Anglican priests to join Catholic Church

[loCAtek]

More that you become humble and choose not to sin again

Then lo - turn from the dark side - become an atheist. As we previously discussed - atheists are ultimately humble since they don't believe the world revolves around them and don't believe there is some benign superpower out there that loves them. Atheists humbly realise just how insignificant we are are in the scheme of things.

You have said before how you strive to be more humble ... join us

LOL Ignoring divinity and your responsibility to it, is far from humble IMHO. My atheist mother was/is one of the most very self-centered people I know. Do/take whatever I want, no one else matters- Is her philosophy. Some, not all, of atheists I meet, are similarly minded: I can do what I want, nothing matters.

So, I connect my spirit to other's and our shared divinity, which inspires compassion and maybe someday true selflessness.

[loCAtek]

I will tell ya, Stoat in my discussions with compassionate Atheists (one-sized atheist does not fit all) I've found their beliefs to be more like Zen Buddhism; that the Tao of 'No-thought' is the key to Nirvana. That is: don't think about it just live it.

...but as I've said before- One sized spirituality (or non-spirituality) does not fit all.

[thestoat]

LOL Ignoring divinity and your responsibility to it, is far from humble IMHO. My atheist mother was/is one of the most very self-centered people I know. Do/take whatever I want, no one else matters- Is her philosophy. Some, not all, of atheists I meet, are similarly minded: I can do what I want, nothing matters.

Sorry to hear that lo. But as you point out, not all atheists are like that. I have certainly known christians who are actually real gits and live very unchristian like lives. The religious here will say "not one of ours", and in fact I have accused you before of just "taking the good bits" - I'll do the same here. As mentioned before,

There are good christians and there are evil, nasty christians.
There are good atheists and there are evil, nasty atheists.

Being self centered is nothing to do with atheism. Atheism just states "there is no god". That's it. Atheists do not say "we are the supreme beings" (well, some might, but that has nothing to do with atheist philosophy). Atheism just states "there is no god". We are unimportant. When we die, we die. Life goes on.

I personally think it would be easier to think that we are so important that when we die we'll go live with god. That would be lovely. But wanting to believe something doesn't make it so.

I will tell ya, Stoat in my discussions with compassionate Atheists (one-sized atheist does not fit all) I've found their beliefs to be more like Zen Buddhism; that the Tao of 'No-thought' is the key to Nirvana. That is: don't think about it just live it.

I think I have mentioned before that of all the faiths I think I like Buddhism the best. But don't confuse atheism with "no thought". We atheists have had religion rammed down our throats since we were born. We have thought about it and decided there is no god. The no thought brigade would be the people who have had religion rammed down their throats since they were born and stay religious simply because they have not thought about it (I am aware some religious types have - I am talking about the subset that have not.

[thestoat]

And finally (v) you don't seem to grasp that anyone who believes God's revelation in the Bible (i.e. is a real Christian) no longer wants / desires to indulge in their former sinful activities. If they do, then they are not a Christian because they are now choosing to pick out the bits they like and reject God's word if they don't like it.

I guess I am not sure why an act that hurts nobody but is simply a private expression of love between two consenting adults could be so hateful in your god's eyes. Your analogy with theft and murder is, imho, flawed since these acts DO hurt and affect others and are against the laws set forward in the 10 commandments which are surely, in anyone's eyes, good rules to live by. Homosexuality isn't like that at all. Why so bad? Unless your god likes to interfere like some nosey neighbour?

[Big RR]

Stoat--the 10 commandments do require behaviors that ennoble us (at least insofar as the bible states) and consequently prohibit things that do not hurt others. The first four (three if you're RC, two are presumably combined) require one to have no gods before the one god,prohibit people from taking god's name in vain, prohibiting people from making graven images, and requiring people to make the sabbath holy. Ignoring these generally hurts no one but oneself, so there is precedent in requiring behavior that is pleasing to god and good for us. However, i am inclined to agree with you on the expression of love an commitment in a physical way between two persons is not bad, and should be pleasing to a god of love. Indeed, homosexual sex is rarely mentioned in the bible, and in the NT was never addressed by jesus; Paul does condemn it, but then this is the same guy who wrote lists and lists of rules which should be followed, from the marriage of clergy, to the wearing of socks in church. His condemnation of homosexual sex between consenting adult IMHO deserves no more attention than his statement that women should remain silent in the church and defer to the men (oh yeah, sorry, even if he didn't say so, he meant that just for the church he was writing to (picking and choosing?), but the prohibition on homosexual sex is universal).

