ChatterBank0 min ago
How can you take a church seriously...?
96 Answers
The church of england is changing the rules to allow female bishops. I'm not saying that I'm for, or against this but what I am saying is how can you take a church seriously if they just keep changing the rules to suit themselves? Surely the way a church lays out the rules at the start should be the way they stay. For example in a few years what's to stop them changing the rules to allow atheists to become bishops?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by flobadob. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
No, when I say that I mean that's what I thought the idea of the bible is, to be the word of God to the people of earth. Therefore if it says in the bible that women shouldn't preach then surely that means God does not want them to preach. Any time I ask a question on religion I notice that most answers come from atheists so basically my own thoughts are backed up and rarely if ever challenged.
jno someone made a remark about my questions a few months back, can't remember who, basically saying why an atheist like myself asks so many questions about God. I found that annoying. ratter gave his opinion, why do you care about the fact that he's giving an opinion rather than about the content of his posts.
but it can't be the word of god. god doesn't exist.
which is kinda in keeping with what jno said above, and what someone ese said on here previously.
do you think flob, that the church should stick to its medieval ways with no pogression at all then ? if that was the case, then we'd all be smoking on the stakes. let them move on unnoticed into the modern world. its time they caught up. but no real point in frothing and coughing and clutching your chest in agony about it.
which is kinda in keeping with what jno said above, and what someone ese said on here previously.
do you think flob, that the church should stick to its medieval ways with no pogression at all then ? if that was the case, then we'd all be smoking on the stakes. let them move on unnoticed into the modern world. its time they caught up. but no real point in frothing and coughing and clutching your chest in agony about it.
flobadob, although my answer was directly to Ratter, it was also meant for you. Your question was how you can take an organisation seriously if it changes its rules. I have been saying that an organisation can change its rules any time it likes and any way it likes, because it is a matter for the members, whether they are a church, a retail chain, a football club or a website. If you are a member you can try to do something about this. If you aren't, you can't. So I have also suggested that if anyone is seriously concerned, they should try joining the church to make themselves heard ,as they are unlikely to be listened to otherwise.
But it's perfectly possible to take it seriously. Ratter and Naomi both do.
But it's perfectly possible to take it seriously. Ratter and Naomi both do.
Paul was the founder of the Christian church and I've already talked about his instruction that women must not teach, they must not have authority over men, and they must remain silent. I think that's plain enough.
Apart from that, as far as I am aware, the Bible does not specifically say that women must be excluded from the priesthood, but that's because when the books were written, there was no reason to state the obvious. The bible says that women are inferior to men, and that they must obey men - they weren't even important enough to be counted in the census - so the question of them entering the priesthood would never have arisen. It would have been unthinkable. What you have to remember is that in the Middle East in ancient times it was normal for women to be considered inferior - and it's still normal in many areas of the Middle East today.
However, moving back to Flobadob and Ratter's point, which is a point of principle, if Christians believe the bible is the word of God, and they believe God doesn't make mistakes, then it follows that if they choose to accept women into the priesthood, they are contravening God's laws.
jno, what a ridiculous thing to say. We are discussing a point of principle - something that happens in many good debates - but since the subject matter and many of the comments aren't to your liking, rather than join the discussion you simply attempt to stifle the debate for others - as usual. And, yes, I do take the subject of religion seriously.
Apart from that, as far as I am aware, the Bible does not specifically say that women must be excluded from the priesthood, but that's because when the books were written, there was no reason to state the obvious. The bible says that women are inferior to men, and that they must obey men - they weren't even important enough to be counted in the census - so the question of them entering the priesthood would never have arisen. It would have been unthinkable. What you have to remember is that in the Middle East in ancient times it was normal for women to be considered inferior - and it's still normal in many areas of the Middle East today.
However, moving back to Flobadob and Ratter's point, which is a point of principle, if Christians believe the bible is the word of God, and they believe God doesn't make mistakes, then it follows that if they choose to accept women into the priesthood, they are contravening God's laws.
jno, what a ridiculous thing to say. We are discussing a point of principle - something that happens in many good debates - but since the subject matter and many of the comments aren't to your liking, rather than join the discussion you simply attempt to stifle the debate for others - as usual. And, yes, I do take the subject of religion seriously.
I'd be grateful if some Christian could answer my question. I explained why women could not have been priests in Jesus' day. Where does the bible say they must never be?
And those who claim that the bible is the word of their God might like to explain why he thinks that the earth existed at least three days before the rest of the universe, how you could have mornings and evenings on three days before the sun and the rest of the stars were invented and why there are two conficting accounts of the birth of that God's son. Highly muddled, that God fellow. I wouldn't trust his reports on anything.
And those who claim that the bible is the word of their God might like to explain why he thinks that the earth existed at least three days before the rest of the universe, how you could have mornings and evenings on three days before the sun and the rest of the stars were invented and why there are two conficting accounts of the birth of that God's son. Highly muddled, that God fellow. I wouldn't trust his reports on anything.
Naomi ///What you have to remember is that in the Middle East in ancient times it was normal for women to be considered inferior - and it's still normal in many areas of the Middle East today. ///
Never mind the Middle East. Women in the Western world have long been considered inferior. Voting rights for women only became the norm during the 20th century. Women were routinely paid less for exactly the same work until very recently just because they were women.
Never mind the Middle East. Women in the Western world have long been considered inferior. Voting rights for women only became the norm during the 20th century. Women were routinely paid less for exactly the same work until very recently just because they were women.
