Christmas Presents For Random People
Shopping & Style2 mins ago
Women In Church
44 Answers
Saint Paul said that women should not be allowed to teach other Christians, as because they are more spiritual, they are more easily led astray from the true path. It's all about integrity.
Men and women are equal in the sight of God, but each have different roles to play.
Therefore, women clergy are not biblical.
I agree with this.
What do you think?
Men and women are equal in the sight of God, but each have different roles to play.
Therefore, women clergy are not biblical.
I agree with this.
What do you think?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Oakleaf51. 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.
cazz1975 - I agree. but surely some truths are enduring?
If we go with dynamic fashion to suit the mood of society, where does that leve morals and ethics.
I think we need an unchangeable anchor to hole on to, and that is scripture.
Women like Naomi, seem to want to change that anchor to suit themselves, rather than addressing the unchangeable truths of our existence.
Pardon me if I come acrooss as chauvenistic, but I think that womens perception of themselves has changed to our detriment, and that although men and women are equal, we have different roles. Is that not reasonable?
If we go with dynamic fashion to suit the mood of society, where does that leve morals and ethics.
I think we need an unchangeable anchor to hole on to, and that is scripture.
Women like Naomi, seem to want to change that anchor to suit themselves, rather than addressing the unchangeable truths of our existence.
Pardon me if I come acrooss as chauvenistic, but I think that womens perception of themselves has changed to our detriment, and that although men and women are equal, we have different roles. Is that not reasonable?
Overturn the wisdom of 2000 years ?????
It was male dominant bigotry then and it still is now. The fact that it is 2000 years old means nothing except it has been kept in place by the dominance of men.
What I don't understand is why any woman would care. Women who don't accept that men should be in exclusive control should surely realise that the whole religion thing is flawed and go off to do something else.
It was male dominant bigotry then and it still is now. The fact that it is 2000 years old means nothing except it has been kept in place by the dominance of men.
What I don't understand is why any woman would care. Women who don't accept that men should be in exclusive control should surely realise that the whole religion thing is flawed and go off to do something else.
I do think that men and women do both have their own area's of excellence, whether both men or women agree is another question.
This is proved biologically as men and women have differing strengths and weaknesses, however instead of the tired old "men should be in exclusive control" why not embrace our differences and work as a team.
surely that is to the benefit of everyone, keeping people down deliberately is just a symptom of insecurity.
This is proved biologically as men and women have differing strengths and weaknesses, however instead of the tired old "men should be in exclusive control" why not embrace our differences and work as a team.
surely that is to the benefit of everyone, keeping people down deliberately is just a symptom of insecurity.
Beso, don't allow yourself to be fooled by other peoples excuses. Darwins theories formulated the "scientific" basis of Nazism, Apartheid an Segregation, it just as easy to pejure Darwins word as anyone elses.
Women formulate half (probably more) of any congregation and should be represented (I personally have no objection to a female Bishop etc.) Chisianity has evolved over last 2000 years it started out (I think) with the Coptics, followed by the Orthodoxy, then Catholicism and then Protestantism with alot of variations inbetween.
I fear your post is disingenuous and that at best your definition of Christianity is very narrow and intolerant, it's precisely because you appear to have such an old fashioned sense of "morality" (don't get me started on that chestnut) that leads me to believe that this post is mischievous. Why are'nt you in Church?
Women formulate half (probably more) of any congregation and should be represented (I personally have no objection to a female Bishop etc.) Chisianity has evolved over last 2000 years it started out (I think) with the Coptics, followed by the Orthodoxy, then Catholicism and then Protestantism with alot of variations inbetween.
I fear your post is disingenuous and that at best your definition of Christianity is very narrow and intolerant, it's precisely because you appear to have such an old fashioned sense of "morality" (don't get me started on that chestnut) that leads me to believe that this post is mischievous. Why are'nt you in Church?
Like I said: Read the Bible. I suggest you start with the Book of Joshua. Mass genocide in the name of God.
And the Jews have the hide to cry when it was done to them after millenia of worshipping the very practice ultimately perpetrated against them. Unbelievable hypocracy glorified in the Bible.
