Well, women are copping it from all sides within the major Christian churches of the West.

The Anglicans are split on ordination of women, as seen here:

"Father David Houlding summed up the feeling of many conservative clergy members who will feel compelled to leave the church if women bishops goes ahead. “There are just scraps left of the table and we are beginning to starve,” he said, his voice cracking. “The door is being slammed in my face.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/desperately-difficult-to-keep-church-together-over-women-bishops-2024774.html

And what about the Roman Catholics:

"THE Roman Catholic Church elevated the ordination of women to one of the most serious crimes in Canon Law yesterday.

"The ordination of women is now on the same level as child abuse in the eyes of the Church."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/ordination-of-women-as-bad-as-child-abuse-in-vaticans-eyes/story-e6frg6so-1225892551761

Surely this cannot be?

Can women be so evil and threatening that even God, who so kindly created them, regard them as being as bad as having sex with a child?

Really, where does this sort of thinking come from in the 21st Century?

Are there any cogent arguments for denying women an equal role in Christianity?

Should Australia question the role of the Christian church in the affairs of the nation, given that 'religion' is given a tax free gift and a very special set of privileges in our society?

Would we support a BHP directive that no women are to rise to the CEO position?

Or would they be howled out of the corporate world, and their special status with governments?

TBC

For someone who has showed as much hatred for the church as you it is surprising that you should care about this topic. Or are u just raising the issue in order to spew your hatred.

Ah Runner, just the chap (for I am sure no Christian women would be allowed to post up here given the low regard Christians hold for them).

You've been missing for a while and you are just the man to tell us what it is about women that makes God so fear them.

How about it old chap?

Can you send in the set number of words and explain why the Pope regards women being turned into priests as being as big a sin as having sex with 'the kiddies' in the choir?

Or why that nice old bearded man from Canterbury is unable to persuade half his flock that women are 'OK' to have as priests?

It's a real mystery to some of us who deal with women so well, and on a daily basis too.

As for your cruel jibes.... dear oh dear, I am taken aback by your utterances.

This is a serious issue that we all have an interest in. As secular society has started to come to grips with women as equal-beings, still hard to see in some areas of course, you Christians have taken a Dr Who leap backwards in time.

Why should secular society continue to afford any privileges to your religion, or any other religion for that matter, if it is so set on diminishing the role of more than half of our community?

Suppose Cardinal Pell said his 'special girl', Kristina Keneally, should not be premier simply because she was a woman, how would that sit with all those goons in the ALP in NSW.

Or our new PM Runner?

Why should our new PM be denied her position, on the basis of her gender?

Serious matters Runner, and I am interested to hear you justify the Christian position here, or, maybe, even denounce it if that is what you really feel.

Or is this involve 'the secret we dare not speak of'?

Given the equanimity with which the latest ex-cathedra misogyny appears to have been received, I can only infer that women, or at least sisters in Christ, enjoy their debased station beneath men. Why indeed has this issue not provoked an outrage? The brides of Christ should be burning their habits outside Vatican walls, casting a parting brown-eye heavenward and leaving to rejoin the world. The paparazzi should be scurrying frantically to cover maenad protests erupting in the world's capitals. Parishioners should be leaving the naves of their respective churches chill with the want of their patronage. But no, the hideous, brainless dinosaur that is the church (of whatever tradition) continues to bulk large and stupid in the modern world unmolested.
I'm afraid it only confirms my suspicions, that women are the most conservative among us (as a body). Indeed, in their quietism they are complicit in their own denigration, Christian or Moslem.

Well Squeers, it's true that in our ABS Census it appears that women fall for religion at a faster rate than men do, except within the Muslim, Jewish and Coptic Christian branches of mumbo-jumbo, where men predominate.

And men are more prepared to distance themselves from religion too.

Is this God's work, or cultural hegemonic training I wonder?

I know I find it hard to understand how a woman could bother to hang-in to either the Anglican or Catholic brands, given that they are scorned so much, and regarded as being just a whisker off being Auld Nick hisself.

But then again, why do gay/lesbian people hang around either, since they really are 'the Devil' as far as the loving Christian is concerned.

It is truly a miracle that they bother and allow themselves to be so put-upon.

What did Kant have to say on this peculiar, and very damaging, behaviour?

TBC, It is not like me to offer any support to anything religious but not all christian churches are as sexist as the catholic church. To the best of my knowledge having been draged through their system, the salvation army have always allowed women to be officers. Don't take this as a glowing endorsement of this organisation it isn't, just a point.

There is nowhere to start and finnish with religious organisations and the way they operate. It truly is appalling that after all the ongoing evidence of abuse of children throughout the whole catholic church organisation over generations and the efforts of the church at all levels of control to deny and cover up the abuse never mind protect the predators they are still allowed to get off with pretending it is an isolated issue of very few. Why is the world so weak that they are not prepared to stand up to these sick people who deal with the insecurity of others as their product to profit from.

Dear TBC,

A comprehensive report on the participation of women
in the Australian Catholic church was commissioned in
August 1996 by the ACBC (Australian Catholic Bishops'
Conference). The process involved the largest research
and consultation project ever undertaken by the
Australian Catholic Church. If nothing else, it
indicated that there was a realisation among some
of the bishops that something had to be done about the
relationship between women and Catholicism.

However in the years since the Report was published the
Australian church has done very little and the
alienation of women, especially younger women, grows
deeper, even though according to Dr Paul Collins in
his book, "Believers: Does Australian Catholicism
have a future?" tells us that 76 per cent of pastoral
care in the Australian church is carried out by women.
One of the most striking findings of the Report was
that women comprised 74 per cent of those undertaking
undergraduate studies in theology and almost 64 per cent
of post-graduate theological studies.

Therefore the church already has a highly trained cadre of
women to take part in the ministry and the priesthood
as soon as that becomes a possibility. This is an
enormous potential resource for the Church.

It does seem a shame that the Church doesn't see it
that way. The movement for the Ordination of Catholic
Women (OCW) is a very active movement,
and it will continue to call
for a renewed priestly ministry. They believe that:

"A renewed ordained ministry of both women and men
will function in a relational rather than hierarchical
manner...Our desire is to operate in a faith community
that nurtures values of equality, inclusiveness, understanding
and tolerance, one which encourages a transcendent
spirituality that is imbued with a sense of compassion
and the ability to reach beyond oneself...We believe a
renewed ordained ministry with women and men having an
equal role in leading the church is integral to
sustaining the precious gift of the Catholic faith that
has formed us. A renewed ordained ministry would revitalise
pastoral care and sacramental ministry."

It is certainly true nairbe, that 'in my fathers house there are many rooms', some more decently furnished, others grubby hell-holes of base behaviour and abuse.

My own family experience was in the latter... not abuse in the sense that makes the flesh creep, the sort the Pope regards as being on-a-par with elevating women to priestly garb, but long standing abuse none-the-less, that has haunted my mother all her years.... simply by attending a Convent and being party to the outrages therein, and left its mark, by proxy, on our family years afterwards.

I am entirely suspicious of the Salvos, and always resented their payday appearances in the boozer when men were at their silliest and pulled out wads of notes to pay them off 'just in case'.

Given that these Heavenly trumpeters despised boozers and boozing, while of course, simply adoring the sinners who justified their very existence, it always struck me as a cynical and low act, to even enter a pub with a shaking-tin, never mind grinning inanely as the dollars were squeezed in.

I await Runners return, complete with thesis, to point us in the 'right' direction here.

It would be good if a few women added their bon mots too, on both sides of the 'understanding' scales.

