Was Jesus God?

Quote: Evenbob

Are you kidding me?

Indeed, a country with about what 30 women Wikipedia says is treated the same as every non Cardinal man. Only Cardinals get to vote in Vatican City so it is not women who can't vote for the Pope, nobody else can either. About divorce, the country has as its ruler the freaking Pope of course they don't allow divorce?! If one of the very few people married in Vatican City need a separation or an annulment I am sure they could get it. You are just simply reaching.

However, I am more concerned about the Church's stance on woman suffrage movement and the right to vote. I know that the Church educated women well before it was acceptable by society and women in the Church ran huge convents and monasteries that were more like cities long before anyone ever thought they could have the responsibilities they deserve. I do know that the Church values highly their unique role and irreplaceable role of the mother. I need to do some reading on that.

Quote: Nareed

Ok, then "Women are not good enough to be ordained, but they're good enough to be ordained."

I fail to see the difference.

It really isn't that hard. It has nothing to do with if someone is good enough or not. A woman could be an excellent priest. However, a priest theologically and sacramentally represents the person of Jesus Christ who was a man and we also know that Jesus never chose women to be Apostles and the Apostles did not chose women to be their successors the bishops and priests. Before you say that is just because Jesus was following the normal practices of the time you have to realize that Jesus constantly broke those rules in eating with tax collectors and sinners, hanging out with lepers, breaking the religious laws, speaking with women all the time, having women as his disciples, and making women the first witnesses of the Resurrection - all of which was taboo at the time.

Quote:

Does they saying "Nice non-sequitur" make any sense to you?

Yes you saying this is a nice non-sequitur to my point about there are certain things that men and women can and cannot do that have nothing to do with if they are "good" enough.

Quote: FrGamble

Yes you saying this is a nice non-sequitur to my point about there are certain things that men and women can and cannot do that have nothing to do with if they are "good" enough.

What is it about breasts, ovaries, a uterus or estrogen levels that keeps a woman from spouting the same nonsense you do?

Actually you are right women might claim that men are not "good" enough to be mothers and they might be right. However women are very much "good" enough to be priests.

Quote: Nareed

What is it about breasts, ovaries, a uterus or estrogen levels that keeps a woman from spouting the same nonsense you do?

It isn't' about that, it is about tradition.

Jesus's apostles/disciples were all men.

What I think is being overlooked is the fact that at the time, women had no rights, so of course his apostles were all men.

I think what requires serious evaluation is, in the light of our modern notions of equality, are those traditions just and right?

Quote: Dalex64

I think what requires serious evaluation is, in the light of our modern notions of equality, are those traditions just and right?

No they were not and that is why Jesus so clearly went against them in His life and taught His disciples to do the same. Yet in doing this He did not chose women to be Apostles. You can rightly ask why and the Church has been for thousands of years. Was it because he was just following the tradition of the times? Then why did he break so many other traditions, especially about the equal treatment of women throughout His life and not this one?

Quote: FrGamble

I wish I was.

List of Group 1 Carcinogens

Wow, your Church is really a scare monger, isn't it.

"The longer you take the pill, the greater the benefits. In fact, taking the pill for five years or longer may cut your ovarian cancer risk in half. That protection may last up to 25 years after you stop taking the pill, says the National Cancer Institute. Studies even suggest the pill may protect against ovarian cancer in women with BRCA genetic mutations.
And, that’s not the only good news. Taking the pill for at least four years may cut your endometrial cancer risk in half if you’re at average risk of the disease. Even better: this protection lasts for 10 years after you stop taking the pill..
Have you been on the pill for several years? It may slightly raise your breast and cervical cancer risks. But this slight increase is only temporary. And, your risk returns to normal about five years after you go off the pill."

http://www.mdanderson.org/patient-and-cancer-information/cancer-information/cancer-topics/prevention-and-screening/health/birthcontrolpillcancer.html

The one thing I've learned from you about your
church is, believe nothing they say. Perform the
due diligence and find out the real truth yourself.
You can't trust the Church on any issue, they are
pathological at putting their spin on everything.
All they'll tell you is taking the pill is a risk, they'll
never tell you the rest of the story. They want to
control your actions, and they'll say anything to
get that control.

Of course you should do your own research, I only wish you would seriously do that in regards to Church history and Church teachings.

Here is another link from the Cancer institute.

http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/hormones/oral-contraceptives-fact-sheet

It doesn't surprise you or concern you that we are talking about there is indeed a risk in certain types of cancer in women including breast cancer, cervical cancer, and liver cancer by using the pill? Yes it shows benefits in preventing some other cancers, but are we just trying to trade cancers, isn't one bad enough. Do you think if these were the risks of some male contraceptive they would even be proposed as a possibility? The answer is no, in fact if you look up the history of oral contraceptives they did try to develop a male contraceptive that shrunk the testicles a little bit and caused a lessening desire in sex. It was immediately scraped. Let women bear the health burdens for contraceptives, they already bear the burden if something goes wrong and they get pregnant. It is so unfair and unjust and you trying to lessen needless risks that are thrust upon women as a cure all fro their healthy fertility is sick and misogynist.

But the pill isn't all bad. There are clear health benefits, and there are known risks. Women take the pill for reasons other than contraception. There is a clear risk/benefit evaluation that many women take, and then knowing the risks make an informed choice.

Male pill research is continuing, as are other methods of male contraception: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-health/11646385/Contraception-Male-Pill-is-coming-and-its-going-to-change-everything.html

As far as I know, the only benefit to the first generation of male pills was contraception, and it had many side effects.

For surgical solutions, male vasectomy continues to grow in popularity. This procedure is easier, much safer, and less expensive than the female tubal ligation.

Men can, will, and do take/share responsibility. The culture IS shifting to make this more acceptable to more men.

The culture is shifting but I don't think it is in the right direction. As you said they dare not introduce any oral contraceptive for men that has any side effects other than contraception. Women, well they can weigh the risks. So sad, this new male pill if it arrives will only increase the problems for women and give men even more weapons to use against women to use them for their beauty and sexual pleasure without consequences. Look again at where the culture is shifting in regards to pornography. Its prevalence is growing and it is effecting our sexual practices and how women and men both look at sex. What about wages for women, stricter maternity laws, child care for working moms and students? Its atrocious that these things aren't cared about in 2015!