The Goat Pen

Tradition is not a reason. In fact, it's the opposite of a reason. It's what you refer to when there is no reason...

The reason Alabama wears red and white, and has the name Denny on their stadium, is the same reason Christians celebrate Christmas on December 25, worship on Sunday morning, have the books of the Bible that we do, and some Christian churches have male-only clergy: Tradition. That's the real reason. You just don't like it.

I guess Bama could wear orange, have Shorty Price's name on their stadium instead of Denny, Christmas could be on June 13, Christians could worship on Tuesday evenings, the Bible could include the Iliad and exclude Romans, and all churches could have female clergy.

That is a horrible analogy, prof. Colors of clothing, stadium names, and dates of a calendar are not people. The fact that many churches have a long history of subjugating women can't be brushed off as easily as the date we choose to celebrate Thanksgiving.

"Why are you engaging in slavery?"

"Tradition!"

Why do most people have Saturdays and Sundays off? Why not Tuesday Wednesday?
Why is football season during the fall? Why not spring or winter?
Why are taxes due on April 15? Why not October 9?
Why does the American League have designated hitter but not the National League?
Why do Americans drive on the right lane, and not use the metric system?

Is this tantamount to slavery?

The analogy you offered was ridiculous. Offering numerous examples of equally ridiculous analogies does not strengthen your case.

Where the claim of tradition would work:

"why wear a cassock?"

"Tradition"

"Fine."

But "tradition" to deny employment because of not owning a penis is different. GG seems to suggest there is an innate quality of being male that makes you a better 'spiritual leader'. If your reason to deny women those roles is simply because "we have always done it this way" then, yeah, that's a shitty reason. Thanks for your input. Run along.

Professor Tiger wrote:Why do most people have Saturdays and Sundays off? Why not Tuesday Wednesday?
Why is football season during the fall? Why not spring or winter?
Why are taxes due on April 15? Why not October 9?
Why does the American League have designated hitter but not the National League?
Why do Americans drive on the right lane, and not use the metric system??

You are so stupid that you don't even realize that you are making the argument against yourself. In every case, you are proving that it's purely random. Again, tradition is not reason, it's random...

I guess what's driving you crazy is not everybody agrees with you.

Yes, some Christians choose to take their moral cues from the Bible and tradition and not from the latest edict on morality from a group of people who hate us. I've noticed you don't get nearly as outraged at Orthodox Jews, who don't have female rabbis based on their own ancient tradition and Torah and Talmud.

And even more to the point, you would NEVER dare get equally angry at your beloved Muslims. They don't have female imams either, and it's based on their sorta ancient tradition, Koran and Hadiths. Like Orthodox and Catholics, they really don't care what Beyonce or Caitlin Jenner or AA or hedge think about it.

You worship your gods, we'll worship ours.

For what it's worth, I think the Jews and Muslims are as stupid and backwards as you. Anyone who spends any time with this inane superstition based on a completely wrong understanding of the world is as worthless as you. And, their subjugation of women based on a 2000 year old tradition is just as bad as yours.

Thanks for sharing.

I've noticed that you atheists, who consider yourselves so tolerant, pluralist, inclusive and diverse, are the ones that tolerate disagreement with you the least.

If you want to be atheists, I'm fine with that.

Nothing is "driving me crazy". I asked a question. I personally think 'tradition' is a bullshit answer for why you discriminate. But whatever. I was just wanting the reasoning. Apparently, logic isn't a consideration. Just, "we did this back when women were chattel, might as well keep it!"

Moral cues? I thought it was tradition? So, morality is involved in the "need a penis to preach" thing?

"Discriminate." Heh.

If you applied for the job as president of the NAACP or the Rainbow Coalition, you would be discriminated against based on your race. If you applied for a job as the president of the National Organization of Women, you would be discriminated against based on your sex. If you applied for a job as president of the VFW, you would be discriminated against you aren't a veteran. You would be okay with that.

You worship your gods, we'll worship ours.