If one believes in a loving and merciful god, one must agree that he/she/it made us in his/her/its image, and thus made us creatures capable of love and having a way to physically express it. This is part of of our very essence, and I cannot believe a loving god would be offended by such behaviors between consenting adults. To deny this is to deny ourselves, and reject what god has given us. Indeed, to deny this hurts ourselves and diminishes us.

[thestoat]

Good answer Big RR.

Mind you - we do know that women are inferior ... as demonstrated scientifically here

[Sean]

LMAO - I haven't seen Mr Cholmondley-Warner in years!

[MajGenl.Meade]

His condemnation of homosexual sex between consenting adult IMHO deserves no more attention than his statement that women should remain silent in the church and defer to the men

1 Timothy 2:10. Paul actually writes "I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man" (alternatively: "over her husband"). Unless there's another reference BigRR, I don't think we find an instruction that women should not teach (my memory is going of course so help me on this).

Lev 20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Now this Paul whom you condemn (pity about that since you trashed most of the New Testament along with it), argues that the Law of which the above is an example is incapable of salvation for no-one can keep the Law. (and of course it's more complicated than I have room for here). For the Christian there is no longer condemnation under the Law. That does not invalidate the sin that the Law addresses. it invalidates the notion of the punishment for the sin under the Law. God has taken on himself the punishment for sin and His wrath (not man's) is justly reserved for those who refuse to believe and continue in sin

Meade

[Big RR]

Meade--I'll look up the Paul reference when I get a chance, but do you really want to quote Leviticus, which also tells us that we must kill witches ("Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (certainly you do not believe there is a class of persons who should be put to death for their beliefs, or even that magical witches exist, do you?) and presents a large other group of "laws" which must be followed (but are not today by most christians or jews)?

As for Paul, I do not condemn Paul per se, just note that most modern commentators seeks to distinguish his pronouncements as to what are generally applicable and what are specific to the situation. Nothing wrong with that, but it does dilute the authority of all passages if some can be distinguished.

edit to add:

From Paul's 1st letter to the Corinthian, chapter 14:

34Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

35And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Limited only to the church in Corinth as some have argued--no reason to say so based on the quote

[loCAtek]

Good answer Big RR.

Mind you - we do know that women are inferior ... as demonstrated scientifically here

[MajGenl.Meade]

Meade--I'll look up the Paul reference when I get a chance, but do you really want to quote Leviticus, which also tells us that we must kill witches ("Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (certainly you do not believe there is a class of persons who should be put to death for their beliefs, or even that magical witches exist, do you?) and presents a large other group of "laws" which must be followed (but are not today by most christians or jews)? As for Paul, I do not condemn Paul per se, just note that most modern commentators seeks to distinguish his pronouncements as to what are generally applicable and what are specific to the situation. Nothing wrong with that, but it does dilute the authority of all passages if some can be distinguished.

edit to add:

From Paul's 1st letter to the Corinthian, chapter 14: 34Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. 35And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Limited only to the church in Corinth as some have argued--no reason to say so based on the quote

Thanks for the reference - I had a feeling there was one but couldn't place it. In reverse order - Paul was certainly writing to the Corinthian churches. "Corinthians" is not singular nor is "church" for that matter since it refers to the body of believers who at the time did not meet in only one building but in believer's homes, more like the small cell groups in the Cell Church movement today, or even in different "church" buldings as we do today. Some church groups/denominations today regard Paul's instruction as applicable to all churches (i.e. to their own) and others believe they are applicable only to some churches (i.e. not their own). That is why some groups/denominations have female pastors (and higher) while others do not. Some with female pastors and higher do not permit female Elders. Almost all (or most) who have Deacons permit females since the Bible mentions "deaconesses" but that is not a teaching position.

