Replies

Bigsigh,

"In a christian family, every first religion teacher is not always the mother."

Yeah, sure. Did I say always? No. Is it true almost every, single time anyway? Yes. You are straining at gnats Bigsigh. Make a real point or stop pretending to be worthy of being taken seriously. Show me examples of Christian families where mom is not the one who first teaches the child about God. Go ahead and post some actual evidence for a change.

"You make a statement which is untrue statistically,.."

Really? Okay, post the statistics that proves me wrong. When you can't will we know you to be full of hot air?

"... practically and every other way."

So it is Dad who commonly stays home with the child in those first few weeks? Are you for real? You are embarrassing yourself Bigsigh.

"You start with an exaggeration and you want us to believe your other statements?"

Prove even my "exaggeration" wrong. Can you? Why haven't you even tried? Where is your evidence? Where is your argument that shows what I said was untrue? All you are doing is whinning. How about a reasonable argument? How about some evidence? Is that too much to ask?

"Then you repeat it as if it is a law of nature."

What I said is true. You deny it but don't offer even a logical argument as to how it is untrue. Why is that? I also did not merely repeat the comment Bigsigh. I pointed out the following: "In a Christian family yes it is so. While dad is off at work, who prays with the child? Who teaches him to make the sign of the cross from infancy?" And your evidence to the contrary was what? Zip.

"Of course, there were celibate priests, that wasn't my point. Either you need a logic course or your reading comprehension is lacking. I never said there weren't. I said the church did not reqiore it for centuries, so why didn't they follow Jesus's teachings which you cited in your original comment?"

You are the one who needs the logic course. I never said that Jesus taught that priests had to be celibate. Why are you creating a straw man? Your point that it took the Church a long time to follow Christ's teaching is moronic because it is untrue since there was no such teaching from Jesus nor did I ever claim there was; is a rejoinder to no point made against it; and has nothing to do with the issue anyway. Didn't that even occur to you?

"Women can lead as well as men."

Not as priests they can't. Only men can be priests. Women can be priestesses, but they never existed in Judaism or Christianity. Thus, women cannot be priests as well as men because they can't be priests at all. It is a physical impossibility.

"If all the men in the church disappeared, the church would survive. Your comment is ignorant, unprovable, and counterintuitive."

No. I made no ignorant comment. I also made no unprovable comment if you simply use common sense. I have also posted links to evidnece in some cases and you have given us NOTHING. Also, counterintuitive does not mean automatically erroneous. Intuition can be wrong. I have said nothing that is counterintuitive, however. Notice how you offered not even one example? Why is that?

"I'm not basing the church changing on any of that nonsense you made up. I'm basing it on historical changes in the church itself. If you are unaware of church history, read, and stop grabbing modern day societal problems and using that to show the church will not change."

Hey, rocket scientist, I am a professional Church historian. I know more about Church history than you will ever know. And the Church won't change either. Get a clue.

"Unless you can come back weith something intelligible, I'm finished with you."

You have yet to post ANYTHING intelligent or intelligible Bigsigh. Claims you've made? Many. Proof of said claims from you? Zero. You're not doing too well here Bigsigh. I know you have to leave. You're afraid to embarrass yourself further. I pity you in your ignorance.