News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
we do not allow women to become Priests not because we believe they are inferior, but because of the Bible and Church Traditions
for example, Mary, is the queen of Heaven and mother of God, and is prayed to for intercession
Hey I stumbled across this video and thought I should share it with you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXwh9JpGL8g
Ah yeah the woman who was chosen to give birth without her consent. A model of femininity.
Luke 1:38 Then Mary said: “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. Let it be done to me according to your word.” And the Angel departed from her.
Is handmaid a euphemism for concubine/sex slave?
Or is it more like "well he's my boss so I guess I have to"
handmaid means servamt
and its like "The Lord has decided this, I agree as its his will"
She was fourteen.
sources?
the Bible never mentions her age
Which Bible? Which translation, which council? Because most of the stuff in "the Bible" changes with every translation. An example would be the relatively recent changes to condemn homosexuality when originally they were condemning the Roman practice of pederasty.
Anyway, first century Jewish girls were usually betrothed during or immediately after puberty and as she was already promised to Joseph according to one gospel she would have been between 12 and 16. It's possible she was an outlier but much more likely if she did exist she was pregnant around 14.
read the original greek and hebrew at this point if you hate translations this much
You are so close to the point. It's all made up bro. It's fiction.
it isnt
proof?
You can't prove a negative. You're the one that claims god exists, where's your empirical evidence? Where's your proof? Repeatable, testable proof? As it is there's no evidence whatsoever of any deity of any kind so there's no reason to believe they'd exist. You say they do, that's your claim, now prove it. Maybe learn some rhetoric and logic first so you can actually have a legitimate good faith discussion.
Genesis 1:3 And God said, “Let there be light.” And light became.
how did the Apostle John and the author of Genesis know thay light can be created from matter more than a thousand years before it was proven via colliders?
John 1:4 Life was in Him, and Life was the light of men.
They didn't? Nothing in that passage implies anything scientific or anything even about the nature of light and the relationship between matter and energy.
the Bible is in parables
and yes, it does? Light can create, and God is the light of all men, God is the creator of all men, and God also illuminates our lives in a special way
The new testament isn't in parables at all. Some of the characters in the new testament use parables, but that's not the same. And if the bible is parables, nothing in it is meant to be taken in any way literally which clearly isn't the case. You're taking contradictory positions. And nothing about the passage implies anything about light or physics whatsoever.
MOST of it is in parables, the parts about Jesus and his life are personal testimonies of the disciples
Do your arms get tired carrying those goalposts?
Ok if that's your proof then I can use quotes from the Hobbit to prove dragons are real.
if tolkien predicted particle physics 2000+ years ago before modern colliders I would say he has a point
The Bible didn't predict particle physics and I'm genuinely confused as to how you get that interpretation.
it implies that light can possibly create matter
No it doesn't.
it does
How? Be specific. Use established theological scholarly sources for your assertion. I've never heard anyone make this type of claim before. What denomination do you practice, and is that belief in line with your established canon?
... And servant is a common euphemism for slave in the bible.
In modern language a servant is someone that is paid money to do work and can leave the relationship without fear.
A slave is someone that does work because of obligation and isn't necessarily provided anything to survive (ie may also need to labour to provide themselves food/shelter) and cannot leave the relationship without fear of retribution.
Which word seems more accurate for what's described in Luke 1:26-38? Was Mary's consent sought, or was she just informed what was expected of her? To me it seems like she doesn't say "Oh Elizabeth, remember how I've always wanted to have God's baby, but now that I'm married to Joseph I can't" instead she is informed of the plan and just says "if you say so".
I think it would be more likely that a good god would obtain consent, but that Luke didn't find evidence of it, and so he wrote his own account of what happened based on his cultural expectations of what that interaction would have been like. What do you think? Would the Gospel of Luke be better of it presented the importance of consent, like maybe that would help men to treat women with respect.
the Bible is full of metaphors and parables
The Lord serves us every moment we are alive, so we should serve him too
Mary was informed, and thus agreed to it
God, as he is onmipotent, knew of Mary's obedience before she was even formed in the womb and thus chose her
Im sorry, my religion says your religion is all fabricated nonsense, so yes the church is sexist deal with it
Because of the implications... As his servant.
You really are just that annoying huh.
Damn son. Try not trying so hard. Honestly? Do anything different than what you’re attempting to rn. Nobody likes you.
"It's not sexist because it's a sexist tradition."
Religion is silly.
💭 To consider antireligion, not atheism; https://www.arscyni.cc/file/antireligion.html
suppression of rational thought? proof?
https://www.reuters.com/world/vatican-rejects-proposal-allow-sermons-by-catholic-women-2026-06-23/
Let me spell it out
the most common way to become a Priest is through a religious order
When in formation, you decide to be a Brother or a Priest if you are in a male order
and in a female order, you are a nun after formation
some become Brothers and not priests as they want to support the Order and have more time to dedicate to Theology, Writing, Reading, etc.
you just cannot be ordained into the Priesthood as a woman
Just because it is a tradition does not mean it is not sexist.