On the logical ground that there are no witches (those who call themselves such are incapable of the mythological practises of witchcraft - flying on brooms, casting spells that work and so on) - I have no problem with putting such "witches" to death. There are none to be put to death. If someone does show up who kills babies, puts spells on people so that they get ill and die and actually fulfil the mythological powers of witchery (proven in a court of law) then death probably is too good anyway. Those who prance about meadows in New England states mumbling to the Winds of the East and West are no more witches than UFO nutters.

Please re-read about the "Law" and understand why Christians don't stone adulterers etc. All Christians know that Christ did not "change" the Law but superseded it, removing the penalty of Law (not the identity of sin). So yes, I have no problem at all in showing where the Bible identifies sin against God, not one of which Jesus declared to be "not sin".

It is so false to say that properly understanding when a thing is applicable generally or particularly dilutes the "authority of all passages". This is the classic error of those who want to cherry-pick what is true and what is false in the Bible (men seek out teachers who will teach what their itching ears want to hear (2Tim 4:3)). The authority remains unaltered.

Perhaps what you mean is that it indicates a need to better understand what the author intended by what he wrote (under the inspiration of God). That's the very basis of Biblical exegesis and you will not find any reputable student of the Bible to disagree with you. That's correct. But please tell me in what way the debate about women (did Paul mean all or just some churches?) has any effect at all on the authority of:

1 Cor 6:9-11 Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites*, 10 thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

*variously translated as "nor those who make women of themselves", "no effiminate", "nor practising homosexuals (NABWRNT), "men who have sexual relations with other men", "homosexuals", "sexual perverts", etc.

Do you propose that Paul maybe meant only some fornicators, some adulterers, some homosexuals?
Do you think he maybe just meant in Corinth?
Or do you think he was perhaps just plain wrong about that? That people who glorify in those sins are in fact not sinning at all but just doing what they need for love and comfort? That Christians are quite free to worship false gods, commit adultery and etc etc because it doesn't matter what they do, God will just chuckle and pat them on the head later?
Or that he was right in the 1st century but all those things ceased to be sins somewhere around... 1970? 1983?

I think those bishops were right to get out of a church that contradicts the Bible. But wrong to join one that equally does so.

Meade

[Crackpot]

COrinth was a port town known for it's prostitutes.

[Big RR]

Meade--if you can make the choice that some passages are attributable to all and others address only certain groups/problems, then so can I or anyone. And that's the point, we are provided with a moral compass and a knowledge of good and evil (some may say to our detriment based on the Genesis creation story), we must decide for ourselves what is true and what is not. I can't see how you'd say god would inspire a passage about witches if they don't exist, and I don't see why anyone would say an epileptic or a mentally ill person was "possessed by an evil spirit or demon" as many gospel healing accounts do, but they are there nonetheless. Even if you accept that the ideas are god-inspired, the words are not. People are products of their time and write with the language and ideas and misconceptions that the people of the time had; casting out demons in the healing of an epileptic made sense to the people of the time, describing epilepsy as a disease which had physical causes would not. Likewise, in an occupied nation one may well want to encourage procreation to build up their numbers for the coming "battle", and might then find other sexual outlets, be it solo, homosexual, or using artificial birth control wrong to encourage the procreation. We have to read the writings in the context of their time, and paul writing on how slaves should is not necessarily an endorsement of slavery by god anymore than Paul's writings against homosexuality is a condemnation by god. We must seek to understand and make sense of something fairly inexact, and this is what god equips us to do.

Now, if you,after this discernment,find that you believe women should not be clergy or gay sex is wrong, then fine; just realize that others who put the same effort into the study may have a difference of opinion. None of us understand everything, and we are all traveling on different paths, so differences of opinion can and will occur. We will all know in the end, and those who strive to walk with god will be welcomed by him/her/it; as Thomas Moore said, "God would not refuse one who is so blithe to go to him." And remember the words of jesus, "the law is for man, man is not for the law"; moral questions are never simple, we must and should make choices. Cherry picking? Perhaps, but it is what we are made to do.

