When I had occasion to teach at a Catholic school many years later, the difference was staggering. And yes, the kids did get regular Bible instruction. I can't say to what degree St. Helena's School was representative of Catholic schools in general--but it was certainly light-years better than the suburban public schools I taught at.

The nuns at St. Helena's, the parents, and the kids had no objection to this humble Calvinist teaching there, provided I stuck to the curriculum--which, of course, I did. The children very patiently tried to teach me all about the rosary. Their theology wasn't for me, but their love and benevolence most certainly was!

And yet you let this ad hominem pass without comment:

<You seem to have read one or two passages in the Bible and without understanding them have gone off half-cocked and joined some obscure little fundamentalist church>

The Catholic priesthood is disproved in 1 Timothy 4:3, where Paul warns Timothy that in the last days apostates in the Church would forbid marriage. Catholic priests, contrary to the Bible, are forbidden to marry. In view of this verse, and since we're living in the last days, how can you possibly defend your priesthood? Answer

<First of all, how do you know we're in the last days? >

Acts 2:16-17 NIV: No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: “ ‘In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams.

Hebrews 1:1-2 NIV: In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.

James 5:1-3 NIV: Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days.

1 Peter 5:20 NIV: He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

1 John 2:18 NIV: Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.

This is begging the question to an ironic degree.

< Perhaps you're unaware that for the last 850 years (since the Second Lateran Council in 1139), all candidates for priestly ordination in the Roman rite have been required to take the vow of celibacy. By your reasoning that means we've been in the last days an awfully long time.>

So what?

<There's another problem with your assertion. No Catholic is forbidden to marry. Men who become priests do so voluntarily with the understanding that in the Roman rite marriage is not an option for priests.>

Tautology. Let me translate the last sentence: "It's forbidden to <SOME> but not all."

<Rather than being forbidden to marry, Catholic priests freely sacrifice the option of marriage in favor of serving God more single-mindedly as chaste, celibate disciples. (Married men in the Eastern rites of the Catholic Church are allowed to be ordained.)>

Obvious word games. Instead of admitting <SOME> are forbidden to marry, the RCC creates that <SOME> as a special class of people who freely, cough, cough, give up the right to marry.

<Although marriage is lawful for all Christians, it's not mandatory. It's in harmony with the Gospel to abstain from marriage for the sake of serving Christ. Jesus tells us that some "have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom. Whoever can accept this [a life of celibacy] ought to accept it" (Mt 19:12).>

Deflection. This is a point everyone would agree with.

<Paul, himself a celibate priest, explains in 1 Corinthians 6:12-13 that "everything is lawful for me, but not everything is beneficial. Everything is lawful for me but I will not let myself be dominated by anything." Here Paul warns against sexual immorality and exhorts Christians to "glorify God in their bodies" (1 Cor 6:20).>

Evidence, please, that Paul was a priest. In fact, evidence, please, that there is such a thing as a "priesthood" beyond the priesthood of all believers.

<In the next chapter he encourages celibacy by explaining its eminent role in a life of chastity:

Now, in regard to the matters about which you wrote, it is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman, but because of cases of immorality every man should have his own wife and every woman her own husband. . .

Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am [celibate], but each has a particular gift from God, one of one kind and one of another...Now to the unmarried and to widows I say, it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do, but if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry because it is better to marry than to remain on fire. (1 Cor 7:1-2, 7-10)>

"each" has. Yet the RCC has created a class of multiple "eaches" who are forbidden to marry.

<1 Timothy 4:3, far from impugning the Catholic discipline of priestly celibacy, condemns those heresies (like the Manichaeans and Albigensians) which said marriage is evil because the body is evil. Paul wasn't warning Timothy about the Cathohlic discipline--after all, Paul himself followed it!>

Really, now? Anyway, one of us was addressing each point, but it takes two to tango.>

I agree that conduct in church is important, but why is it shameful to hear a woman's voice during the service?

Is this view based on 1 Timothy 2?

<playground player> I'm not dumping on fundamentalists but endeavouring to understand how they arrive at their theological positions.

Please don't take any of my remarks as intending to be unkind.