Your comments only do one thing: Showing that catholic traditions are sexist. And you argue that because it is tradition, it is okay. No. It's not. If your tradition is sexist, then fuck your tradition, it has to fucking go.
"Today we hear the argument that “men and women are equal in Christ, so why can’t a woman be a priest? Jesus certainly didn’t discriminate in this way!”
The Church’s all-male priesthood doesn’t signify in the first place that women are inferior to men. It has nothing to do with that sort of nonsense. Galatians 3:28 teaches that “there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” We’re equal. The view that men and women have different roles to play within the Body of Christ is not contrary to that."
One reason for the male-only priesthood is very straightforward: Jesus Christ was a man. During Mass a priest stands in place for Christ (since it is, properly speaking, Christ Himself, not the priest, who offers the Sacrifice and performs the supernatural consecration), thus it is fitting that men only are ordained. This view that women can be priests ultimately is reduced to designating our Lord Jesus and Paul as bigoted sexists."
"The very highest, most exalted and sublime of God’s created beings is Jesus’ own mother, the immaculate (i.e., totally sinless) Blessed Virgin Mary. Mary Magdalene first saw the risen Jesus (Jn 20:11-18), and several women were in the forefront of that event, too, while the men were slow to believe. Jesus saved a woman from being stoned for adultery, on the grounds that her sin was not — in the final analysis — greater than anyone else’s. Even Rahab the harlot is honored, because she helped the Israelite spies. Jesus greatly honored the woman who wiped His feet with her tears and rebuked his male host. Jesus showed extraordinary regard for women throughout His public ministry.
The Apostle Paul taught, “love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (i.e., He died for us). That’s from Ephesians 5:25"
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2025/12/no-women-priests-in-the-catholic-church-why.html
It took me over 60 years, but I have finally understood that the mistranslations, misunderstandings, and outright fabrications of a small group of people thousands of years ago maybe influential, but that doesn't make them true.
The number of logical, philosophical, and moral backflips that you have to do in order to make any sense of it can only work if you have already decided that they are true. Without all that hand-waving, it's ludicrous.
you can read the original hebrew and greek
and proof?
Do you want a list of the contradictions in the Bible? Or discrepancies in all the manuscripts that we have found, let alone all the translations?
There is an enormous amount of justification and adoption of bizarre interpretations, just to try and fit our theology (both current and past) into what the Bible says, and what supports people's preconceived ideas.
After a while, I just got tired of difficult passages in the Bible being explained with, "oh, you have to interpret it like this for it to make sense". Or, "it's a mystery". A few times yes, but over and over again? No, it seems obvious that we are making the Bible do things it was never created to do.
And, if you can, try to approach it without the implicit or explicit understanding that it is a divinely inspired text. If it can't stand up on its own, it's definitely suspect.
Dan McClellan has a good YouTube channel on biblical scholarship issues.
it is mostly in parables
just because you dont understand it doesnt make it illogical
and thats why we need the Church, to interpret it for us.
and contradictions
That sounds like a very Catholic interpretation (I grew up Catholic). Funny how we need to be told what to think, by people who have a vested interest in maintaining the existing power structures of the church, when the original teachings of Jesus were to illiterate farmers and fishermen.
they spend their entire lives studying the scriptures and God, so they can advise you on your life
and his teachings were so powerful that they turned those farmers and fishermen into scholars who could write testimonies and letters
What are you talking about? None of the Gospels were written by apostles. It's very unlikely that any of them could read or write, before or after Jesus.
If Christians are people of the Book, why do they eat pork and shellfish, wear mixed fabrics, and why don't they stone to death adulterers and children who disrespect their parents?
What's that? The New Covenant, you say? Okay, then why, given the example of the Lamb and the Suffering Servant, do Christians fight in armies as opposed to turning the other cheek and loving their enemies? Why don't they sell everything the own and give the money to the poor?
There's always a justification for doing the opposite of what was explicitly commanded in the Bible. Before Constantine made Christianity the state religion, you could not be a Christian and serve in the Roman army. After Constantine, to serve in the Roman army you had to be a Christian. Hmmmm.
sources?
Who prepares for a Groom when he has already come instead of addressing and serving him? The Old Testament laws (most of them) were in preparation for Christ
They should do that, but some of them dont. War can never be supported by the Church.
that says more about roman law than the Bible
So by the logic that only men can preach because Jesus was a man, do you also enforce the rule that only middle Eastern Jewish carpenters can preach?
If not, then it is clearly possible for people to "stand in" for Jesus when preaching, even without matching his characteristics perfectly. The decision to specifically exclude women based on that one particular characteristic is therefore obviously sexist.
You're arguing over the intentions of men in a world that has been massively patriarchal for longer than your religion exists. Please.
With this fun mental gymnastic logic you could argue that priests can't be white because Jesus wasn't white :)
So many traditions have changed over the years, why not change this one?
Slavery was American tradition for like 100 years. Does that mean it's ok?
If you're tradition is being sexist, even tho it's a tradition that doesn't automatically make it ok.
"I know it looks bad but we've been lynching people since my great grandad so it's family tradition and therefore fine :D"