[MajGenl.Meade]

BigRR - that's all very well and largely agreeably nice. But you utterly avoided the question.

We must seek to understand and make sense of something fairly inexact, and this is what god equips us to do.

Please make sense for me of this and explain how it is "inexact":

1 Cor 6:9-11 Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites*, 10 thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

Are you saying that it's just some idiom of the time that for example idolators (worshippers of false gods) cannot inherit the kingdom unless.... they are washed, sanctified and justified - which requires them to abandon the false god worship? So nowadays, God doesn't care if people worship Baal, or demons, or the Virgin Mary?

I'd really like to discuss what this passage means to you. It's already clear we don't agree but I'm fascinated to see how that works out

Cheers
Meade

[Big RR]

OK Meade, I'll play. who are the idolaters and when is one an idolater? when one venerates a graven image like, say, a statue of a crucifix? Are roman catholics then not to inherit the kingdom of god? And what of the eastern orthodox who eschew graven images but have icons the similarly venerate? Are they, too, prevented from this inheritance? Who are the fornicators? Those who are unmarried? what about those who choose to marry without benefit of a church or clergy? what about those who are married in other religions but not christianity?

Who are the adulterers, and what sort of marriage would change them from being so? Male prostitutes? What of the young man who cannot obtain money to eat any other way--should he starve? Will he be denied the inheritance? Even the recent pope indicated that it may not be sinful for male prostitutes to use artificial birth control to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases--is god any less merciful? Sodomites? How was it defined then? Residents of Sodom were wicked and routinely forced others into sexual contact--they tried to do the same with the angels who visited Lot,and Lot even offered to let his daughters be raped in exchange of the safety of his guests (which I don't think means fathers could pimp their daughters today)--are the sodomites those who participate in the sexual acts we now call "sodomy"; IMHO it is those who choose to victimize others, not those who choose to love their neighbor as the law was interpreted by jesus.

Note in verse 10 many of these are victimizers, generally, and it makes sense that he who steals or illegally acquires something from another or covets it (as in the greedy) or bearing false witness (revilers) are creating their own hell, but even there a god of mercy will,IMHO, understand, and not become the Inspector Javert to Jean Valjean, condemning someone to eternal separation for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his starving his family. Drunkards--who is a drunkard--one who overimbibes a single time (IMHO yes if they get behind the wheel) or the habitual drunkard who neglects/bankrupts his family (but is alcoholism a disease)?

What I see this passage meaning is that each of us can do many things to try and distance ourselves from god, but I do not believe a god of mercy will abandon any of us, nor do I see god condemning someone to a lifetime of separation because one fails. Paul obviously saw differently, or at least wrote that way because that is what people expected at the time; there was a difference between people of god and the "others", and those who claimed to be saved considered themselves to be god's elect or chosen, much as the OT jews did. Paul played upon this notion by writing that one could choose to be among the chosen through the mercy of god as demonstrated through jesus, and he told the people what they expected, that those not among the elect would not inherit the "kingdom". I cannot reconcile this with the teachings of jesus and the not in of a god of love and mercy;people at the time perhaps needed the idea of the "chosen people"to feel close to god, we do not need the same today. It would probably bother those in Paul's time that people not among what they perceive as their "chosen group" were granted the same mercy they were by a loving god, but I don't think we need that today.

Does god care who we worship? First tell me who/what god is and I may be able to answer. Is allah a false god, or a face of the same one--I firmly believe the latter. But god does care what we do in god's name, and how we treat each other; as jesus showed us, we could make earth a veritable heaven if we chose to, but we do not, and that is what I think god has a problem with.

And now,let me ask you something of the same, where des it say that the following passage is just applicable to the church/churches of Corinth and not all christian churches?

I Corinthians, chapter 14: 34Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. 35And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

I don't see it.

[loCAtek]

The no thought brigade would be the people who have had religion rammed down their throats since they were born and stay religious simply because they have not thought about it (I am aware some religious types have - I am talking about the subset that have not.

The fanatics.

What I meant by Zen 'No thought';

5.1 Zen's No-Thought and No-Image

Zen condenses ”no-thought and no-image“ into a singular word ”no“ in keeping with its proclivity to favor the simple, as this contraction allows Zen to expand the scope and the meaning of ”no-thought and no-image.“

...