We're just having a lively discussion about the Bible and Christianity but it seems <OCF> is ultra-sensitive about any critique of fundamentalism.

And I haven't even got onto snake-handling yet!

Is this view based on 1 Timothy 2? >

I was basing it off of this:

<If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.>

1 Corinthians 14:35

And this:

<1 Corinthians 14:34
women are to be silent in the churches. They are not permitted to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.>

Similar but slightly broader is this:

<11A woman must learn in quietness and full submissiveness. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man; she is to remain quiet> 1 Tim 2:11

There is a spiritual order to life:

<But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.> 1 Cor 11:3

Man represents Christ on earth and is to lead, teach and protect his wife spiritually. This is carried over into church where it is shameful to hear a woman's voice.

The world tells us that Christianity is immoral because of sexism and discrimination and that women need to be "partners" and "best friends" in marriage and other endeavors. It's <modern>, and <modern liberal Christians> will reinterpret verses like these to fit into their social paradigm lest they find themselves outside of their circle of friends, or somehow seen as strange by their peers.

<OhioChessFan: Baloney. Where did I refuse to address each point?>

What is your problem?

I said this and you didn't acknowledge it:

< Big Pawn: <A good lesson for us all, but especially for certain fundamentalists!>

Why twack the ears of fundamentalists when they are your brothers?

That's no good.>

But all you see is daggers coming at you when I didn't even single you out. I singled out <optimal play> for slamming fundamentalists and you don't see him here whining about me being <unfair>.

Then I said I hope <the two of you> (that means BOTH) can be civil enough to discuss each of the points <because> I can tell that the discussion is already getting derailed with all of this stupid fighting and squabbling that you guys do.

For example, in 1 Corinthians 11 he says that a woman should pray and prophesize with her head covered, and although she could pray quietly, I don't see how see could prophesise without speaking?

In any event, it is one of the texts the Church uses to exclude women from becoming priests, although they are permitted as lectors at mass which obviously entails them speaking!

Perhaps it was a cultural thing which doesn't apply today? Especially since *nobody* is permitted to ask questions during mass, either men or women?

<Big Pawn: <OhioChessFan: Baloney. Where did I refuse to address each point?> What is your problem?> His problem is that he's a sook!

<all you see is daggers coming at you when I didn't even single you out. I singled out <optimal play> for slamming fundamentalists and you don't see him here whining about me being <unfair>.>

<OhioChessFan> is oversensitive and carrying on like a big girl!

Of course you won't see me whining about someone being unfair because I'm not a big sooky crybaby!

<OCF> I'm sorry that I caused you to get all emotional during our discussion.

I'll try to be more sensitive towards your delicate feelings from now on.

For example, in 1 Corinthians 11 he says that a woman should pray and prophesize with her head covered, and although she could pray quietly, I don't see how see could prophesise without speaking?>

It's in the proper context and liberals today would say he is a misogynist.

The verse I shared are as clear as could be and any attempt to force them to mean something obscure comes across as overwhelmingly ad hoc.

My intent was not to dwell too long on this specific verse, but rather to show that Christians today have a huge problem with wanted to make scripture fit into a modern, liberal social paradigm.

Here's the thing - I see Christians doing this all the time. They go to church and learn from their preachers how to rationalize this twisting of the simple scripture (written by 1st century Jews) into something that means the exact opposite.

It's like when the snake said, "Did God really say that?" and then next thing you know, Eve rationalized God's word, which was plain, to mean the opposite of what He said.

It is shameful to hear a woman's voice in church. This statement was not a big deal in 1st century Israel because it was already pretty much like that. People didn't look at that verse back then and say, "Well, I think what God really means is that women should speak in church - otherwise the 21st century will call us <misogynists>!"

The man is the head of his wife as Christ is the head of man. Christ over man, man over wife, wife over children. This spiritual order is important because when it's broken we have all kind of problems. We have out of control divorce and that leads to innumerable number of children that grow up spiritually unprotected and easy prey for deceit. Such things ruin entire nations and even worldwide generations. Not a little thing if you think about it.

