (Of Women's Dress)
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 25, 2013 23:59:06 GMT -5
Oh! come on Anne, you know very well that those quotes came from the "church fathers!"
You are only showing just how biased & what blinders that you really have on!
Sorry, for such a rant, but good lord,! sometimes one just can't help but get P***ed off! BTW, they are your quotes - you are the one responsible for providing original source and context. What you have shown is that you can go to the atheist site and grab some quotes - even if not correctly attributed. But. Let me give you an example. By herself woman is not of the image of God. The man, on the other hand, alone, is the image of God. —Augustine What he really wrote ... On The Trinity Book XII
Chapter 7.— How Man is the Image of God. Whether the Woman is Not Also the Image of God. How the Saying of the Apostle, that the Man is the Image of God, But the Woman is the Glory of the Man, is to Be Understood Figuratively and Mystically.
(in this paragraph writing about - oddly enough - why man should not cover his head and why woman can cover her head ... but coming to the conclusion part ...)
12. For, as not only most true reason but also the authority of the apostle himself declares, man was not made in the image of God according to the shape of his body,but according to his rational mind. For the thought is a debased and empty one, which holds God to be circumscribed and limited by the lineaments of bodily members. But further, does not the same blessed apostle say, Be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new man, which is created after God; and in another place more clearly, Putting off the old man, he says, with his deeds; put on the new man, which is renewed to the knowledge of God after the image of Him that created him? If, then, we are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and he is the new man who is renewed to the knowledge of God after the image of Him that created him; no one can doubt, that man was made after the image of Him that created him, not according to the body, nor indiscriminately according to any part of the mind, but according to the rational mind, wherein the knowledge of God can exist. And it is according to this renewal, also, that we are made sons of God by the baptism of Christ; and putting on the new man, certainly put on Christ through faith. Who is there, then, who will hold women to be alien from this fellowship, whereas they are fellow-heirs of grace with us; and whereas in another place the same apostle says, For you are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus; for as many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ: there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus?
www.newadvent.org/fathers/130112.htm
This is illustrative of why one must see the source and context. I found one of the quotes. But not written by the author you posted. Show us the sources. They have reference numbers. We still have to see the context. BTW, they are your quotes - you are the one responsible for providing original source and context.But. Let me give you an example. By herself woman is not of the image of God. The man, on the other hand, alone, is the image of God. —Augustine What he really wrote ... On The Trinity Book XII
Chapter 5.— The Opinion Which Devises an Image of the Trinity in the Marriage of Male and Female, and in Their Offspring.
Chapter 6. — Why This Opinion is to Be Rejected.
Chapter 7.— How Man is the Image of God. Whether the Woman is Not Also the Image of God. How the Saying of the Apostle, that the Man is the Image of God, But the Woman is the Glory of the Man, is to Be Understood Figuratively and Mystically.
(in this paragraph writing about - oddly enough - why man should not cover his head and why woman can cover her head ... but coming to the conclusion part ...)
12. For, as not only most true reason but also the authority of the apostle himself declares, man was not made in the image of God according to the shape of his body,but according to his rational mind. For the thought is a debased and empty one, which holds God to be circumscribed and limited by the lineaments of bodily members. But further, does not the same blessed apostle say, Be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new man, which is created after God; and in another place more clearly, Putting off the old man, he says, with his deeds; put on the new man, which is renewed to the knowledge of God after the image of Him that created him? If, then, we are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and he is the new man who is renewed to the knowledge of God after the image of Him that created him; no one can doubt, that man was made after the image of Him that created him, not according to the body, nor indiscriminately according to any part of the mind, but according to the rational mind, wherein the knowledge of God can exist. And it is according to this renewal, also, that we are made sons of God by the baptism of Christ; and putting on the new man, certainly put on Christ through faith. Who is there, then, who will hold women to be alien from this fellowship, whereas they are fellow-heirs of grace with us; and whereas in another place the same apostle says, For you are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus; for as many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ: there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus?
www.newadvent.org/fathers/130112.htm
This is illustrative of why one must see the source and context. "BTW, they are your quotes - you are the one responsible for providing original source and context." No, they are not my quotes.
There are actually several sites for the quotes.
This the one where I found them:
20 Vile Quotes Against Women By Religious Leaders
www.alternet.org/.../20-vile-quotes-against-women-religious-leaders-st-a... Jun 30, 2013
Now, I do find something quite interesting in your posts.
