More atheist men than women?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Ha. Might start a thread in being guilt tripped about wanting to remain childless. Always get people making snarky comments about not wanting to spawn more small consumers.

[robvalue]

Yeah, we've had that too. It's bullshit.

IMO, having children is entirely a selfish act. If you simply want to give a child a home, there are plenty already in need of a home. It's creating a problem so you can solve it. Not a popular view, I know! But that's me. I'm not saying it's clearly wrong or immoral or anything. We all do lots of selfish things. But not having children is certainly not selfish. If anything it's selfless; less burden on an overpopulated society.

Of course I understand why people have children (I'm not a complete moron) and I wouldn't ever try and stop them.

(How would that even work?)

[ignoramus]

Pam fries fillet steak for the cat most nights while I get soup!

[Longhorn]

Why did God decide to make 2 genders instead of 3 or 4? Why did God decide dirt would be brown? Why did God decide trees can't walk? Why did God decide women would be the ones to carry life?

These questions get a lot easier to answer once you drop the god part.

We don't claim to have all the answers to all the questions in life. We just believe we have the ones that really matter. :-)

Yea, like 'for how many goats should I sell my daughter?'
(Just yanking your chain now)

[ignoramus]

Vic, I though you were serious!
I started looking up the stock exchange for the goat to daughter seasonally adjusted price differential ...

You get one extra goat if she's a virgin and another if she's old enough to have sex! Four yo or older! (citation: bible)

[Catholic_Lady]

Hopefully you saw that I did clear all this up later on.

I know, the whole "not sola scriptura" thing.

I meant cleared up the part where you said women are not allowed to be spiritual teachers. They actually can be spiritual teachers and theologians. It's the giving of the sacraments that is reserved for men only. 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I know, the whole "not sola scriptura" thing.

I meant cleared up the part where you said women are not allowed to be spiritual teachers. They actually can be spiritual teachers and theologians. It's the giving of the sacraments that is reserved for men only. 

In other words, their ability to be spiritual leaders is inherently less than that of men.

Sorry, I'm not buying it.

[Ben Davis]

If the Church says that women never have the authority to teach, then why do Catholic schools have mostly women teachers?

The Enlightenment.

If the Church says that women are inferior to men, then why does Church Doctrine state they are equal?

Ditto.

The Church does not say these things, Neim.

Until recently, it did. In no uncertain terms.

Many religions now come before us with ingratiating smirks and outspread hands, like an unctuous merchant in a bazaar. They offer consolation and solidarity and uplift, competing as they do in a marketplace. But we have a right to remember how barbarically they behaved when they were strong and were making an offer that people could not refuse.

That's the whole point. We are equal and complimentary, and we cannot survive as a species without the other.  

I'm glad you understand this but you must accept that it's the position of methodological naturalism that the Catholic Church has recently co-opted due to a social swing in favour of Enlightenment values rather than any inherently Catholic teaching. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather that the Church modernise its views, as it has in some countries (not all!), we're all better off but let's give credit where credit's due; the changes have been brought about by those who opposed Church doctrine and faced ostracisation, torture and death in the struggle to get women the 'not quite equal' rights that they enjoy in some small parts of the world, some of the time.

[Catholic_Lady]

If the Church says that women never have the authority to teach, then why do Catholic schools have mostly women teachers?

The Enlightenment.

If the Church says that women are inferior to men, then why does Church Doctrine state they are equal?

Ditto.

The Church does not say these things, Neim.

Until recently, it did. In no uncertain terms.

Many religions now come before us with ingratiating smirks and outspread hands, like an unctuous merchant in a bazaar. They offer consolation and solidarity and uplift, competing as they do in a marketplace. But we have a right to remember how barbarically they behaved when they were strong and were making an offer that people could not refuse.

That's the whole point. We are equal and complimentary, and we cannot survive as a species without the other.  

I'm glad you understand this but you must accept that it's the position of methodological naturalism that the Catholic Church has recently co-opted due to a social swing in favour of Enlightenment values rather than any inherently Catholic teaching. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather that the Church modernise its views, as it has in some countries (not all!), we're all better off but let's give credit where credit's due; the changes have been brought about by those who opposed Church doctrine and faced ostracisation, torture and death in the struggle to get women the 'not quite equal' rights that they enjoy in some small parts of the world, some of the time.

Nothing in Church Doctrine has ever stated that women are lesser than men and deserving of less rights than men. If that was the sentiment amongst Catholics back in the day, it was due to the culture of the times, not to Church teaching.

EDIT TO ADD: btw, I just accepted your facebook friend request. Your son is adorable!

[Longhorn]

I was about to say 'objective morality, huh?', but you know what, forget it....