Church today is for women and it's highly feminized. Everything about it is upside down and inside out. People go to church but it's not working for them. They still have messed up families, anger, resentment, bad relationships, gossip, pride and sin.

Satan knows that men represent Christ on earth and so he attacks men with liberalism and feminism, marginalizing their Godly role in the world according to God himself. Satan knows that this will cause chaos and confusion and that is perfect for his cause.

<<OCF> I'm sorry that I caused you to get all emotional during our discussion.

I'll try to be more sensitive towards your delicate feelings from now on.

Please accept my apology.>

I don't know why he gets like that. It's not helping him make his case or be persuasive. Perhaps he just got frustrated with the debate.

<BP:What is your problem?>

Your dishonesty.

<I said this and you didn't acknowledge it:

< Big Pawn: <A good lesson for us all, but especially for certain fundamentalists!>>

Why twack the ears of fundamentalists when they are your brothers?>

<That's no good.>

Yeah, I saw that. Whatever.

<But all you see is daggers coming at you when I didn't even single you out. I singled out <optimal play> for slamming fundamentalists and you don't see him here whining about me being <unfair>. >

You weren't unfair. You were accurate. He was wrong in that statement. You'll notice, I did not respond to <HIS> statement. Yet you accuse me of being oversensitive. Really, now? I also did not respond to the barb <<You seem to have read one or two passages in the Bible and without understanding them have gone off half-cocked and joined some obscure little fundamentalist church>> and you still want to lie and say I'm being oversensitive. I let it go. But I'm oversensitive. Really, now?

<Then I said I hope <the two of you> (that means BOTH) can be civil enough to discuss each of the points <because> I can tell that the discussion is already getting derailed with all of this stupid fighting and squabbling that you guys do. >

What fighting and squabbling had I done at that point? I am accusing you right now of lying through your teeth with this statement. I <LET GO> 2 unkind shots he took at me, but I'm fighting and squabbling? Really, now? He refused to address me point by point after I'd done the same. You want us both to do that, but in fact, one of us, him, failed to do that! If only one fails, that's the end of the matter. I can't make him do it and made clear I'd given up on the matter. I have to admit I was particularly stunned that he admitted he wasn't qualified to dispute me but repeatedly chirped how he was right and I was wrong. Tell me, how would <YOU> react on Rogoff if someone tried that on you?

<I just want to stick to the points and go over them without all the nonsense and hypersensitivity.>

See above.

< It's not helping him make his case or be persuasive. Perhaps he just got frustrated with the debate.>

See above. He admitted he couldn't answer me, for crying out loud. Game over.

<Either way, I was looking forward to both of you actually answering each point, without bloviating, directly and concisely, especially because <ohio> is a former Catholic. >

I think that's an important point!

In 1st century Israel, it was as you say already pretty much like that, but it's not like that in 21st century western civilisation.

That's why people are wrong to accuse Paul of misogyny since he was a man of his time, so the issue is whether his admonition was theological or cultural.

It also raises the question of women deacons in the early church such as Phoebe (Romans 16:1) and how they performed the functions of their diaconate if they weren't permitted to speak in church?

Anyway, it is certainly true that family breakdown in today's society is linked to the abandonment of Christianity and belief in God.

It's like the old saying, "the family that prays together stays together"

<OhioChessFan> Please calm down.

Again, let me apologise for upsetting you and calling you a sook.

I suspect that because you're a former Catholic you're becoming overly emotional about this debate.

<optimal play: <Big Pawn: ... It is shameful to hear a woman's voice in church. This statement was not a big deal in 1st century Israel because it was already pretty much like that. People didn't look at that verse back then and say, "Well, I think what God really means is that women should speak in church - otherwise the 21st century will call us <misogynists>!"> I think that's an important point!

In 1st century Israel, it was as you say already pretty much like that, but it's not like that in 21st century western civilisation.>

Think about <occam>. There is no reason to think that this verse pertains only to culture. It's part of the spiritual order of Christ over man and man over woman. When the deceiver wants to undo God's work, he tries to undo God's spiritual order by making women to be not submissive to the man and not have the man be the wife's head.