The experiential dimension in which Zen's ”nothing“ becomes understandable refers to a quiescent state of meditation in which is arrested the activity of an individual practitioner's ego-consciousness that functions in a close correlation with his or her body.

...

Although it may sound paradoxical, Zen maintains that this ground is also a fount of creativity. Because there is no determination in the ground, it is pregnant with many possibilities or meanings to be realized. Zen maintains, via the influences from philosophical Daoism, that this creativity is in the same order as that of nature, for the practitioner reaches the original source prior to the distinction between the outer world and the inner world. (Hence, Zen understands, as was mentioned in the foregoing, the human being to be “a being-in-nature.”)

It often uses the phrase “no-mind” to generally designate the above experiential dimension. However, Zen does not mean it to be a mindless state, much less losing the mind. Nor does it mean a disappearance of the mind. Rather it designates a dimension of experience in which the ego-logically discriminatory activity of the mind disappears. This is, Zen maintains, because the Zen practitioner trans-descends into, and hence transcends, the ego-logically discriminatory activity of the mind which, Zen contends, arises due to adhering to “name-form” (Jpn., myōshiki; Skrt., nāmrūpa). This transcendence results in a rejection of the belief that there is a reality corresponding to a name, or generally that there is a reality corresponding to a linguistic activity. Through the state of no-mind, Zen observes that each individual thing that is mirrored is recognized for the first time to be individual qua the individual with a sense of equality that is due to other individual things.

From my perspective, 'No-thought' does not mean no thinking, but rather 'all-accepting, of all possibilities'. Total open-mindedness.

[MajGenl.Meade]

And now,let me ask you something of the same, where des it say that the following passage is just applicable to the church/churches of Corinth and not all christian churches?

I Corinthians, chapter 14: 34Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. 35And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

I don't see it.

OK to the first part, I cannot see in all those words that the passage means anything at all. Do you not think that you have used hundreds of words to say that you don't know what it means, but whatever it means it doesn't mean what you don't want it to mean? I'll play the game a little. Let's assume I don't know if any given person is in one those non-kingdom categories.

If a person considered for ordination says "I'm an idolator and when I'm ordained I intend to continue worshipping false gods" then they clearly should not be ordained. If a person says "I'm a thief and when I'm bishop I'm going to steal the church collections" that person seems like a poor choice for bishop. If a person says "I'm a practising homosexual and I want to be bishop and continue my homosexual practises", then they shouldn't be doing anything with a bishopric except bashing it.

Teachings of Jesus: it's interesting that the only uses of "Hell" in the NT come from Jesus (with the exception of one in James). e.g. Matt 5:21-30 and the fact of judgement and two different destinations for all men come from Jesus. So apparently "I do not believe a god of mercy will abandon any of us, nor do I see god condemning someone to a lifetime of separation because one fails" is not only contrary to Paul but to Jesus as well.

Does god care who we worship? First tell me who/what god is and I may be able to answer. Is allah a false god, or a face of the same one

Yes God cares; how can you ask that? Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Yes Allah is a false god because he is invented by Mohammed based upon Jewish scriptures which Mohammed insisted were "wrong" and distorted by the Jews on purpose to hide the truth that only he, Mohammed, could reveal. He is not a "face" of God but is a wooden copy of aspects of the true God. Surely, you are correct that all "gods" are man's efforts to approximate a creator. To find out what God is, read the Bible; it's full of God and includes the fact that people are "chosen" by Him, one way or another, to be with Him eternally or elsewhere.

As to the women in church thing, how many times do I have to say that church groups interpret this passage differently. Some say it applies to all churches; some say it applies to some churches; some say it applies to none. I am inclined to believe it applies to all churches; that women may be deaconesses, worship leaders, women's group leaders, in charge of children's ministry (a task denied to men); teachers in Sunday School (along with men); they may speak from the pulpit if they have a missionary story to relate (i.e. their own lives of ministry) - there's plenty of work. But women may not be Elders or ordained. Those who want to be such may find many churches where that's possible. I do not think that either position is a "sin" because being a woman is not a sin (since 1922 isn't it?); the Bible holds women in high regard.