TBC, You are right to be suspicious of the Salvo's. Never mind profiting from the drunks they profess to save but the extreme strain they put my family through over the years almost cost us each other many times. If not for the complete rejection of this organisation by all my brothers and sisters i would most likely not have them as part of life. Years of being told that you are a sinner and that it is evil to dance, have sexual feelings, mix with non Salvo's and heven forbid that you might challenge their interpretation of the bible. The indoctrination of children through little solders and youth group to bible study and choir we never had a chance. The list of things you are not allowed is endless but of course all the time in the shadows all the real evils were going on. It took many years of my life to resolve the damage done by this organisation and i don't consider them one of the bad ones.
I have noted in what i see as true to form they have changed much of their rules these days to be more attractive to the masses. Another problem churches have, they sell out their standards to get an audience. I understand many of the clergy are now trying to tell us that evolution and the church fit together. I am not making an argument either way but amazing that when all is lost they can always fit it in and pretend that they always had.

Dear Foxy,
it's nice, but somehow discomforting to find you equivocal on this issue. The Catholic church has a long, indeed spectacular, history of corruption and decadence to do penance for, but it's male penance!
Thanks for the percentages on women's commitment to Man's church; 'twas ever thus!
Have you read Aristophanes' "Lysistrata"? Militant compliance! If only that were a tautology.

Women should be starting their own church and leaving men's to its decay.

Foxy... I was aware of much of the detail you posted, but not its source. A colleague I knew was doing research on women in the Catholic church, still is in fact, and she gave me those rather sad figures.

"Therefore the church already has a highly trained cadre of women to take part in the ministry and the priesthood as soon as that becomes a possibility. This is an enormous potential resource for the Church"... indeed it might be, but probably will not be.

I'd be inclined to agree with Squeers suggestion, that women, and gay/lesbian people, and decent men for that matter, abandoned the Vatican to those dirty old men who regard women with utter contempt and loathing, to start a new church.

Since all this stuff is 'man' made anyway, there is nothing but fear, and tradition, the same in some situations I suspect, that holds people back from shouting in the Emperors ear 'ole, that the game is up.

I even think that God might be quite impressed if that were to happen.

WOW, you're an 'A' clASS troll.

The Blue Cross, firstly can I make it really clear that I'm not defending what I'm going to reference.

I used to believe some of this stuff (and struggled with some parts because of the kind of issues they raise) so have some understanding of where some come from. I've had almost nill involvement with the workings of the catholic church so they may come at it from a different angle.

I think that the piece at http://www.gotquestions.org/women-pastors.html sum's up the rational for a lot of the christain churches. An alternative viewpoint can be found at http://bible.com/bibleanswers_result.php?id=136 (although I found it an awkward read).

At the same time there are plenty of other things that christians seem to be able to discard when it suits (a church I used to attend did not do so well on elders not being lovers of money).

Whilst it's glaringly obvious from outside just how much christian's pick and choose which bit's of the bible they take literally it's not so obvious from inside. Many will question if they have the balance right but not see the whole picture. For many to knowingly give ground on issues like this seems to be a literal rejection of the teachings of their god.

Again I can only draw on my own experience so I don't know how it works in a lot of the traditional churches (although from what I've read it's very similar). For the most part it's the older women who care most about maintaining the traditions of the church in the ones I'd been involved in. Heaven help the pastor who upsets the women's groups in many churches, he will be looking for a new role elsewhere in a big hurry. Power is not always where it seems to be.

R0bert

I had, until very recently, been opposed to the ordination of women in the Catholic Church. Then, when I started preparing resources for one of my classes on logical fallacies, this whole debacle reared its ugly head. In light of my reading, I realised that I had fallen victim to a 'fallacy of tradition': the belief that, because it has always been this way, this is the right way for it to be. Because the Church had always had only male priests, it is right for the Church to continue having only male priests. You don't have to be a genius to see the lapse in logic there.

That said, I do think the current media beat-up is just that: a media beat-up. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a member of the Catholic Church (including the Pope and his College of Cardinals) who believes, as the media suggests, that the ordination of women is as serious a sin as child abuse. And I don't think that's what this is all about.

I think the notion that people who ordain women, and women who nominate themselves for ordination, are putting themselves into the same boat as old Fr. Kennedy of St. Mary's. They are placing themselves outside the Church - defying the rules and rewriting the rule book. As with any organisation, there is no place for such people in the Church: there is a place for questioning, but not for blatant defiance. As a result, they are separated from the Church through excommunication. They are welcome to continue their Catholic beliefs in their own Church communities - just without the umbrella of Roman Catholicism over their heads. They are excommunicated not for the gravity of their sin, but for their incompatibility with the Church itself.

Continued . . .

Continued . . .

Paedophilia and child abuse, on the other hand, are sins - and there is always room for sinners within the Church. They tamper with kids, commit atrocities, show remorse and get to keep their place in the Church. They keep tampering, keep feigning remorse and keep being 'forgiven'. Certainly I don't condone this - at the end of the day, their sin is heinous and must be dealt with accordingly. But, in the spirit of 'loving sinners', the Church keeps giving them second, third and fourth chances.

The difference, then, is that those who ordain women are, in effect, excommunicating themselves: taking power into their own hands and stepping outside the hierarchy. They should not be surprised or even upset at their excommunication. At the end of the day, the Catholic Church wasn't right for them. They are given the freedom (but not necessarily the capital) to practise Christianity in the way they want to. The Church keeps its sinners and throws out the rule-breakers.

For the record, I'm not supporting this stance - just explaining it as I understand it, because our media has (as usual) done a good job of obscuring truth in favour of sensationalism. I think the timing of the declaration, and the failure to deliver an equally damning judgement against those who fail to protect - and even dare to defile - our most vulnerable humans was in poor taste. It shows the lack of media-savvy and possibly a lack of compassion (even common sense) in the Church hierarchy.

Prattle on Squeers; it goes without saying that most Australian women are far too busy in our lives to sit and peruse newspapers on-line or in hard copy. The majority of women I mix with socially and through work do not have the luxury of 'time' to either come across or address these ridiculous media articles.

Most are mothers who perform the lions share of the domestic scene in addition to working and raising their children.

You were seeking a bite; enjoy Squeers.

TBC, you have certainly opened a can of worms with this subject!
I can hardly wait for some poster's replies and comments.

While I don't quite believe that the male hierarchy in most Christian religions believe that female ordination is worse than child abuse, I can certainly see where you are coming from.

While some church leaders were happy to allow paedophile clergymen to continue their duties, even after they were known to abuse kids, these same church leaders absolutely refuse to allow the elevation of female followers to the same positions as themselves.

Go figure?
I too wonder just what these male church leaders are afraid of.

Maybe there is more truth to the book written by Dan Brown "The Da Vinci Code" than the church hierarchy allows us to believe?

The 'Sacred Feminine' theory always seemed quite plausible to me.
http://www.lysistrataproject.org/SacredFeminine.htm

<"Throughout humanity’s societies, the Sacred Feminine has been identified with the qualities of wisdom, justice, beauty, and compassion. She is also the irresistible power that destroys old forms and brings new ones into being."

Surely it is at least as plausible as the stories from the bible?

I personally would not want anything to do with any church, but I would support any woman who felt the need to be involved in a church at a level of her choosing.

I've been a Catholic all my life, and I'm deeply repulsed by the way the Church has conducted itself regarding certain issues. One of those issues is the status of women within the Church. One thing's for certain, many actions of the Church bear little resemblance to the life that Jesus led. The Church is a wonderful thing, giving and selfless with great insight... while at the same time an abomination by being selfish, cruel and bigoted ........ a true Jekyll and Hyde of opposites. Change, "real" change, will only happen from within. That's why many of us remain Catholics.

Dear we are unique,
I wasn't "after a bite". I am genuine in my comments (which you don't address) and frustrated that women don't stand up for themselves. As I've said elsewhere, women have the numbers to change the world overnight, but instead they provide the bedrock for the institutions that maintain them as second-class citizens, and our so-called "culture" in its state of decadence. Somehow the Catholic church, above all others, has managed to reconcile decadence, elitism, perennial inequality (and other obscenities), along with all the pomp and ceremony, with a doctrine based on humility!

