more: http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/i...=22&sp=true


Thoughts?

How about Junia — (Rom. 16:7) ?

the longer they are around the dumber excuses they make. how does this group stay in business?

Jesus H. Christ, It's the 21'st fcking century. now I'll accept there are a few roles that can be argued about. having a woman leading your country can still be misconstrued as weak to some cultures. But belittling women on a philosophical level is just retarded.

could have sworn centuries ago the Anglicans already told the Catholic Church to go screw.

I'm starting to get really piseed off with the way the Church treats women, but I don't have time to go into it at the moment. When I return from work tonight, I'm going to go into an in depth analysis of whether men, who have been making women their victims for millennia, if not since the dawn of humankind, actually are superior.

It's strange that having female teachers of the gospel is put in the same basket as openly practising homosexuals. The first Apostles were women.

There are several issues causing trouble in the Anglican church at present. Women bishops are just one of them. They are based on differing interpretations of the bible which is not unusual. It seems to me that the younger parts of the church, mainly in Africa, wish to have a more literal interpretation from some of the older parts (America and England).

Personally, I think that if they allow women priests then they have to allow women bishops. Some of the argument is based around the 12 Disciples where all men - was this due to a deliberate choice or by cultural norms at the time which are no longer relevant.

I don't care what the Anglican Church does or what the Catholic Church thinks.

That meeting of the Anglicans was held at my university ^ ^
Oh yeah, and they're fighting over a totally stupid thing. But then, when does it not?

Throne777

Why where you not lurking in the background shots that the news cameramen kept showing?

Because, depressingly, I'm now back in Brum. It's funny that the camera crew were filming right next to political slogans painted on the temporary wall behind them. Shame they never had the 'Free Tibet' sprawls on TV :P

Throne777

I've never really understood this issue. Growing up I can't remember reading anything in the Bible that indicated God didn't want women leaders. I know paul hated women with a passion and made that quite clear repeatedly, but that was his oppinion not god's.

I think the thing that really caused confusion for me on this issue was talking to one of my Bible teachers about it, as far as the SDA church is concerned. He told me the reason why women aren't pastors in the SDA church was because they would never be accepted in certain countries. Which seems more like an excuse to me, rather then a reason, because you just don't send the women to countries that can't accept women in possitions of power. However I believe I have heard some rumblings about change in the SDA thought, so they may be getting to where they can start considering the idea.

Wrong!

Aside from Jesus Himself paul was one the greatest advocator of women's emancipation the world has ever seen.

And once again I get the distinct feeling that WilV and I are not reading the same book...but I don't have a Bible with me, so I can't give any quotes, still everything I've read showed him to be a man that hated women, and no respect for them. But this is yet a nother reason on a lengthy list that I need to back and reread a whole bunch of stuff.

I get that feeling too because I am 100% sure that WilV is reading the Bible. There are many instances of Paul bigging up women. For example if you looked up the passage I quoted in my first post. That was Paul referring to Junia as an Apostle. He also made similar comments about Phoebe and others.

Peter was the woman hater. Paul was the trippy Gnostic.

Throne777

Most people get the "paul hates women" thing because they don't know two things. Firstly how to read the bible and secondly what it is saying when they do read it. Most of the "women hating" scriptures used to defame paul come from corinthians, however they are usually quotes from letters that paul is writing an answer to.

Not that I'm not up for a debate on gender issues in Christianity, but I feel the need to second Rhuen's reaction.

Why exactly is the Vatican telling the Anglican Church anything, and why do the Anglicans care? The Anglican Church has been a distinctly seperate entity with it's own doctrine for almost 500 years.

After doing some research, I found some historians aren't sure if the stuff in corinithians and the letters were written by paul, so maybe he did hate women, maybe he didn't, it doesn't sound to me like there's enough information on either side to prove what his stance was.

Oh and considering how subjective the bible is, I don't think you have the right to tell anyone if they know how to read it. You should know better then anyone that what I understand a verse to mean may be quite different then what you understand it to mean, and in many cased we'd both be right. Making statments like that is along the same lines as statments made reguarding judging ones intelligence by whether they took the bible as parable or literal. If you don't agree with me that's fine, but don't put me down because I don't see it the same way you do.

I think they're still PO'd at Henry VIII telling them to go stick it up their Papal rears.

And frankly, I despise Paul. He's the main reason I stopped being a Christian.

Bring back Pope Joan. She had a great rack.

religious folk don't like being told their religion is wrong by another group of religious folk. gotta love xians

However, the Anglicans aren't telling the Catholics anything. They made a decision. It had nothing to do with the Catholics. So, while the Anglicans might not like being told they're wrong by the Catholics, your statement sheds no light on why the Vatican is telling Canterbury anything.

Bullshit. We can't both be right because God deals in ultimate truth. One of us has to be wrong, and when it comes to Paul I'm going to go against what I usually say and point out that it's you.



I thought it might have been Christ. But hey, maybe that's just my lunacy coming to bear with the whole Christ saying you can't "stop" being one of His children, you either are one or never were in the first place.