First you stated,
"The Church fathers wrote their own OPINION. Church teaching comes from from the Pope and/or Magisterium as Solemn Magisterium and Ordinary Magisterium."
You stated this as if what the "church fathers" said was not a part of the RCC doctrine but only the "church fathers" opinions.
However, now, you go into a long dissertation attempting to explain or offer a apologetic for what they stated as if it were important and part of the RCC's teachings!
Now, you just can't have your cake & eat it too!
Which one is what you believe?
Was it just the opinions of the "church fathers" and not an important part of the RCC teachings?
Or what the "church fathers" had to say was important and a basis for the RCC teachings?
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Sept 26, 2013 0:09:14 GMT -5
Now, I do find something quite interesting in your posts . First you stated, "The Church fathers wrote their own OPINION."
You stated this as if what the "church fathers" said was not a part of the RCC doctrine but only the "church fathers" opinions.
Now, you just can't have your cake & eat it too!
Which one is what you believe?
What the early church fathers wrote often supports orthodox Church teaching - and they are very helpful in that regard to 'see' the early church. I did look up some of your quotes - because they are often misquoted as to context - as I demonstrated for you. Some church bishops today write things that aren't orthodox to church teaching. They, as the church fathers of old, need to be read in the light of Church teaching (Doctrine, Dogma, Canon Law, Precepts, etc).
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 26, 2013 0:44:54 GMT -5
<abbr data-timestamp="1380172154000" class="time" title="Sept 26, 2013 0:09:14 GMT -5"></abbr>Now, I do find something quite interesting in your posts.
First you stated,
"The Church fathers wrote their own OPINION."
You stated this as if what the "church fathers" said was not a part of the RCC doctrine but only the "church fathers" opinions.
Now, you just can't have your cake & eat it too!
Which one is what you believe?
What the early church fathers wrote often supports orthodox Church teaching - and they are very helpful in that regard to 'see' the early church. I did look up some of your quotes - because they are often misquoted as to context - as I demonstrated for you. Some church bishops today write things that aren't orthodox to church teaching. They, as the church fathers of old, need to be read in the light of Church teaching (Doctrine, Dogma, Canon Law, Precepts, etc). Just shaking my head! I don't understand how you never question all that dogma cut out like cookies & spoon fed to you & never question any of the contradictions or see how obvious those contradictions are!
It is so very much like the "TRUTH" that I escaped from to ever fall for something so like that dogma ever again.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 26, 2013 11:13:38 GMT -5
Where would Doctrine, Dogma, Canon Law, Precepts, etc come from if not from the thoughts of church fathers? I'm pretty sure Jesus never had enough time to lay down all those things in his lifetime. So they would need to come from the early church fathers. We know from the last book I was discussing that church fathers did not agree on things and fought each other over whose beliefs got to be 'the' beliefs. The ones that have come down over time. There was not always a 'Pope' either from what that book stated and it was only later once doctrine was laid out that they picked the church fathers that supported that doctrine and they became "Pope" in hindsight. That's how I understood it anyway. I felt the author was fair and just told the story without any prejudice.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Sept 26, 2013 11:23:43 GMT -5
<abbr data-timestamp="1380172154000" class="time" title="Sept 26, 2013 0:09:14 GMT -5"></abbr>What the early church fathers wrote often supports orthodox Church teaching - and they are very helpful in that regard to 'see' the early church. I did look up some of your quotes - because they are often misquoted as to context - as I demonstrated for you. Some church bishops today write things that aren't orthodox to church teaching. They, as the church fathers of old, need to be read in the light of Church teaching (Doctrine, Dogma, Canon Law, Precepts, etc). Just shaking my head! I don't understand how you never question all that dogma cut out like cookies & spoon fed to you & never question any of the contradictions or see how obvious those contradictions are!
It is so very much like the "TRUTH" that I escaped from to ever fall for something so like that dogma ever again.