<it goes without saying that most Australian women are far too busy in our lives to sit and peruse newspapers on-line or in hard copy. The majority of women I mix with socially and through work do not have the luxury of 'time' to either come across or address these ridiculous media articles.

Most are mothers who perform the lions share of the domestic scene in addition to working and raising their children.>

Men have been coping this rubbish for years. I raised four very young kids on my own for a few years while studying full-time, and I never got behind domestically. Yes there are still men who bludge on their wives, but I've seen plenty of instances of the opposite too.
But this isn't a domestic dispute.
Women have the power to vote with their feet. But I guess that despite all the complaining, they don't have the stomach for it, and that keeps them sitting meekly in their pews.

StG,

A troll is someone who jumps in and posts inflammatory responses on a forum purely for the sake of provoking a reaction.

Considering how poignant and relevant TBC's raising of this topic is at the moment, I fail to see how it renders him a “troll”.

The question about the position of women in the church holds only a passing interest for me, so I'll refrain from comment.

But I do find it interesting that the thread has been used to bag - of all people - the Salvos.

My experience of them has been entirely the opposite of the comments made here. I have found those I have met to be, one and all, the most gentle, compassionate and caring religious folk of the lot.

Maybe I've just been lucky, but as far as I am concerned they come closest to exemplifying the teachings of their religion of any organization or sect.

TBC... you are a bit confused there old son :)

You are seeking to understand 'Christian' groups on the basis of an ever changing secular outlook.

The issue of Women in the Church is best left to the particular traditions which have definite positions on this. Why? well.. if they are not walking in the will of God, they will simply die out..and your problem is solved.

On the other hand, if they ARE walking in that will, which has nothing to do with regarding women as 'evil' as you put it, then they will flourish and no amount of secular sledgehammering will make a scrap of difference.

Rather than just look at the various contortions of media influence stories about the Churches, why not do some study yourself on how God regards women ?

The relationship between the male and female in marriage is outlined clearly and never in terms of 'they are evil', but rather that they are precious and to be loved.

Leadership is the main issue, and for that you can argue with Paul.

Still, even within the early Church there WERE female leaders, though not of the 'Bishop' kind. They were deaconesses.. servants (in the sense all Christians should be so)

Do some reading.. why you might even try the Bible :)

TBC you ask

‘Can you send in the set number of words and explain why the Pope regards women being turned into priests as being as big a sin as having sex with 'the kiddies' in the choir?
Or why that nice old bearded man from Canterbury is unable to persuade half his flock that women are 'OK' to have as priests?’

I am not the person to ask regarding the Catholic church. Biblical Christianity and Catholicism are miles apart although there are some Catholics that follow Christ. Why they stay in that system is between them and God. Maybe they think they can reform the organisation. In my mind the corrupt UN would be easier to reform.

’It's a real mystery to some of us who deal with women so well, and on a daily basis too.
As for your cruel jibes.... dear oh dear, I am taken aback by your utterances.’

I see nothing cruel about my post. You have shown a hatred for Chaplains, churches and anything decent in previous post.

’This is a serious issue that we all have an interest in. As secular society has started to come to grips with women as equal-beings, still hard to see in some areas of course, you Christians have taken a Dr Who leap backwards in time.’

You say this is a serious issue. Who is forcing women to belong to the Catholic church? Does everyone have to conform to your secular dogma where woman are actually reduced to sex objects. They need to prove themselves by doing what is un natural (wearing the pants in the house).

TBC

con'd
'Why should secular society continue to afford any privileges to your religion, or any other religion for that matter, if it is so set on diminishing the role of more than half of our community?

’Suppose Cardinal Pell said his 'special girl', Kristina Keneally, should not be premier simply because she was a woman, how would that sit with all those goons in the ALP in NSW.’

Society gets far more out of church services than whatever tax breaks you are referring to. Many people generously give to the churches which is more than I can say to secular organisations who continually want Government handouts. Why should tax payers money be given to teach your secular dogma?

‘Or our new PM Runner?

Why should our new PM be denied her position, on the basis of her gender?’

In a democracy she should not be denied her position. If we as a country a so dumb to vote for a person who is godless and living in sin we deserve what we get. She might make others who are living in sin and denial feel smug but our country will reap what its sows. Having women lead men in all areas of society is God’s sure sign of judgement over pathetically weak and emasculated men. It has no place in God’s church or kingdom.

TBC

I don't know why so many women support institutions which subjugate them, such as religion or the ultra-right wing of politics (Sarah Palin, Maggie Thatcher) or other odious practices such as FGM.

And I am a woman. As well, I don't know why more men don't complain about their bullying brethren more either.

Humans are weird.

Which is no answer, because I don't think there is an answer. Except to consider the better educated both women and men are the more capable they are of critical thought and independent expression. There is a very good reason that many religions limit women's education - can't have them getting ideas above their station can we? They are too "precious" to be independent.

However that does not explain the Thatchers - intelligent, well educated and did nothing whatsoever for equity between the sexes.

May as well ask "how long is a piece of string?"

R0bert said "Whilst it's glaringly obvious from outside just how much christian's pick and choose which bit's of the bible they take literally it's not so obvious from inside. ... For many to knowingly give ground on issues like this seems to be a literal rejection of the teachings of their god".

Between that and Otonoko's observations I believe, from an outsiders view AGIR, that we have something of an answer.

I think Squeers comments that have upset 'we are unique', are to a great extent borne out by her response, the usual martyrdom that Squeers raised in the first place. I'm just waiting to read about the toilet seat to confirm it all.

I have to look at this from a non-church viewpoint.

Since I tend to believe women are fine to be undertaking the full gamut of work available, paid and unpaid along with men, I am really concerned that our community gives such leeway to churches who feed off our community, through tax privileges and power so freely granted to them, yet seek to undermine the progress of secular society all the time.

I read those articles R0bert suggested, and there it all was, the information AGIR asks me to seek out.

It's another 'burkah' story, frankly. Where women 'freely' love to wear that terrible potato sack garb to prevent men from going wild with desire... the 'hanging meat' line, remember that Godly soul?

Thanks, but no thanks.

Suzeonline, I think it is only the Vatican, from the Christian side, that regards child abuse as being as sinful and on a par with female ordination, and I do not believe that the story is a beat up, as AGIR seems to think it is.

It fits the material about where women fit in the Christian church very well.

As far as the Salvo's go... I am not going to tell nairbe he is wrong, that was clearly his experience and cannot be denied by the rest of us, whatever else others have to say about their experiences with them.

I am, as you know, something of a conoisseur of the contradictions that abound in your posts, Boaz. Please keep them coming.

This one is a gem.

>>...within the early Church there WERE female leaders, though not of the 'Bishop' kind. They were deaconesses.. servants<<

The beauty, of course, is that you are fully aware that this is a contradiction, and feel obliged to insert the - somewhat frail - disclaimer...

>>.. servants (in the sense all Christians should be so)<<

C'mon. Were they leaders? Or were they servants?

If they were only servants in "the sense all Christians should be", why were they not allowed to be leaders "of the 'Bishop' kind"?

The problem with your religion is that it it totally expedient - full of inconsistent, make-it-up as-you-go instructions.

I'm sure you will come up with quotes that balance these, for example:

"Let 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. And 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." 1 Corinthians 14: 34-35.

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." 1 Timothy 2: 11-12.

It's a pity, though, that you fail to approach other scriptures in the same even-handed manner, is it not?

Runner... good to see you back. Of course, if you are not a Catholic it would be hard to present their case, fair enough.

But I did laugh at this line of yours, "Biblical Christianity and Catholicism are miles apart although there are some Catholics that follow Christ."

It tells a tale in itself, and not a very nice one at that. Very much another 'potato sack' approach to life hidden within your global perspective I suspect.

Presumably you would not regard either Cardinal Pell or the Pope as being 'followers of Christ', and maybe you are correct there. I am not so sure myself on that one.