Weird, I was under the assumption that what makes one a child of God is one's actions, not one's birthright:

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. - Matt 5:44-45

Strangely enough, that concept of praying for your enemies and for their happiness is found in Buddhism as well.

Since you're in Matthew lets just continue that passage a bit:

Matthew 5:46-48 "For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? Therefore you shall be perfect just as you Father in Heaven is perfect."

Not really talking about how to become a Christian, more how to live like one once you are.



It is a birthright, but one inherited through Faith:

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God"

John 3:16 "For God so love the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life"

Your right about that god deals in ultimate truth, however are you really going to tell me that your way of reading the bible is the only way of doing so? Think about what your claiming for a moment, look at history, look how personal ones walk with God is, how verses can carry one meaning at one point in ones journey, and imply something a bit different later on. Are you really so egotistical to say that your way of reading the bible is the only way of doing so?

Now as per my previous post I have all ready I all ready admitted I might be wrong regarding Paul, and perhaps that will change what I understand of his writing next time I read them.

That was my thought. The Episcopalian/Anglican/Church of England couldn't give a rat's ass what the Catholic church thinks. Or are they caught up in the ecumenical movement?


Oh, don't you remember tha Paul said even women could be saved? *rolls eyes*

1 Corinthians 14:34-35
Paul on women's conduct in church: "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak... And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home."

1 Timothy 2:13-15
Paul on why women should be silent in church: "For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided [she] continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty."

Adam chose to sin and Eve was deceived. But Eve is obviously considered less than. Of course, it is very possible that Paul did not write Timothy...


When I was a practicing Christian, I would have never been on a site like this. I stayed away from anything that wasn't "edifying." It's a slippery slope, don't you think, WilV? Liberals very rarely cross the bridge to the Christian side. It is more likely the Christian will fall. I do believe once saved, always saved. I don't believe in works. But if your Christian family knew you were posting here, they would judge you as unsaved. Unless you belong to a liberal church.

Actually, that is Paul quoting a letter sent to him, which is blatantly obvious if you read the entire verse 34:

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says.

The first clue to give away the nature of the verses as a quote is the phrase "the law". Paul speaks out against people being held in slavery to "the law" in every single one of his letters. He's very consistant on that (even to the point of telling off Peter in public for forcing gentiles to live according to the law). He tells people constantly to "live by faith and not by the law". So there's your first clue.

The other clues come from 14:22-25 where he quotes a letter sent to him by the corinthians then straight after directly opposes it telling them they're wrong, and also from the flow of the passage from verse 33 to verse 36. These two verses flow perfectly into one another without the verses 34 and 35.



Not at all. Because Eve was decieved, rather than choosing to sin, it was from the line of woman that Christ should come, as saviour to all mankind. The "saved through childbearing" refers directly to the birth of Christ through Mary and to the prophecy of that happening in Genesis 3:15.



When you were a practicing Christian you were a fool and ignored what it is to be a Christian:

Matthew 28:20 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you, and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

Mark 2:17 "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance."



My Family and my Church know I post here, and they appreciate the time I invest in this site. I don't think you really know what it is to be a Christian at all.

Yeah, provided they are meek, obedient, silent and asexual.

The rights women have to express themselves are always very hard won. Women have had to die for these rights, and display attrition that beggars belief.

Women beware. These rights are something that men, especially illeberal religious men, would take away instantly if they could get away with it.

no, people deal in ultimate truth using god as their excuse.

if you wan to go strictly by what "god" said, then you'll be reading a collection of quotes that could be interpreted a few thousand different ways.

what the bible "says" changes with each new generation.

If you want to go by what the catholic church took from the bible a few hundred years ago, then it's a sin to own a dildo, and taking the lords supper while unbaptized is instant damnation. think about it, the fate of your eternal soul decided by a tiny cup and a cracker.

whatever you've grown up knowing as the bibles "ultimate truth" is really just the philosophies of a few men who defined the incomprehensible quotes of a book to match their view of things.

If there really was such thing as a ultimate truth, then the moment it was spoken, noone would disagree enough to argue with it.

Actually, they didn't get that from the bible at all. They made it up themselves without reference to the book they claim to believe in.



Oh, of course not... *rolls eyes*

right, modern denominations do a much better job to cover their own lies in biblical BS.

and for arguments sake, give us a working definition for absolute truth.
"because many is the man who puts his words in the mouth of god and claims it's absolute truth"

Never said they did. In fact they really don't, they're just as bad. Doesn't mean there's no universal truth.



Already did:

that's not a definition, it's an example.

if you're going to argue, at least follow through with it.

No, that is the definition and example both. But here's another:

Absolute: free from imperfection; complete; perfect
Truth: the true or actual state of a matter

Absolute Truth: The actual state of a matter that is free from imperfection

ok wright. except wrong.

because the bible itself was written by humans.

humans who thought they were talking to god. so crazy humans.


if you want to derive "absolute truth" from modern interpretations of the ravings of insane men across a stretch of history, then be my guest.

just dont expect to be able to build a good arguement on it.

