Philo
Please point out where I have demeaned men. Why is it when people (regardless of faith/atheist perspective) speak in terms of addressing equality for women or seek fairer representation of women in any field they are 'demeaning' men. Yet there is no acknowledgment of the fact that lack of women priests might be seen as demeaningn to women particularly when the idea is compared to pedophilia.

My parents were both raised as Catholics so I do know a fair bit about the Church and its effects on others as well as many friends who are Christians who also believe in female priests. I don't have to ask them if they feel oppressed because they tell me.

Why do some men resort to this sort of defensive doublespeak with hand on heart as though it is real. Please look within before making this type of comment and read the intent in a post rather than automatically taking a defensive position.

But surely, Philo...

>>That the Roman Church maintains old Roman world gender traditions does not demean women as second class.<<

...that is exactly what it does?

The fact that many of those women may accept this situation without question, does not mean that is is not a valid observation.

Questions that come from people who are not "one of the team", by the way, does not render them irrelevant.

>>For feminist atheist to attempt to demean men in the Christian Church is a weak issue<<

It is only by being asked these questions that the insiders can acquire a different perspective, and with it the chance to use that input to - possibly - re-evaluate their position.

Think of it this way: you are a nineteenth-century explorer in the jungles of Africa, and you come across a tribe that practises cannibalism. They have done so since the dawn of time. Would you accept the argument that you are "attempting to demean the tribe", when you politely explain that the rest of the world gave up the practice of cannibalism, some time ago?

Pericles,
Unless you are willing to identify with the tribe as your equal brothers then you have no right to campaign against cannibalism; similarly with the church. We have a right as members of the human race with a set of values to educate our fellow humans on our values because we wish to improve their social lifestyle. But when your set of values diametrically opposes good social structures your motivations are suspect. Give us a current society where social improvements have been made by atheistic feminists.

Our Armed services are currently serving in Afganistan because women are unneducated and considered not more than dogs by the Taliban. The armed services have a cause and a campaign - I suggest you support the armed coalition rather than attacking a healthy functioning society that you are not willing to be a committed part of it.

Philo... "Our Armed services are currently serving in Afganistan because women are unneducated and considered not more than dogs by the Taliban"... this is utter balderdash!

Our armed forces are there because Howard sent them to assist his mates in the USA.

They are there supporting corruption in the Afghan government, as do all of us at home here by keeping them there.

They are there as an invading force to 'halt terrorism' even as their presence there encourages it all, and their comrades end up dead and maimed as a result.

Anyway, it's just a bit rich to be worrying about women there, when women are not exactly 'equal' in our own society, are they?

As for this line, "We have a right as members of the human race with a set of values to educate our fellow humans on our values because we wish to improve their social lifestyle" ... you have no right to impose your medieval (and older) beliefs on your fellow human beings, which is what Christianity aims to do.

As for this claptrap, "But when your set of values diametrically opposes good social structures your motivations are suspect"... excuse me... where does child abuse as a set-of-values fit in our world? Where does using 'tradition' to whip women fit? Where does bludging on taxpayers fit as a 'good value'?

We all see things from where we sit, but you have to be open to the understanding that even as you impose your values onto others, others are able to see just how slim your claims for purity really are.

Dear o dear,
it looks like mjpb has bolted from the field :-(
But while I was looking forward to stripping him of his armour in Homeric style, I suppose I may defray the cost, in terms of my satisfaction, against his conceded defeat by default.
Ah, but 'tis a paltry prize without the combat.

Squeers,

The other thread is:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3729&page=0

You will see that in my second most recent post (I think) I expressed my intentions concerning that topic (and other things). Thank you for being responsive. I really don’t have time right now (understatement) but I wouldn't bolt without giving you the link.

The Blue Cross,

”Besides, reformed 'smokers', which ever way they travel, have no interest in changing again, and are not open to different ideas.”

So someone labeling contrary views as irrational are open to different ideas and people saying that they can respect them but haven’t reached the same conclusion are like a reformed smoker.

”Did you see Jesus in your morning burnt toast, perhaps, …session with the local priest?”
No

”Just solid study of the Bible while thinking you were an atheist perhaps?”
Not just but no conversion is complete without some consideration of the Bible.

”How is non-belief “untenable”, mjpb?”

Saying it is intenable is stronger than I would politely put it but I couldn’t in intellectual honesty accept it myself. Different people form different conclusions based on the same evidence.

”Then why are you no longer an atheist? Faith is hope an desire mistaken for knowledge, remember? (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3729&page=0)”

When I suggested that you were referring to all faith as blind faith you said.

“Faith IS blind. We’d call it “knowledge” otherwise. Faith is hope and desire mistaken for knowledge.”

Blind seems to be putting it too strongly (and I don’t accept that hope and desire are necessarily required for faith)

Situation 1 the best someone can do is examine the evidence and form a conclusion
Situation 2 “Belief for no good reason; belief against evidence to the contrary”.

Situation 1 may be blind in the sense that it isn’t actual knowledge or perhaps from actual experience. However it is typically distinguished from situation 2. Situation 2 is commonly referred to as blind faith. I don’t believe that the two should be conflated.