And this line Runner, "If we as a country a so dumb to vote for a person who is godless and living in sin we deserve what we get"... so, I take it you will not be casting a vote for the sinful Abbott either? Since he lived in sin, had sex before marriage and then had the cheek to talk about virginity as being 'the biggest gift' to give a man... could he be a hypocrite on top of his other sins Runner?

Indeed Severin, how long is that string? But that is part of the thrill of these threads isn't it? To try to get a closer picture of how others view the same issues as oneself? Which in turn helps to explain how horribly difficult it is to achieve anything approaching consensus on anything at all.

That in turn has to have an impact on how politicians behave, and helps to explain their lack of imagination, never straying too far from the straight and (very) narrow.

"I don't know why more men don't complain about their bullying brethren more either"... ditto here.

It's one of life's mysteries as to why decent people allow themselves to be rail-roaded into poor situations, all the time being led by their nose-rings but with their permission too.

Belly would be dealing with that on a daily basis, as a union organiser, I am sure.

TBC

Speaking as an "aggressive, feminist" (not my description) I do know it is very easy to be suspended on this forum as well.

I suspect that conservative people (male and female) like to be in control. Women who kowtow to male dominated sectors get to control other women (and influence males).

"Uppity" women like yours truly tend to attract the ire of the conservatives. Considering how this is still very much the status quo, and I DO understand your reservations about Julia Gillard, isn't it amazing that a childless, defacto living woman could be the next (elected) PM?

Overall, even though it seems we take two steps back for every step forward, we ARE making progress as a species (in spite of the Boaz's and Runner's and freakin' women like Ursula Stephens who would control women's choices including fertility).

And, yes, threads like this in an essentially conservative forum. Much irony.

Severin... yes, I am concerned about Gillard's 'true nature', but yes again, it is amazing that she could be about to step into the Lodge given her 'shameful' status.

Imagine how 'terrible' it would be if she were also black as well!

No wonder the Republicans hate O'Bama so much.

My latest 'prayer note' has just come through from Catch The Fire. Poor Danny is working himself into a lather, perhaps like Runner is too, over Julia's childless, marriageless, Emily's List lifestyle.

(Funny how everyone so happily overlooks Julie Bishop's very similar lifestyle, apart from Emily's List of course).

And that pleases me no end, and makes me want to see her firmly plonked into the PMs house, no matter what my reservations with the ALP are.

I think it's also good that Tim is not a solicitor, accountant or merchant banker. There is something very 'homey' about the PM living with a hairdresser, even though he seems to have given that away these days.

In fact, we should start a movement to have Tim elevated to GG status, when the other one has finished up.

It would be good to have a 'Stefan' in the top job.

I must say, I do not regard your posts as the least bit aggressive, and am shocked to think you might have been suspended from here.

Surely not?

TBC

Suspended yes, deleted yes.

Have never descended to the depths of vitriol of some people I could name, but won't because I don't want another stoush, but people who can say really vile stuff and rarely (I won't say never) but rarely are 'disciplined' for really woeful comments and who are invariably neo-capitalist, claims to be religious - 'nuff said.

Sorry off-topic.

I can understand why some women would've been attracted to the sense of security that a church would offer in the olden days of yore, and I guess there is still enough fear out there for religion to look like it offers some sense of belonging and protection. We really need some outspoken female atheists of the stature of Dawkins, Harris et al - I don't see why all the books should be written by atheist men. I guess women will be playing 'catch-up' for a while yet.

Although with Julia as PM, some will infer that the struggle for equal rights is over, completely ignoring the fact that women still only make up a bare 30% of Australian pollies and even less of a percentage in big business - numbers of women on Wall Street?

And not forgetting your original premise for this thread - Women in the Christian Church continuing to be treated condescendingly.

TBC

The fact that Tony Abbot sinned like every other human being confirms the corrupt nature of us all. You are certainly a good example of that. Whether he has been to Christ for forgiveness only he knows. When one fails to call evil evil and good good is another matter. Ms Gillard continues to live in sin with no shame and wants to lead the nation. As far as I know Abbott has acknowledged his corrupt nature and actions. You obviously have not. The failure to face one's own sin and corruption leads to denial. That is why we see such deceitfulness in Ms Gillard who sees nothing wrong with stabbing someone in the back in order to be promoted. The means justifies the ends in her warped view. This sits well with secular humanism which changes the to rules to fit their dogma.

I am married to a very devout Roman Catholic who prays everyday and feels guilty if she forgets.

Albeit I am a not-very-devote protestant, her devotion is a source of admiration and respect by me.

Whilst some here seem to revel in commenting on what other people believe, I think to “judge” is a measure of their own limits and inadequacies which is being reflected.

That they lack the tolerance, maturity and basic understanding to accept the diverse values and beliefs associated with “faith” as exercised by others, when those beliefs, values and faith in no way hinders their own (beliefs, values or faith or lack there of).

It seems to me to be a feature of the squalid collectivists that we have a series of threads of a similar nature supposedly discussing the merits of Marxist/Leninist atheism and now a another thread initiated by a someone who failed to persuade anyone previously.

Like I said, we seems to have squalid collectivists, repeating the same as they have always done –

criticism of those who have sufficient faith in themselves and their beleifs that they do not need the bland, lifeless philosophy of that great nothingness known as collectivist (by so many different names) and the parallel nothingness of its endorsed and enforced atheism

aAAAH at last.. Pericles is back :) I've missed the attacks.. have been getting a bit blunt lately without your always constructive criticism to sharpen me.

But Fraccy first.. errr.. uppity women ? :) Fraccy dear.. you can be as uppity as you like.. no biggy in the slightest, just don't try to bring those 'uppity' ideas into any local Church unless you want your wings clipped.. as would happen to man or women who tried the 'uppity' thing.

Back to Pericles. No old son.. I don't see a contradiction in what I said.. but your little jab there did make an important point in terms of Christian fellowship and local ecclesiastical life.

You ask "Are they servants or are they leaders".. Let's let the Lord himself answer that eh ?

Mark 9:35
35 Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, "If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all."

Amazing how clear it is when you avail yourself of the Lord's teaching.

You see.. Fraccy is paralyzed with fear and energized by bitterness about 'position' in Christian circles, she is worried about being 'downtrodden'... but how can one who serves tread down those he/she serves?
Because of her first false premise, the 2nd follows naturally.

I think you, Pericles, are a bit in the same boat but with slightly less bitterness.(in your case I think it's contempt (for the Church))

So...where've you been for these past few weeks eh ? let us know in future when ur going to leave so we don't experience sudden withdrawal symptoms or separation anxiety :)

I'm sure the hypothetical BHP directive would be howled down as should your ill informed vilification.

Your ignorance of the female ordination issue and desperation to slander Christian Churches doesn't make your analogy valid.

I don't suppose you will be interested in the background but the Christian belief is that God is in charge and God's will is what must be followed rather than The Blue Crosses most negative possible inferences. The relevant Churches believe that God has a particular spiritual function for men whilst explicitly confirming the equality and respectworthiness of women. In that context the belief that women can't step into the shoes of a male Jesus in certain rituals which are required in priesthood cannot be considered derogatory or some type of slight based on gender. It is the same mindset that prohibits a paraplegic from being fire fighter without paraplegics protesting that they are looked down upon or evil or some other garbage. In one case it is a physical requirement in another a spiritual requirement and in the case of the spiritual requirement it is better for those who don't match because physical ability is valued but priests have a bad reputation. In the above premises it is unsurprising that the most spirited defences I have seen are from women eg.:
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0001.html

I concede that the idea that women be so evil and threatening that even God, who so kindly created them, regard them as being as bad as having sex with a child is an imaginative straw man.

That is very loosely based on a Catholic amendment to a document dealing with serious breaches of sacraments. Priests sinning is not condoned but to do so in the context of a sacrament is considered particularly serious. That doesn't mean (and the Vatican specifically noted) that attempting to elicit sex (including with children) in a confessional equates to ordaining women or that stringing such a long bow as to infer an indication women are evil or threatening is legitimate.