"I've noticed you don't get nearly as outraged at Orthodox Jews. And even more to the point, you would NEVER dare get equally angry at your beloved Muslims."

If there were any jews or muslims in here spouting off the same stupid shit you do on a daily basis, you'd find out just how "beloved" their stupid bullshit is to me. Also, tolerating the fact that you should be able to believe whatever you want (which I do) does not mean that I can't say what I think about those beliefs. Just b/c I think your beliefs are stupid doesn't mean I don't think you should be allowed to have them, which is the very definition of toleration...

Prof,

Analogies are something you are not good at. You should stop. It makes your "argument" weaker. Illustrates a lack of logical cohesion or understanding.

To all of your examples, yes, of course, that meets at least one definition of discrimination. Not all discrimination is inherently unjust. If you were a member of "the first Methodist church of men" then, sure, mandating only guys lead it would make some sense. I am perfectly fine with a baptist not hiring a Methodist preacher or a synagogue not hiring a catholic, etc. but as far as I know, the church generally avoids saying that it exists for the betterment of just those with XY chromosomes - because of that, it gets closer to the unjust side of things when women are not allowed.

I honestly did not want this to be acrimonious. What makes men better 'spiritual leaders' in your mythology is all I was after. You offer the weak "we don't give those jobs to women because we never allowed them to hold those jobs in the past." Fine. Got it. I think it's a shitty reason to keep someone from that profession, but whatever. GG apparently saw a difference other than "always done it that way before".

Professor Tiger wrote:Thanks for sharing.

I've noticed that you atheists, who consider yourselves so tolerant, pluralist, inclusive and diverse, are the ones that tolerate disagreement with you the least.

If you want to be atheists, I'm fine with that.

I'm tolerant of your right to be an idiot. I sincerely hope that people who think like you disappear over time. I'm confident that your religion will collapse under the weight of its own stupidity. I only wish I could be around to see it happen.

AlabamAlum wrote:GG apparently saw a difference other than "always done it that way before".

Did he really?

I'm extremely tolerant. Worship whatever you want. But your right to believe something does not negate my right to lampoon or disagree with you.

Cletus wrote:

AlabamAlum wrote:GG apparently saw a difference other than "always done it that way before".

Did he really?

Apparently. Read back. He said he was okay with female "preachers" (if all they did was preach) but men were better "spiritual leaders" in some way. He never did really offer a why.

AlabamAlum wrote:If the only reason is "well, we don't have a real reason. Started back when women were possessions and we never got around to changing it." --then fine. GG really seems to suggest more than that, he just hasn't articulated it yet.

It's there if you read it. My statement has been of my personal preference. Others will have their preferences and as long as its within church canon I'm fine with that. The reason behind the preference comes from my belief that men and women have different qualities beyond a few body parts and a chromosome; you seem to focus on a sex organ but fiddle dee dee we'll pass on that. If you want to use pop culture instead of old scripture there's that whole mars/venus thing though I won't go into how much of it is nature vs nurture. I believe those 'mars' qualities and combined with what I've been raised make a man more likely to be a priest I look to for counsel, guidance and spiritual growth and I won't cringe if a woman preaches a sermon nor refuse to take communion she has consecrated.

As far as the 'tradition' argument goes that some branches use to keep the broads out, as already stated I think its partially about authority (men don't want to risk submitting to women) and the rest is about saving face. It reminds me of the Augusta National Bishops and their handling of the woman membership issue. They knew the time had come, but they were not going to let some bossy bitch on the outside make them capitulate. They stood their ground, took their financial and p.r. lumps and later when the fuss died down they started admitting chicks. Might take the RCs and Orthos another 50-100 years but I expect they will do the same.

Cletus wrote:I sincerely hope that people who think like you disappear over time. I'm confident that your religion will collapse under the weight of its own stupidity. I only wish I could be around to see it happen.

Good luck with that:

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/reli ... 2010-2050/

Note the second bullet point.