Defending the bible is like an ant defending an elephant; admirable and heroic sure, but ultimately pointless. The bible is well and truly capable of defending itself.

"For God so love the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life" is "The actual state of a matter that is free from imperfection".

Hence absolute truth.

you're right. it is like defending an elephant.

you can make a grand enterence on it, you can make a grand specticle of it, and you can use it for war.

but in the end, it winds up being an inefficient machine, and a giant target.

No, it's like an ant defending an elephant.

You'd make a great politician with your ability to spin statements without facing the actual point. But that's an ad hominem attack to rather pointless to the discussion.



It is a giant target, because people don't like the thought that they're not good enough on their own and might need help.

The fact is that only those who think they need help actually need help. Religion takes advantage of fear and uncertainty, and THAT is why there are no atheists in foxholes. Now, on a more relevant level, most people are so heavily indoctrinated that they are unable to think for themselves. THIS IS BAD. It's far better to think for yourself and say "fuck the Bible, and fuck those who proclaim it as absolute truth" than to accept it without ever questioning the veracity of its contents or the legitimacy of its vague and supposed messages. After all, twenty people have twenty interpretations of that piece of ancient history, and it's not even a well-written piece of fiction. The plot's boring, the characters are two-dimensional, and half the time, it feels like I'm reading a grocery list. Very unsatisfying.

Here is a problem, WilV. I know that you are a Christian but you are a bad witness for Christ. You swear, using such words as "bullshit" and, I think, "f*ckers?" in a thread title (or maybe I'm wrong on that one). People who are not Christian, such as many at this site, hold Christians to very high standards. You have one foot in the church and one foot in the world. I understand that because you are human, you are not God, and you cannot be perfect. However, non-Christians expect you to be perfect. That's just the way it is. They judge your every move, your every word. As soon as "bullshit" appears on the screen, you are discredited, Christ is discredited and people will cry hypocrite. Once you ruin your witness, that is that.

And you have the right to judge me as we know one another by our fruits. I am no fool. I do know what it is to be Christian and that's why I left the church. I left so I wouldn't become a hard-hearted, hateful, unloving, sour-faced asshole. Have you noticed how mean the elderly become? How unloving? How unaccepting? Personally, I despise the institution of the church - it is manmade religion where the congregation picks and chooses what laws they will follow. It is good they know what they believe rather than debating whether Christ is really God (I once attended a Seventh Day Baptist Church where they were doing that - they hadn't read 1 John 1 - 4 I guess). However, because people are people, prideful and arrogant, they become self-righteous and think they are wonderful and good, that they are really pleasing the Lord. The more prideful they become, the less loving they become.

I cannot see anything against it, as the Church of England has historically had no great love for the Catholic church, and had spent many centuries opposing it.

I don't know where to begin with this... wow. Actually I do I'm going to begin with your second part:



A "church" as in a congregation of likeminded people who attend a building once a week is not what it means to be a Christian. Any denomination is wrong, but that's not so much the point. And here's the problem; "The more prideful they become, the less loving they become." Being full of pride is not a problem, so long as you have pride in the right thing. I am proud to be a Christian, not because I think it makes me better than anyone else, but because I am proud of the saving work of Christ for itself. I have pride in Christ as a brother, or a son might have pride in his own family. When a person becomes proud of their own exploits, rather than of Christ, that is where they lose their love for one another, and so too their essense of what it is to be "Christlike".



I didn't realise that swearing made me a bad witness. Perhaps it does in the USA, my bad. However it has been my experience with friends and family that a person who is honest about their failings, lives as a human being without pretense and an attempt to deny who they are, yet still maintains a lifestile that glorifies Christ has a far stronger witness than one who lives a life of pretend "perfection" for fear that the world may judge them. I am a hypocrite, I know it and I don't pretend otherwise, however I also don't pretend that it will stop a single person from being saved by Christ.

They say the Antichrist is supposed to be "one who is Christ-like". That means we have millions of Antichrists running around at this very moment!

Al that's a terrible thing to say.

if the antichrist is Christlike, then we really have no Antichrists running around at all.

aren't you asking a little much in expecting people to be like who they worship, i mean come one, their only manipulated feeble minded humans.

"Cursed be the one who does the LORD'S work negligently, And cursed be the one who restrains his sword from blood." - Jeremiah 48:10

In modern parlance, that would translate to:

"Cursed be the one who does the LORD'S work negligently, And cursed be the one who restrains his hand from his wallet." - Jeremiah 48:10

For a God as heroic as you describe, he seems to be very needy, and a piss pathetic accountant. He never quite seems to have got the hang of dealing with wealth, and he seems to have to use humans to do all his killing for him by proxy...

Yeah, way to be out of context again Prom. Taking a single verse from an entire passage which is prophesying the fall and destruction of a nation and claiming that it proves the bible, and therefore God, somehow inadequate. Nicely done.

"The Lord, the God of their fathers shall persistantly to them through his messengers, because he hath compassion on his people and on his dwelling place." 2 Chronicles.

So why the two thousand year gap, and why did he allow six million of his people to be systematically tortured to death by a madman?