Thanks for the reply
Meade

[thestoat]

The fanatics.

Not fanatics at all - the passive. They simply quietly accept what they are told without thought. I have met a lot of those.

[Timster]

Dang General, you just opened up a whole new can of worms.

Whilst I understand [for arguments sake] your 'Paulian' interpretation of a woman's "role" within the "church" and even your allowances for their creeping into other possible roles other than tending to the 'children' and perhaps speaking about a Missionary involvement; I do think that you ere.

Are you serious?

Seriously,

Tim-recovering Seventh Day Adventist- Know my bible from front to back- yet respectfully disagree with a lot of modern day interpretation of scripture because so much of the interpretation is entirely BULLSHIT... or just made up for convenience to those whom are doing the interpretations. -ster

Ps: How many strong woman figures can you point out in the Bible allegory? Do you see Ruth teaching Sunday school?
Sara? Naomi? Mary? (which one?)

And now,let me ask you something of the same, where des it say that the following passage is just applicable to the church/churches of Corinth and not all christian churches?

I Corinthians, chapter 14: 34Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. 35And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

I don't see it.

OK to the first part, I cannot see in all those words that the passage means anything at all. Do you not think that you have used hundreds of words to say that you don't know what it means, but whatever it means it doesn't mean what you don't want it to mean? I'll play the game a little. Let's assume I don't know if any given person is in one those non-kingdom categories.

If a person considered for ordination says "I'm an idolator and when I'm ordained I intend to continue worshipping false gods" then they clearly should not be ordained. If a person says "I'm a thief and when I'm bishop I'm going to steal the church collections" that person seems like a poor choice for bishop. If a person says "I'm a practising homosexual and I want to be bishop and continue my homosexual practises", then they shouldn't be doing anything with a bishopric except bashing it.

Teachings of Jesus: it's interesting that the only uses of "Hell" in the NT come from Jesus (with the exception of one in James). e.g. Matt 5:21-30 and the fact of judgement and two different destinations for all men come from Jesus. So apparently "I do not believe a god of mercy will abandon any of us, nor do I see god condemning someone to a lifetime of separation because one fails" is not only contrary to Paul but to Jesus as well.

Does god care who we worship? First tell me who/what god is and I may be able to answer. Is allah a false god, or a face of the same one

Yes God cares; how can you ask that? Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Yes Allah is a false god because he is invented by Mohammed based upon Jewish scriptures which Mohammed insisted were "wrong" and distorted by the Jews on purpose to hide the truth that only he, Mohammed, could reveal. He is not a "face" of God but is a wooden copy of aspects of the true God. Surely, you are correct that all "gods" are man's efforts to approximate a creator. To find out what God is, read the Bible; it's full of God and includes the fact that people are "chosen" by Him, one way or another, to be with Him eternally or elsewhere.

As to the women in church thing, how many times do I have to say that church groups interpret this passage differently. Some say it applies to all churches; some say it applies to some churches; some say it applies to none. I am inclined to believe it applies to all churches; that women may be deaconesses, worship leaders, women's group leaders, in charge of children's ministry (a task denied to men); teachers in Sunday School (along with men); they may speak from the pulpit if they have a missionary story to relate (i.e. their own lives of ministry) - there's plenty of work. But women may not be Elders or ordained. Those who want to be such may find many churches where that's possible. I do not think that either position is a "sin" because being a woman is not a sin (since 1922 isn't it?); the Bible holds women in high regard.

Thanks for the reply
Meade

PPS: And don't get me started on "Hell"!

Eternal hell fire! FUCK THAT! What sort of "Loving God" would assign a soul to ETERNAL TORMENT for the "Sins" of a short life span which is a spect..on a dot on the point of eternity???

No worries. Take your time to answer. Because you have an eternity...

[thestoat]

respectfully disagree with a lot of modern day interpretation of scripture because so much of the interpretation is entirely BULLSHIT... or just made up for convenience to those whom are doing the interpretations.

Oh Tim ... I have to agree with this point entirely.