The Israelite genocide was immoral as was Hitler's attempted genocide of the Jews. The only difference was that the Israelites didn't let anyone live to complain about it.
The Bible is evil crap. Religion is wicked crap.
And the Jews have the hide to cry when it was done to them after millenia of worshipping the very practice ultimately perpetrated against them. Unbelievable hypocracy glorified in the Bible.
The Israelite genocide was immoral as was Hitler's attempted genocide of the Jews. The only difference was that the Israelites didn't let anyone live to complain about it.
The Bible is evil crap. Religion is wicked crap.
Oakleaf, me a women's libber?!!! Oh no, far from it, and I certainly have no axe to grind with men - I love men. I'd be interested to know how, and why, you've formulated those opinions of me, Oakleaf, since nothing could be further from the truth.
I do agree that men and women do have separate roles to play - and although they can never be equal simply because they are different, that doesn't mean one is less than the other. However, although I much prefer men as leaders in almost all walks of life, if women wish to become priests, then it's their choice, but since I don't go to church, this particular issue isn't important to me. Having said that, I think Kroozer has it right to some degree, in that political correctness has played a role in the emergence of women priests.
As for overturning the wisdom of two thousand years, was St Paul wise, was he a power freak, or was he deluded? And are Christians wise to give him credence when they are well aware that he didn't know Jesus and made the rules up as he went along? In my opinion, in accepting St Paul's teachings as 'gospel' (sorry) Christians and the churches, are completely missing, or deliberately ignoring, the whole point in Jesus' message. Ever seen the opulence of St Peter's in Rome, or of any of the major churches come to that? Not exactly as Jesus would have done it, surely? Being biased, as you are, towards St Paul, certainly blinds you to the truth, Oakleaf.
I must take issue with you on your requirement for an unchangeable anchor to hold on to. You say that anchor is the scriptures, but that's nonsense. Christians interpret the scriptures in whatever way suits them, so unchangeable they are not.
Incidentally, it has been suggested that Jesus was not only married to Mary Magdalene, but that she was his foremost disciple and greatest confidante. No one knows the truth, but if that were found to be true, where would it
I do agree that men and women do have separate roles to play - and although they can never be equal simply because they are different, that doesn't mean one is less than the other. However, although I much prefer men as leaders in almost all walks of life, if women wish to become priests, then it's their choice, but since I don't go to church, this particular issue isn't important to me. Having said that, I think Kroozer has it right to some degree, in that political correctness has played a role in the emergence of women priests.
As for overturning the wisdom of two thousand years, was St Paul wise, was he a power freak, or was he deluded? And are Christians wise to give him credence when they are well aware that he didn't know Jesus and made the rules up as he went along? In my opinion, in accepting St Paul's teachings as 'gospel' (sorry) Christians and the churches, are completely missing, or deliberately ignoring, the whole point in Jesus' message. Ever seen the opulence of St Peter's in Rome, or of any of the major churches come to that? Not exactly as Jesus would have done it, surely? Being biased, as you are, towards St Paul, certainly blinds you to the truth, Oakleaf.
I must take issue with you on your requirement for an unchangeable anchor to hold on to. You say that anchor is the scriptures, but that's nonsense. Christians interpret the scriptures in whatever way suits them, so unchangeable they are not.
Incidentally, it has been suggested that Jesus was not only married to Mary Magdalene, but that she was his foremost disciple and greatest confidante. No one knows the truth, but if that were found to be true, where would it
Everton says post is intolrent, but god makes the rules in scripture - I don't.
I just obey them.
Naomi mixes up organised religion with the simple faith inspired by Jesus and proclaimed by Paul. She also says things that are ridiculous as Saint paul got his knowledge of jesus through special revelation, and that's hard for her to accept.
She is right to point out opulince of the big churches but that is not basic Christianity, and that is what I'm talking about. Rules is rules.
I just obey them.
Naomi mixes up organised religion with the simple faith inspired by Jesus and proclaimed by Paul. She also says things that are ridiculous as Saint paul got his knowledge of jesus through special revelation, and that's hard for her to accept.
She is right to point out opulince of the big churches but that is not basic Christianity, and that is what I'm talking about. Rules is rules.