AlGoreIsRich makes a good point. Priesthood is not about seeking glory even if detractors would use it for that function themselves and view the female ordination issue through that lens. In the Christian religion accepting a vocation as pastor is about sacrificing a more selfish lifestyle for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus specifically condemned those who tried to use religion for personal glory (albeit in that case members of the laity who usurped the formal priestly/pastoral role cf. the priesthood of believers - long story).

How very sweet of you to have missed me, Boaz.

>>No old son.. I don't see a contradiction in what I said<<

Of course you don't.

So long as it is the Bible we are talking about, and not the Qur'an, you can accept any number of totally contradictory pronouncements, can you not.

And you certainly haven't lost your dazzling sidestep in the last few weeks, have you.

>>You ask "Are they servants or are they leaders".. Let's let the Lord himself answer that eh?<<

The question that I asked concerned women. Specifically. Check it out.

Unfortunately, the Lord, in your excerpt, is talking exclusively to blokes (although I suspect that women might be serving at the table, don't you reckon?), and metaphorically to boot. He is simply pointing out that pride is a bit of a no-no, where the Lord is concerned. Humility, and all that.

So "nul points" for that little effort, I'm afraid.

No comments on the instructions (Corinthians and Timothy) from your mate Paul, I notice? I thought they would at least rate some form of rebuttal.

How disappointing.

It is poor form, by the way, to infer contempt of the Church from my observations.

>>I think you, Pericles, are a bit in the same boat but with slightly less bitterness.(in your case I think it's contempt (for the Church))<<

I dislike hypocrisy, and I dislike what religion - and the Church - does to some people. However, I also know and respect a bunch of people who find great comfort in their religion and in their Church. Any criticism therefore tends to be specific, not general.

I know that you would prefer that I fit into one of your simplistic categories, Boaz, but this ain't one of them.

mjpb... I delved into your great works as suggested. Thank you.

For those readers who did not go there, here is a 'Dummy's Guide To The Real Role Of The World and God's Place In It'.

"We need to understand that Christians believe God to be the essence of divine omnipotence. To put it crudely, He doesn’t make mistakes. When He became Incarnate as a human being, He did so at a precise and exact moment in human history, which has been planned from all eternity. From the beginning, God had chosen that there would be a Jewish people, among whom His divine Son would be born. Their own priestly traditions would form part of the background and culture which would help them — and others — to see and know Him. Every detail about the Incarnation was known in the mind of God. He was born into the fullness of time".

I'm sorry, but if that is the best you can do, it's fallen on stony ground here.

The story you adhere to, seems to be more of an excuse for doing nothing, ever.

We'll just have to disagree on the credibility of your beliefs, while I acknowledge your right to keep them.

But I would not be able to object quite so much, if there was no spill-over into the 'other' world, the one you seem to dismiss as being irrelevant, and your mob kept to themselves, harming only those who elected to sign up to 'the joke'.

Sadly, that is not the case. We are imposed upon in our daily lives by the most incredible of beliefs, based on myth, and poor translations, never mind the power seeking incursions of the last 2000 years.

Still, its good to know that God created The Blue Cross to write on OLO and say whatever He wants to through me too.

Surely, it must work like that?

continued post

This nonsense is almost not worthy of comment, but certainly highlights the huge problems in the Catholic Church and continual mythical justifications for poor behaviour. If women are so 'evil' it does not say much about the Creator nor the God contrived to legitimise past deeds and inaction in relation to abuse of children.

Why is ordination of women evil but protecting child abusers perfectly okay?.

Beats me particularly given religion bases itself on the belief that human beings are nothing more than sinners, and if this is so why not allow 'evil' women to be preachers. They could do no worse than the male sinners,some may even do better in providing comfort and guidance to others.

At least there are some Churches who have accepted women as equal partners in the human species and we can only hope this trend continues.

Dear TBC,

Why do women stay in the Church?
One word - perseverance!

Besides -

Women don't give up that easily.
They like winning, especially when
they know they're right, and don't give
up until they succeed! My mother taught me
that!

Perhaps also, this is because most women
are parents and mothers and
they have a feel for the
task or nurturing faith in the next
generation. They are also aware of how
alienated their daughters are from a
church that does not treat women as equals.

Perhaps they also feel the need for the
renewal of priestly ministry and that the
question of the ordination of women cannot
be side-stepped, no matter how often the
hierarchy attempt to wash their hands of this
issue.

The papal teaching about the exclusion of women
from the ordained ministry has not by the way
been received by the faithful, just like the
teaching on contraception. Church teaching must
be authenticated by the Catholic community.
The church must eventually accept what is proposed.
If a teaching has not been received by the faithful
over a reasonable period of time, then it can be
argued that it is not the teaching of the church.

This is certainly the case regarding the prohibition
of contraception, and I believe it will also be
reasonably applied to the question of the ordination
of women.

I have no doubt whatsoever, it's only a matter of time.
Why should women leave - and let the old neanderthals
win... That is not going to happen!

mjpb:
<The relevant Churches believe that God has a particular spiritual function for men whilst explicitly confirming the equality and respectworthiness of women>

Correction, mjpb, 'The relevant churches "BELIEVED"...'
They "BELIEVED" this because they had little understanding of the natural world or their place in it, and so invented Gods and other beliefs to make sense of their mostly short, vicious and senseless lives.
They "BELIEVED" in male ascendency because they lived 2,000 years ago in a male-dominated world. Their religious beliefs (rationalisations) and rituals OF COURSE reflected the norms of that benighted culture.
While our society today is still patriarchal, we have made some modest and lop-sided progress since then in terms of equality and quality of life. Yet we are, some of us, aware of the various ancient prejudices that still structure our thought and haunt our culture.

As far as I'm concerned, I verily believe that these primitive belief systems are delusional, based on wishful thinking, and constitute a real and present danger to our actual material existence.
Their is no reliable evidence to substantiate the crude religious constructions we place on our existential condition.
Even if we claim some kind of epiphany, that can still not be reliably interpreted since we so consummately twit ourselves. Neither should our castles in the air be used to evade responsibility in the here and now---which is precisely what religion is used for!

Part Two of my pjmb post...undone by the post limits.

Pelican surely speaks 'the truth' as does Squeers, in my view anyway.

The BHP female CEO belongs to this world. The female priest belongs to this world too.

I happily concede that you find that prospect an abomination, and would not condone it, ever.

But another poster here has pointed out that churches are happy to sway with the breeze of the day to keep 'relevant', and just as usury is not only no longer a sin, but the driving force of modern capitalism, supported wholeheartedly by Christians everywhere, so too it is possible for women to 'move up' a notch or two within the church machinery.

If that change cannot be entertained, then secular society needs to seriously reappraise the many privileges granted to religions, and seriously question whether we can afford to have such a large beast undermining the evolving structure of society, as it is at the moment with this blind adherence to a fanciful notion of female subordinate servitude.

No doubt mjpb, you are still fuming over women riding bicycles, voting, holding bank accounts in their own right, and keeping their own names should they elect to marry?

We'll all be rooned!

Foxy, a good try but sorry, it does not wash.

What about fathers feelings for their children? Don't they count in upbringing?

"Perhaps also, this is because most women are parents and mothers and
they have a feel for the task or nurturing faith in the next generation. They are also aware of how alienated their daughters are from a church that does not treat women as equals".

I am afraid that par' just sounds like an acceptance of the hegemonic structure of society... which would negate your 'perseverance' and replace it with 'unquestioning tradition'.

Sadly, the Vatican seems to hold considerable sway over too many Africans, who decline to use contraceptives, particularly condoms, as the result of the Pope's infallible 'teaching'.

One has only to read 'the old neanderthals' on OLO to know they have already won, via their all-too accommodating wives.

Dear TBC,

Of course father's feelings count in the
raising of their children, that's a given.
However, the topic
of your thread is "Women in the Christian
church," and I was trying to explain their
stance and the reasons for it from a
Catholic women's perspective.

