Well Alt, the historical Jesus, the man that walked the face of the Earth, did one thing (among many) that was very profound and revolutionary in his day which was to have an attitude and behavior in his time and place toward women that was profoundly shocking. Not only did he travel with women, he also promoted their equality, which was a very dangerous practice in his time. I can only imagine that the historical Jesus must have been a terrible impressive male--strong, handsome, serious, self-confident, brilliant, and always respectful of women. Not only did he treat women with great respect and reverence, he did not talk down to them or keep them in their place--whatever that might be. ...

Well Alt, the historical Jesus, the man that walked the face of the Earth, did one thing (among many) that was very profound and revolutionary in his day which was to have an attitude and behavior in his time and place toward women that was profoundly shocking. Not only did he travel with women, he also promoted their equality, which was a very dangerous practice in his time. I can only imagine that the historical Jesus must have been a terrible impressive male--strong, handsome, serious, self-confident, brilliant, and always respectful of women. Not only did he treat women with great respect and reverence, he did not talk down to them or keep them in their place--whatever that might be. He also radically put women in positions of authority

I totally agree with your clip Alt and I speaking from my own personal point of view one cannot be a Christian and treat any human being without the respect and equality their humanity deserves, and I think I've spoken to that many times.

As far as justification of misogyny is concerned perhaps it would be helpful if the argument were framed in a different way. Instead of

Women must be kept at home and bearing children for the Church. Ordaining them as priests would give them dangerous authority."

Let's rephrase that:

Blacks must be kept at home and bearing children for the Church. Ordaining them as priests would give them dangerous authority."

The problem is that if you posses a penis you are automatically granted privileges that are not granted to people with vaginas. We all admit that this is the case with such things as equal pay and advancement in the work force. How then, has religion la...

As far as justification of misogyny is concerned perhaps it would be helpful if the argument were framed in a different way. Instead of

Women must be kept at home and bearing children for the Church. Ordaining them as priests would give them dangerous authority."

Let's rephrase that:

Blacks must be kept at home and bearing children for the Church. Ordaining them as priests would give them dangerous authority."

The problem is that if you posses a penis you are automatically granted privileges that are not granted to people with vaginas. We all admit that this is the case with such things as equal pay and advancement in the work force. How then, has religion lagged so far behind (and here I'm speaking directly to the Catholic Church)?

Claiming false interpretation of the bible is to ignore the reality of the situation. This is the exact rationale used during the Civil War both for and against slavery.

I guess it really is up to one's personal belief.

If it was the case that one's personal belief affected only the individual holding that belief then I could agree with you but that, of course, is not the case.

Litsen, just because you don't like their beliefs doesn't make them misguided. It's two different outlooks on life, so what??

This is simply false. It is not simply two different outlooks. It is a policy that prevents a person, because of their gender, from enjoying the same and equal treatment as the opposite gender. It has nothing to do with ability to do the job or contribute to the organization.

I'd go on but Oortcloud has already covered the issue pretty thoroughly.