Epic Theological Debate Via Text

Hey Alex did you say women should or shouldn't be priests?

-Well, Bible says it should not happen. Clearly. Only question is whether or not this is outdated for today, or if it should still be followed.

Why did the Bible say that in the first place? If it was sexist-because they thought women were incompetent- then no, but if there was sound reasoning then maybe.

- It's based on the theory that men and women are very different and naturally stronger where oter sex is not so strong.

But we're talking about spiritual leadership and women can lead just as well as men can. Both sexes have their strengths in the field and we would be better having both than one over the other.

- I would argue that the role of a good mother is every bit as important as a male priest. Biblically neither is suppose to try and do the other job if the right people are avaiable. A fair look at what God expects men and women to do in the Bible shows that both sides are called to do roles that the other sex shouldn't touch if possible.

Those roles are archaic though. There are female cops. A father can be just as maternal as a mother -not every father, but some. Same with female priests. Some are better fit as priests than mothers.

- This Biblical teaching only applies to the specific item of church leadership. As I said from outset, one must choose if this is archaic teaching or not. But the logical line of thought for that would be tossing out the whole Bible.

- *would end with tossing out the whole Bible.

Why is it all or nothing with the Bible? The Constitution is more flexible than that. Certain Biblical laws are for all time -like thou shalt not kill- others are specifc to the time they were written.

- Yes, and the ones that are specific to a time/place are clearly described as such. What decides what is archaic in the Bible? Mood? Whim? Society? Popular Opinion? Unlike Bible, Constitution originally meant to be amended/ changed/ voted on. God said his Word is everlasting. Constitution makes no such claims.

Regardless, if the Bible cannot be applied to or it contradicts modern enlightenment and insight, it will fail to be practiced by modern and future generations.

- This is true. However "modern enlightenment" is a relative term. Who decides what that is? MTV? Apple? Perez Hilton?

Society as a whole. Women's right to be treated qually with men was societal enlightenment. I don't think it will be undermined or reversed anytime soon, which is why now unlike 200 years ago you can actually debate whether women should be priests.

- Society as a whole is changing and is meant to change. But if religious teachings changed based on place/time/society, it would not be caled "religion". Again, toss out the Bible if all of it can be changed when we please. We might as well make God our own minds.

Brian -a coworker- just said, "But religion changes all the time, hookers can wear condoms now".

- O.0

But human beliefs and enlightenment aren't stuck in time/place/society. They do progress though. Some things shouldn't be changeed and if a religion contradicts it or doesn't change it won't continue. It's like (fundamentalist) Islam's attitudes towards women. They need to change.

- You're speaking in terms far too general/subjective. Either God's Word is everlasting as He say it is, or it can be changed based on human popularity contests, in which case there is no need for Bible. Only two logical ways.

God made us and gave us guidance so maybe He's guiding us towards these progressive revelations reflected in our society, but not isolated to this time alone. Epiphanies don't happen at once, people are led to them over time through experiences and reflections.

- I don't understand hy you blend scientific/ legal/ humanistic enlightenment with religious practice/ teaching. The two are and should be seperate. Hence the "seperation of church and state" an idea I'm sure you agree with, but you are debating against now.

I'm so confused. We were debating whether women should be priests. I talked to Em and we decided the Universe will take care of itself and we will all eventually reach Utopia. Mother Teresa did fine without being a priest. Society and Christianity will not fail if women aren't priests. Although they would be better off if they were...

- You are confused because you began to add extremely broad and general ideas to a very specific subject, and these ideas of yours began to go against stuff you yourself stand for. Bible says that on a Sunday service, perhaps an hour long or a bit more, women are not to perform priestly, leadership duties. Just in that time! Nobody stops a woman from doing whatever she wants for God elsewhere.

So we agree I was ultimately right then. And if I decide to become a priest you'll hook me up. Sweet!

-Bible says all Christians are priests. I merely speak of who performs leadership functions during church service. As far as you being right...well...I believe you clearly lost this one.

What?! I clearly won that. I got tired of thinking and went to the higher level of reasoning tha God is wiser than me and time will last longer than me, so I shouldn't waste so much time pondering things that hurt my brain. :)

- But that's ok though, you continue to deeply intrigue me. No female sticks that long with me in a debate.

I'm sleepy. I'm going to drink caffeine and continue to ignore my defeat. 

- A.K.A. "I got worked by Alex' gentle but impeccable logic".

- That's fine.