I somehow get the feeling though TBC,
that you're simply stirring here. You really
don't want a discussion at all. You've already
made up your mind on the subject

For people who claim they don't believe in absolutes it amazes me how absolutely sure they are of their dogmas. Amazing really. TBC and co seem very blinded by their beliefs.

Foxy:
<I somehow get the feeling though TBC,
that you're simply stirring here. You really
don't want a discussion at all. You've already
made up your mind on the subject>

And your mind is open on the subject I suppose?

Foxy.. no, I am not 'stirring' as you suggest.

You offered your view, I see another possibility, as I suggested, that the 'female' view you put is merely the result of cultural training, the hegemony of our society, from long back.

Those who serve up the words of Paul & Co, not you, are simply offering a post-event justification for what goes on, cloaked in the arcane mysteries, and unquestionable ones at that, of the 'good book'.

Now, unlike Runner, I am not insisting that this is 'the' answer, simply my current explanation, given my research and experience to date.

But to have Runner cast aspersions on other people and insist that they are being dogmatic, 'blinded by belief', is surely the biggest larf of the century.

So...Pericles.. where were you ? What were you up to ?

The verses in Corinthians and Timothy.. should be balanced with those of Ephesians, but the primary issue there is that for those outside of Christ, and I must, by your confession accept that this includes you, cannot embrace or understand the Biblical pattern for male female relationships.

On the surface, and in the light of contemporary, often marxist inspired PC views about womens roles, the Biblical teaching may seem a tad harsh or outdated, but in reality it is expressing a culture, or promoting one.. and I don't feel the Bible teaches oppression or harshness towards women in the slightest.

So, you won't find me leaping to the 'explanation' of all those verses, they stand by themselves, and our community can work out how far we go in that direction.

Women who hear the Gospel, are not hearing a call to submission to men, but to God, and we blokes also to God.

I find it rather ironic that you criticize my criticism of the Quran which specifically permits the beating of wives for punishment.

The Bible could not be further from this unless it was somehwere East of "East". It truly amazes me that you don't seem to find that such specific unambiguous and violent 'holy' writ to be as repulsive as most of us do. But..this isn't a thread about Islam, though you did refer in that direction.

As for 'nul points' ? :) my points register is full and overflowing, because it was never is not and will never be about 'my' goodness, -rather, about Christs.

PS.. Glenn Beck is giving his 15,000,000 regular viewers a very good dose of solid evangelical, non mormon, Biblical theology lately.. he almost did The Four Spiritual Laws" a day or 2 ago

Someone was once asked how they could be both Christian and feminist and they answered something like, "Christianity is about helping others in need and feminism likewise fights for social justice, how can I not be both?".

The Bible has been tragically misused. There's a general lack of appreciation of the culture and mores of the times in which it was written. For example, Jesus did radical things like chatting to a strange woman at a well. I wonder how successful it would have been if a woman likewise had approached a strange man. I wonder how that would go even nowadays in many ME countries. I'd say that prevailing norms had a lot to do with why there were male apostles and few vocal women, otherwise it would have been an exceedingly short lived ministry.

The people who wrote and subsequently translated the Bible used imagery, allegory, symbolism to make stories memorable to illiterate masses and reflected the socio-cultural context in which they lived.

It is of course the case that those who have held the most social power have used fear of God to subdue others; and we see the same phenomenon in other countries and cultures of "the good woman syndrome" where females lose themselves seeking male approval.
Here's an example:

http://www.eewc.com/CFT/v25n4a1.htm

Biblical teaching doesn't gel with white capitalist males in power. It's only fairly recently been acknowledged that Jesus himself was not Caucasian. Therefore, if the patriarchy has somehow been able to bend things to justify social oppression and economically exploitative activities, as well as the outright abuses that have gone on towards women and children in families living under male "servant-leadership" (whatever that means) then I am pretty sure that churches can adapt to minor aberrations like women being treated as equal citizens.

No organization can be perfect since all of them are created by imperfect humans. We can only as individuals do the best that we can and continue working on our spiritual self-improvement plan.

*Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins. (1 Peter 4:8 )

Pynchme:

<*Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins. (1 Peter 4:8 )>

Well that's a very sweet philosophy, Pynchme, but meanwhile a very tough (macho!) and pragmatic world of economic and material realities continues relentless and unimpeded---while the sisters hold hands and "ring around the rosie!" (an appropriate analogy, I think, given this cute nursery rhyme's probable inspiration).
Doting over men's bibles while the home and hearth is in dire peril (Ladybird ladybird fly away home...) demeans women's traditional down-to-earthness. Has anyone heard of the female Romantics? While Wordsworth and Coleridge and Keats and co wrote sublime poetry on pantheism and the imagination, their fair contemporaries, the women Romantics, more prolific and more popular than the men, wrote great poetry on their down-to-earth themes and concerns. Of course the female romantics (who were anything but romantic) were expunged from the "male" Romantic tradition that was handed down to us, by men! The female Romantics only re-emerged in the 1980's, thanks to hard-headed feminist research behind the male ideology and the male heritage we've all been taught to worship.
The bible and the Koran et al, are no different. Ideological claptrap! Pure sublimation (look it up)! Full of sublime male abstractions and verbal niceties that the incongruous male reality makes a mockery of!
Singing hymns while the world burns makes women no better than Nero (another male role-model)!
If only the world had more modern, female, oxymoronic romantics!
But sadly, most women just follow their men. It's pathetic!

Pynchme,
thanks for the excellent link.

Just to clarify my position above; I don't say there is no place for philosophy or spiritual contemplation, certainly I find consolation in these. But there's a pernicious and frumpy neglect of earthly concerns (and demeaning of women) in the observation of traditional religious texts (and canonicity) drawn-up by "MEN", not by "GOD"!! Anyone who gives this an ounce of thought has to see this as a no-brainer!
In my opinion these texts originally evolved to manipulate the masses into compliance (they also served as a much needed palliative for a vicious existence), and they still function in this way. But the more dangerous corollary, in the modern global context, is that they (religious texts) serve as psychological retreats from, and rationales for, real evils in the real world. And while they were once a palliative for a wretched material existence, they're now used (in the prosperous west) to palliate and rationalise excess.

Germany (where I live now) could provide a hint about potential memebership benefit to the Catholic Church of female ordination. Here in fact only two Christian Churches have been present and active: the Catholic and the Lutheran, approximately of the same sizes.

[The State collects Church tax, i.e. a German taxpayer has to state which Church (if any) he/she belongs to, and also has to notify the State Authorities if he/she wants to leave it and save the money. The same if a German taxpayer wants to become a meber of one of the Churches. An absurdity to my mind.]

There has been a mass exodus from both the Churches in recent decades. I do not have the numbers on hand, but it has been to about the same extent (actually the Catholic Church seems to have fared slightly better). The fact that the Lutherans have had female pastors and bishops for many years does not seem to have been of advantage to them. Also, those leaving one of these two Churches seldom enter the other.

So I doubt whether what Paul Collins seems to be suggesting for the Australian Catholic Church, in fact a secession from Rome, would achieve what he wants.

COPRRECTION:

Well, the clumsy
“potential memebership benefit to the Catholic Church“
should, of course read,
“potential benefit to the Catholic Church, regarding their membership numbers“.

Just as I predicted, Boaz.

>>The verses in Corinthians and Timothy.. should be balanced with those of Ephesians<<

How did I phrase it again?

"I'm sure you will come up with quotes that balance these..."

But the point I was making was not that contradictions exist in the Bible, but that you reject the fact that you approach the Qur'an with an entirely different agenda.

But that is a little off topic here. Let's get back to the main game.

>> those outside of Christ... cannot embrace or understand the Biblical pattern for male female relationships.<<

Ah, the old "you just don't understand" defence. Good one.

You do realize, of course, that it is precisely the same form of rationalization as that used by NAMBLA to defend their position in society - "those outside cannot embrace or understand..."?

