You are bound to servitude, you mean. You willingly accept the yoke. Don't take this as scathing, what I say next, please. My words can come off as a bit harsh, but realize it's only my own perceived indignities bubbling up to the surface a bit as I type.
You essentially asy that catholicism and islam do not see women as inferior but then you state that there are stricter requirements on women [implying that women NEED to be policed more tightly, implying weaker wills, implying inferiority], and that women are incapable of receiving holy orders but that men are...implying a superiority of men over women in that realm, as well [being allowed to do something is, has, ever has been and ever will be the mark of superiority], and that women were, until only recently, forced to veil their heads in church, were not allowed on the altar, and no ministries until the age of Enlightenment.
You surely must notice a trend, here; the catholic church has changed, yes...but it does so kicking and screaming, being dragged by the ideas of humanist secularists, practically being forced to adapt by the morality being improved upon by the world surrounding it. I'm not denying there have been bishops and cardinals who have done good deeds but surely you recognize that the entire story of the catholic church is one of oppression of females, yes?? The bible itself states so. The "greatest" [and I use that word with extreme levels of sarcasm, believe me] of the catholic church are NOT ambiguous in this sentiment:
That doesn't leave much room open to interpretation; women were, if you follow church doctrine, meant to virtually be SLAVES to men. As a man who did not experience this gender-based disparity I STILL feel appalled at this suggestion. Now, if you're a woman and you get off on serving your lover/husband/whathaveyou, well...more power to you, I suppose, but the DEMAND that women EVER be servile and submissive and inferior? I bring forth more quotes as proof...
Now, see, taken in context of the church, I can understand how you can believe this all to be true, but the thing is this: These ARE sentiments provided with either no proof or extremely dubious evidence; if you need proof of the dubiousness of said evidence, you need only witness the existence of this site and how many discussions are laid out to debate said evidence. If such evidence were credible, far fewer arguments could be made from non-believing freethinkers such as I.
I hold no hope of truly convincing you on my own...I am sure that if you truly believe this stuff then I really hold no hope of ever thinking otherwise but I would ask you to at TRY to think on this. Really, deeply think about it. Not just give it a few moments and then shrug it off as something like the devil trying to trick you or some bladdity blah kind of thing but...take it away, think about it overnight. Skim the history books [or plow right into them]. Notice how the catholic church only changed after the world around it did. And notice it only actually started truly changing when it lost its ability to exert by force its influence upon others, too. Notice the reluctance to join in the cause for womens' suffrage. Notice the reluctance to denounce slavery. Notice the gleeful support of the Nazis and its refusal to ever denounce its support for decades after the fact. Notice its association with militant groups in Africa. Notice its attacks on abortion, contraception, sexual conduct of a woman...the only way it can, in the modern developed secular world, exert any kind of control over women anymore. This is not coincidence. An organization, ruled solely by men, with rules favoring men, with a very clear history of oppression of women, with a doctrine that is kicking and screaming in its refusal to let women join its ranks. It adapts to the world around it decades too late all the time.
Ultimately, it comes down to this: Do you NEED to be a catholic? Does it make you a better person? And if it does, can you imagine yourself being as good an individual WITHOUT such a doctrine to follow?
You essentially asy that catholicism and islam do not see women as inferior but then you state that there are stricter requirements on women [implying that women NEED to be policed more tightly, implying weaker wills, implying inferiority], and that women are incapable of receiving holy orders but that men are...implying a superiority of men over women in that realm, as well [being allowed to do something is, has, ever has been and ever will be the mark of superiority], and that women were, until only recently, forced to veil their heads in church, were not allowed on the altar, and no ministries until the age of Enlightenment.
You surely must notice a trend, here; the catholic church has changed, yes...but it does so kicking and screaming, being dragged by the ideas of humanist secularists, practically being forced to adapt by the morality being improved upon by the world surrounding it. I'm not denying there have been bishops and cardinals who have done good deeds but surely you recognize that the entire story of the catholic church is one of oppression of females, yes?? The bible itself states so. The "greatest" [and I use that word with extreme levels of sarcasm, believe me] of the catholic church are NOT ambiguous in this sentiment:
Quote: “It is the natural order among people that women serve their husbands and children their parents, because the justice of this lies in (the principle that) the lesser serves the greater . . . This is the natural justice that the weaker brain serve the stronger. This therefore is the evident justice in the relationships between slaves and their masters, that they who excel in reason, excel in power.” (Augustine, Questions on the Heptateuch, Book I, § 153.
That doesn't leave much room open to interpretation; women were, if you follow church doctrine, meant to virtually be SLAVES to men. As a man who did not experience this gender-based disparity I STILL feel appalled at this suggestion. Now, if you're a woman and you get off on serving your lover/husband/whathaveyou, well...more power to you, I suppose, but the DEMAND that women EVER be servile and submissive and inferior? I bring forth more quotes as proof...
Quote:“Nor can it be doubted, that it is more consonant with the order of nature that men should bear rule over women, than women over men. It is with this principle in view that the apostle says, "The head of the woman is the man;" and, "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands." So also the Apostle Peter writes: "Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord." Augustine, On Concupiscence, Book I, chap. 10.
“The Apostle wants women who are manifestly inferior, to be without fault, in order that the Church of God be pure” Ambrosiaster, On 1 Timothy 3,11.
“Who are there that teach such things apart from women? In very truth, women are a feeble race, untrustworthy and of mediocre intelligence. Once again we see that the Devil knows how to make women spew forth ridiculous teachings, as he has just succeeded in doing in the case of Quintilla, Maxima and Priscilla” Epiphanius, Panarion 79, §1.
Now, see, taken in context of the church, I can understand how you can believe this all to be true, but the thing is this: These ARE sentiments provided with either no proof or extremely dubious evidence; if you need proof of the dubiousness of said evidence, you need only witness the existence of this site and how many discussions are laid out to debate said evidence. If such evidence were credible, far fewer arguments could be made from non-believing freethinkers such as I.
I hold no hope of truly convincing you on my own...I am sure that if you truly believe this stuff then I really hold no hope of ever thinking otherwise but I would ask you to at TRY to think on this. Really, deeply think about it. Not just give it a few moments and then shrug it off as something like the devil trying to trick you or some bladdity blah kind of thing but...take it away, think about it overnight. Skim the history books [or plow right into them]. Notice how the catholic church only changed after the world around it did. And notice it only actually started truly changing when it lost its ability to exert by force its influence upon others, too. Notice the reluctance to join in the cause for womens' suffrage. Notice the reluctance to denounce slavery. Notice the gleeful support of the Nazis and its refusal to ever denounce its support for decades after the fact. Notice its association with militant groups in Africa. Notice its attacks on abortion, contraception, sexual conduct of a woman...the only way it can, in the modern developed secular world, exert any kind of control over women anymore. This is not coincidence. An organization, ruled solely by men, with rules favoring men, with a very clear history of oppression of women, with a doctrine that is kicking and screaming in its refusal to let women join its ranks. It adapts to the world around it decades too late all the time.
Ultimately, it comes down to this: Do you NEED to be a catholic? Does it make you a better person? And if it does, can you imagine yourself being as good an individual WITHOUT such a doctrine to follow?