<That's why people are wrong to accuse Paul of misogyny since he was a man of his time,>

Misogyny is an overused word of the left. If men today were Godly men, they would be the heads of their wives and all would be called misogynists but those seeking to reverse the spiritual order of God.

What the real problem is today is not misogyny but feminism and liberalism, which seeks to rebel against God's spiritual order as well as any other binding Christian values.

We don't need an excuse or explanation for a man being the head of his wife and for man being over woman. That is God's perfect order and it is right and moral. It's this other way that needs explaining and it's wrong and immoral.

The culture of western civilization has gotten away from God since the Enlightenment. Gradually, secular humanistic values have been offered in place of God's values. This has happened slowly over many years but it has added up. Now we find ourselves here today in an anti God, post-Christian environment where atheist humanistic values of secularism seem the norm, good, fair, right to many people. We are desensitized to the pervasive flouting of God's order as everything around us has Satan's fingerprints all over it, such that it seems likea part of our world, yet, it is an illusion.

<Anyway, it is certainly true that family breakdown in today's society is linked to the abandonment of Christianity and belief in God.>

We agree. But liberals think that's a good thing. They rationalize it by saying, "Well, now you don't have women who are <miserable>, getting beaten randomly by their <husbands>, forced to stay married any longer" and they go on to demonize men, because men represent Christ on earth. Christ is the head of man and the man is the head of his woman.

<It also raises the question of women deacons in the early church such as Phoebe (Romans 16:1) and how they performed the functions of their diaconate if they weren't permitted to speak in church?>

That is open to speculation but "It is shameful to hear a woman's voice in church" is not. It is clear.

Even more broadly speaking that all that, I want to start to show that the narratives of liberalism are all set up against God. That is, liberalism liberates the human from God!

Liberalism is the habitual thinking pattern of those that rationalize acting against God's order. People don't realize it because it's wrapped up in words like freedom and equality but make no mistake about it; liberalism is liberty i.e. freedom from God's commandments and order. Satan is the Attorney General of liberalism. He knows all the best arguments and reasons why we can flout God's order, commands and values. He grabs on to the intellect of intelligent men and puts thoughts in their minds that <they think are their own> and he teaches them how to rationalize sin.

Ask yourself, have you ever acted against your own best judgment? Just think about that for a moment. Reflect. It's quite puzzling, isn't it? How indeed to we act against our <own> best judgment? How do <we> deceive <ourselves>? There would have to be separate minds or areas of thinking in our minds in order to do that. When you know that you are deceiving yourself, notice that it's <your identity> that <knows> it is being deceived, but the deceiving part does not feel deceived. It feels natural!

This leads me back around to what I was talking about earlier regarding pride, identifying your pride, hearing the voice of pride and how it prevents the perfect wisdom of God from entering into you and enlightening you.

I didn't say that you didn't answer his points. You are making that up in your head.

<op> slammed you as a fundamentalist and you responded with your own harsh tone <If you think that's true, I won't waste any more of my time.> as if talking to him was just a <waste> of your time.

Therefore, I said to myself, "I want to hear the ex-catholic and the still-catholic debate all these points, but they're already at each other's throats" so I said to <both of you> that I wished you could be civil and go on with the points.

Then you called me a liar.

You can call God a myth if you need to, but description of Israel was given thousands of years BC and long before any current conflict.

When you blow off someone as a "fundamentalist," silly, ignorant, not worth taking seriously, and assume your own superiority, that person is not going to thank you for it. Of course he's going to get "emotional"!

It does you credit that you believe all that your church teaches.

But there's a big difference between saying, "My church is absolutely right about everything and no one, and nothing, can be right unless he or it conforms 100% to everything my church teaches"... and saying, "Are you criticizing me for believing my own church's teaching?" Same content, but altogether different presentation.

Believe it or not, you do give the impression of despising "fundamentalists"--mostly for not believing what the science of a fallen world teaches about evolution.

How many times have you apologized for a joke you made on my forum which really cheesed me off because I didn't know it was a joke?

<Abdel> is silenced on *his* home turf (the Rogoff page) for 5 days in a row.