Sound familiar?

I recall that you frequently disparaged this rationale in one or other of your former personae, so I am a little surprised that you choose to employ it here.

As for this little gem:

>>Women who hear the Gospel, are not hearing a call to submission to men, but to God, and we blokes also to God.<<

A sidestep worthy of the great JPR Williams himself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sW1cWJzO01Q

The point under discussion is not how women react to the Gospel, but about the manner in which men ensure that women are kept out of key leadership positions in the Church. Often using that same gospel as justification.

This sums up your position, I think:

>>...the Biblical teaching may seem a tad harsh or outdated, but in reality it is expressing a culture, or promoting one<<

Yep. As far as I can tell, you have demonstrated perfectly that its culture, as far as women are concerned, is both harsh, and outdated.

Hey TBC

You wanted to know why women would bother with the Christian church and two (Foxy and Pynchme) have given their reasons. I don't fully understand them either. But I, like you, see the bible as an anachronistic collection of tales developed to keep people in line with a little bit of good advice mixed in with all the errors and devious psychological manipulation.

I do understand the need for the numinous, the spiritual but I get that from the natural world, no book written by old men for spurious reasons does it for me.

However, given Foxy's and Pynchme's posting history here at OLO, they write very genuine and thoughtful contributions (whether or not I agree is irrelevant). Being the member of any group gives a feeling of inclusion and support - something that appeals especially to women but also some men. You know the stereotypes; cooperative women: independent men. And we all know members of either sex who are nothing like the stereotype. Some of us (women) are very "aggressive" and don't accord respect to someone just because they are a leader of sorts.

;)

And some men are totally submissive to authority.

So it goes...

The final authority in any discussion on the church is the Word of God and it clearly states, You are all one in Christ neither male or female.
If the same spirit that raised Christ from the dead does not live in you
you are not a christian at all and what you do or say has no authority
in God for you are just name dropping. If the church teaches tradition
as truth it has no authority and is irrelevant. Tradition nulifies the power of the word to save.

Pynchme... read your link, thanks for that. It seems to confirm at least some of what this thread is about.

I am none the wiser though, as to why those women would persist with the 'Christianity' angle and keep plugging away within the overall structure, rather than develop exactly the machinery they have already created and keep fighting those gormless fundies in an attempt to release their sisters, and brothers for that matter, since they are equally trapped and deluded, from the false bondage that grips them all.

It would be good to have that article as the basis for another thread, and Runner et al., could all tell us where it was SO WRONG and the work of the anti-Christ, and Evil.

'Poor Rusty, marrying such a worthless women' might be the outcome of their scribblings here... I wonder?

Your post started... 'Someone was once asked how they could be both Christian and feminist and they answered something like, "Christianity is about helping others in need and feminism likewise fights for social justice, how can I not be both?"'.

A good question, and one I asked myself when I read some self-promoting blurb about Keneally, the NSW premier, Papist and feminist, who claims she became a feminist when she realised that no women would ever become a Catholic priest.

She may well delude herself into thinking she is a feminist, but I suspect she is merely a Catholic-politician-of-the-Age, since she seems to have done little to promote the cause for women (and there by men too) in NSW at all, and is just about to cave in to the Axis of Evil on the St. James trial there.

What really concerns me about the question you pose above, is that 'helping others' is not a monopoly activity of Christians, but one undertaken by 'people', all over the world, some of whom happen to be Christian.

continued...

from above...

It is instructive to read accounts of travelling cyclists, as they wend their way over Europe towards Istanbul and further east, as they marvel at the hospitality of the Muslim villagers who feed, water and house them for no rent or payment, as their European counterparts had done too, via Couchsurfers or WarmShowers lists,but in the main, the Muslim folk were dead broke and ill-clothed.

As I read their posts on crazyguyonabike.com it is clear that Islam teaches these people to care for strangers, which they do diligently, so it seems.

So, it cannot be 'Christianity' that drives this need to care, but perhaps a well-developed sense of justice, and an understanding of 'injustice'.

Sticking the sins of Eve onto all women, can hardly be described as 'justice', I would have thought.

This facility to assist others must have been a survival practice, long before any of the religions stole it as an identity-signature for their particular brand.

Is it not possible to do what Anne Eggebroten and her group attempt to do, without overloading the actions with religious mumbo-jumbo, particularly when it is that same mumbo-jumbo they are trying to undo?

"We'll just have to disagree on the credibility of your beliefs, while I acknowledge your right to keep them."

Thank you and ditto.

"But ... your mob kept to themselves, harming only those who elected to sign up to 'the joke'."

That topic can be addressed in a suitable thread (yet again)

"...fuming over women riding bicycles, voting, holding bank accounts in their own right, and keeping their own names should they elect to marry?"

My concern is that you might be serious. Please reassure me.

"... the 'female' view you put is merely the result of cultural training, the hegemony of our society, from long back."

Wow! Are you female or is this an all an Ali G type support of women's rights?

"Sticking the sins of Eve onto all women, can hardly be described as 'justice', I would have thought."

Please don't attribute female ordination to that. The scary thing is that people will repeat it. You seem to be taken as more of an authority on Catholic belief than the Pope by some in here.

Pelican,

"If women are so 'evil'"

"Why is ... protecting child abusers perfectly okay?."

Beats me too as does the relevance of those opinions. I thought you were discussing the Catholic Church. Those assertions are quite contrary to Catholic belief.

Squeers,

So you are trying to say that you think religious people are stupid and atheists are clever? You might as well save words.

Foxy,

Where do you get the received thing from? Is it from Collins? I have read that somewhere in some book critical of the Catholic Church. If (and I strongly doubt the concept is correctly applied) that were true then why would it apply to contraception? Every Christian Church believed that scriptures held that to be correct until the 1930s when anglicans led the reinterpretation. The Catholic Church is the only one that didn't change (that I am aware of). Do you mean re-received when it was confirmed in Humanae Vitae and many Catholics didn't like it?

mjpb wrote: “Beats me too as does the relevance of those opinions. I thought you were discussing the Catholic Church. Those assertions are quite contrary to Catholic belief.”

I’ll ignore the subtle and deliberate switch from “Catholic Church” to “Catholic belief” and simply state: By their deeds ye shall know them.

Dear mjpb,

You got it in one.

It is from Paul Collins.

He's the expert, I'm not.

Dear TBC,

I've really got nothing further to add.
I've tried to explain things from a
Catholic woman's perspective - because
you asked for input. I don't care to
make this a gender issue.
See you on another thread.

mpjb... the thread is not just about the Pope and his infallibility...observe the anguish of the Anglicans in the first post as they object to female bishops... next step no doubt would be to turn God into a sheila!

"Wary of the anger among traditionalists, Dr Williams also appealed to liberals, who smell victory after years of campaigning in favour of women bishops, to be “generous” and accept some sort of arrangement for conscientious objectors who are opposed to female leadership."

Misogyny and bile is not reserved for Catholics.

I am serious about whether you fear 'women on bicycles', which was regarded as a sin in the 1870s.

As for Eve's sins, do read pynchme's post, from whence I specifically drew that thought: http://www.eewc.com/CFT/v25n4a1.htm

I deduce, from your Ali G comments, that you clearly oppose all rights for women, unless your Lord God/Pope said it was OK, of course... which sort-of confirms my suspicions that you do still wither at the prospect of women on bikes, both the actual, and any metaphor that might spring from the phrase.

Do read Frances Willard on the topic, 'How I learned to ride the bicycle' c.1895.

"Please don't attribute female ordination to that"... as in, the sins of Eve comment I made.

No, I don't, but the objection comes from that same start-up activity, does it not? Women were put here to serve God, alongside men, but subservient to them (which is why they were not supposed to ride bikes too).

You can go 'all theological' over this if you like to, the usual response to having 'the bleedin' obvious' pointed out in these matters, but do feel free to explain the 'real' reasons for the failure of women to raise the mainsail, as priests in Vaticanland or as bishops in the Canterbury tales.