I do question contradictions and inaccuracies. That's why I questioned yours.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Sept 26, 2013 11:30:23 GMT -5
1. Where would Doctrine, Dogma, Canon Law, Precepts, etc come from if not from the thoughts of church fathers? I'm pretty sure Jesus never had enough time to lay down all those things in his lifetime. So they would need to come from the early church fathers. We know from the last book I was discussing that church fathers did not agree on things and fought each other over whose beliefs got to be 'the' beliefs. The ones that have come down over time. There was not always a 'Pope' either from what that book stated and it was only later once doctrine was laid out that they picked the church fathers that supported that doctrine and they became "Pope" in hindsight. That's how I understood it anyway. 2. I felt the author was fair and just told the story without any prejudice. 1. Doctrine, the Deposit of Faith, comes from Christ to the Apostles and handed down. Dogma has developed from that doctrine - not altered in original meaning but giving further clarification. The rest comes from Christ to the church in Matthew 16& 18 - the keys, the power to bind and loose; and Christ's promised guiding of the Church thru His Holy Spirit. 2. Some people are willing to accept the word of one who comes along some 2000 years later - than to accept the word of the body of believers that have faithfully passed down what was and is taught. Others are not.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 26, 2013 12:46:14 GMT -5
1. Where would Doctrine, Dogma, Canon Law, Precepts, etc come from if not from the thoughts of church fathers? I'm pretty sure Jesus never had enough time to lay down all those things in his lifetime. So they would need to come from the early church fathers. We know from the last book I was discussing that church fathers did not agree on things and fought each other over whose beliefs got to be 'the' beliefs. The ones that have come down over time. There was not always a 'Pope' either from what that book stated and it was only later once doctrine was laid out that they picked the church fathers that supported that doctrine and they became "Pope" in hindsight. That's how I understood it anyway. 2. I felt the author was fair and just told the story without any prejudice. 1. Doctrine, the Deposit of Faith, comes from Christ to the Apostles and handed down. Dogma has developed from that doctrine - not altered in original meaning but giving further clarification. The rest comes from Christ to the church in Matthew 16& 18 - the keys, the power to bind and loose; and Christ's promised guiding of the Church thru His Holy Spirit. 2. Some people are willing to accept the word of one who comes along some 2000 years later - than to accept the word of the body of believers that have faithfully passed down what was and is taught. Others are not. Yes, some accept and some do not. I see the credibility of early works as very questionable mostly because of all the suppression and infighting among those bringing them forward. I also see dogma as man's interpretation of doctrine and therefore questionable. I simply cannot read about the violence and lack of coherence in the early churches and believe that much of the truth still remains. That's how I work. You look at the same material and see the opposite. I need more, you don't. You are comfortable believing the Church is right because they have written that they are because the Bible says they are. That seems to circular for me and could be quite deceiving since they were the ones that picked the books that went in the bible in the first place. Too much room for error or manipulation for me. Again, that's how I think.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Sept 26, 2013 12:54:03 GMT -5
1. Doctrine, the Deposit of Faith, comes from Christ to the Apostles and handed down. Dogma has developed from that doctrine - not altered in original meaning but giving further clarification. The rest comes from Christ to the church in Matthew 16& 18 - the keys, the power to bind and loose; and Christ's promised guiding of the Church thru His Holy Spirit. 2. Some people are willing to accept the word of one who comes along some 2000 years later - than to accept the word of the body of believers that have faithfully passed down what was and is taught. Others are not. Yes, some accept and some do not. I see the credibility of early works as very questionable mostly because of all the suppression and infighting among those bringing them forward. I also see dogma as man's interpretation of doctrine and therefore questionable. I simply cannot read about the violence and lack of coherence in the early churches and believe that much of the truth still remains. That's how I work. You look at the same material and see the opposite. I need more, you don't. You are comfortable believing the Church is right because they have written that they are because the Bible says they are. That seems to circular for me and could be quite deceiving since they were the ones that picked the books that went in the bible in the first place. Too much room for error or manipulation for me. Again, that's how I think. You miss the most important point. We must first profess Christ as Lord and Savior. The rest will follow. Where do we find Christ truly and substantially present here on earth? Where he said he would be. " in my Father's house ..."
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 26, 2013 13:33:47 GMT -5
Yes, some accept and some do not. I see the credibility of early works as very questionable mostly because of all the suppression and infighting among those bringing them forward. I also see dogma as man's interpretation of doctrine and therefore questionable. I simply cannot read about the violence and lack of coherence in the early churches and believe that much of the truth still remains. That's how I work. You look at the same material and see the opposite. I need more, you don't. You are comfortable believing the Church is right because they have written that they are because the Bible says they are. That seems to circular for me and could be quite deceiving since they were the ones that picked the books that went in the bible in the first place. Too much room for error or manipulation for me. Again, that's how I think. You miss the most important point. We must first profess Christ as Lord and Savior. The rest will follow. Where do we find Christ truly and substantially present here on earth? Where he said he would be. " in my Father's house ..." So where is his father's house. Do you mean that the church is his father's house? I always thought God dwelled within each of us and we were his house. What am I missing here?
|
|