To those on the outside, it smells of misogyny, power, status, the usual hallmarks of anything that descends from on-high, but of course, to those on the inside, I have no doubt, nothing less than the pure Wisdom of Solomon.

Please explain.

AJ Philips,

Sophistry on my part no doubt in switching to belief. I can type that I believed that I was replying to something that referred to belief but who would believe me?

mjpb:
<So you are trying to say that you think religious people are stupid and atheists are clever? You might as well save words.>

No, that is not what I'm saying; we all have ideological blind-spots. No doubt it suits you to dismiss criticism in such a simplistic fashion, without the least consideration. That after all is how the institution has survived for over 2,000 years.
You're right, "I might as well save words".

"mpjb... the thread is not just about the Pope and his infallibility...observe the anguish of the Anglicans in the first post as they object to female bishops..."

Didn't mean to ambush it in one direction. It is just that I am Catholic so I tend to focus on that.

"Misogyny and bile is not reserved for Catholics."

Thank you for not singling us out when expressing it.

"I am serious about whether you fear 'women on bicycles', which was regarded as a sin in the 1870s."

Well there is your answer. If somehow it was considered a sin in the 1870s and changed (somehow) or alternatively it wasn't considered a sin in the 1870s and still isn't then it wouldn't apply. This isn't the 1870s. The allegations all seemed rather remarkable.

"I deduce, from your Ali G comments, that you clearly oppose all rights for women, unless your Lord God/Pope said it was OK, of course... which sort-of confirms my suspicions ..."

Oh? Ali G has a habit of expressing attitudes along the lines of "show some respect to these h&$". Of course just like an African American wouldn't be considered a racist if they called another one a n%&&$^ your gender is relevant to your (at the time) most recent comment. Now your turn. Can you unpack how my reference to Ali G shows that I oppose all rights for women etc.

"Do read Frances Willard on the topic, 'How I learned to ride the bicycle' c.1895."

Are you saying that she considered it a sin? Wasn't she a Christian and didn't she ride a bike?

"No, I don't, but the objection comes from that same start-up activity, does it not? Women were put here to serve God, alongside men, but subservient to them ..."

It looks like three things. One is a particular woman doing the wrong thing because she had free choice. Another is a sacramental component. The final is something Paul writes about a marital relationship.

"You can go 'all theological' over this if you like to, the usual response to having 'the bleedin' obvious' pointed out in these matters, but do feel free to explain ..."

If my previous post and Joanne's article doesn't do it for you then I'm not sure that I can dazzle you with something you will relate to.

"To those on the outside, it smells of misogyny, power, status..."

But Boazy has already talked about the power and status issues. If you won't accept the Biblical pronouncements on that as Christian belief there is nothing I can say that will convince you. (I take for granted that the misogyny is based on the denial of power and status. If that assumption is incorrect please feel free to tell me.)

Squeers,

I thought I was calling a spade a spade based on what you were saying and the way you were expressing it. If you want me to respond to it in detail...

"As far as I'm concerned, I verily believe that these primitive belief systems are delusional..."

Why are they primitive?
How do you know they are delusional?
Why are they based on wishful thinking?
Why do they constitute a real and present danger to our actual material existence?

"Their is no reliable evidence to substantiate the crude religious constructions ..."

When I can get away from this and respond to opinionated in another forum and then get to a detailed discussion of this issue in yet another I'll do so. I'm not being evasive but with limited time I don't want to open up such a big topic here. Do you want a link to a thread that is concerned with it and where I intend to contribute?

"Even if we claim some kind of epiphany, that can still not be reliably interpreted since we so consummately twit ourselves."

If the divine went to the trouble of manifesting wouldn't it stand to reason that the divine would provide a means of reliable interpretation? Could the divine be silly enough to omit that?

"Neither should our castles in the air be used to evade responsibility in the here and now---which is precisely what religion is used for!"

Taking up our cross is how it is often described. What we do in the here and now relates to many Christians' beliefs about the 'castles'. Some argue that deferring to divine authority avoids responsibility. Others claim that believing in an unfettered right to do as we please without any absolute standard avoids responsibility. Both can lead to extreme and sometimes undesirable behaviour for a minority. Neither should be derided as evading responsibility but it is arguable for both.

mjpb...

You'll just have to read some cycling history, there is no space here to explain how important the bike was to freeing women from their diminished status, as required by God, of course, so clearly it could not be have been wrong.

'Sacred tradition' in the 1800s had it that women did not ride bikes, being an unnatural act, but somehow society managed to come to grips with the sheer horror of it, and now women-and-bicycles are a feature of global life. It did change mjpb, but only because some rose above it all, and defied the 'sacred tradition' of the era.... just as some headway was made over the tradition of slavery....amazing how things can change, if people require it.

Now, to cater to Foxy's abject horror at this discussion slipping into a mere discussion on gender, let's have a look at The Good Book.

'Catholicism for Dummies', 2003, says woman are cannot be priests cos the rules are a 'constitutive element of the Sacrament of Holy Orders'.

Simple, eh?

This simply cannot be changed because nothing that forms a 'valid matter' in any of the seven sacraments can ever change.... ever, never-ever.

Also, 'Sacred Tradition' of 2000 years has never had a woman priest.

Finally, Jesus did not ordain any women, or call any to be an apostle, not even his mum.

So, there you have it.

All explained in PJP 11s encyclical, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, of 1994

Foxy is right... not a gender issue AT ALL.

I do apologise for even thinking gender might have been a part of the issue.

But... it does seem just a little too convenient to have a few rules, cared for diligently only by males, that support the status quo, for ever, and ever, and ever, world without end. Amen.

As for AliG, I find him really quite stupidly inane and offensive, and cannot stand his humour.

I foolishly went to a film of his with my wife, where he shot around the US doing Norman Gunston tricks on everyone... I'll pass on your invite to pursue the AG connection.

The Blue Cross,

The "sacred tradition" there reads like a use of colourful language (in the non euphemistic sense) rather than a literal reference to Church dogma but I haven't read the whole book. It is obvious why the feminist movement came about.

I kid you not...

"Both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches believe that the revealed Word of God is both written (Sacred Scriptures) and unwritten (Sacred Tradition). When the Bible is silent or ambiguous, Sacred Tradition authentically fills in the gaps. Sacred Tradition shows that women were never ordained... (Triglio & Brighenti 2003, p.223)."

They are both 'Revs' and PhDs, and Roman Catholics.

It's a fail safe system, and fine if you believe it and never seek to question it, and are not paid by the secular state to fund it and impose it on others who do not share its 'wisdom'.

Because it contains implications, actions, and inactions that are 'beyond the pale' for many others.

But I like the 'authentically fills the gaps' line, in a sort of quaint, medieval way.

I can almost feel my hoodie and sandals, as I shuffle along the dirt street, mumbling thanks for my poverty and ever so 'umble station-in-life, wondering if Monty Python would ever exist.

How simple civic life would be if we were all still Morris dancing and prancing around the Maypole with our Harvest Festival goodies, while carefully ignoring the intrusion of authentic Pagan life there.

We could have avoided the Spinning Jenny and all she wrought in her wake, still be sailing wooden boats, riding horseback (no pesky 'unregistered' bikes to clog the roads), oh, how simple if we'd only stuck to tradition to authentically fill our empty lives.

What abundant JOY would be ours for the taking!

But no, we lost our way, and took up with Nick, who has led us into temptation, and delivered us from the good life, into Mayhem and Bedlam.... the price of free will, no less.

What utter folly we have heaped upon our heads.

If only, if only....

I blame Eve, that cunning sheila, but others are more charitable.

From the experiences of some of my elderly relatives and their friends, the established churches seem to offer a lot of practical benefits to women. They also provide a meeting place and support to young women with children.

Much of the ill-feeling and reaction against churches seems to be against the Catholic Church. That is understandable given the unique and very powerful position of Catholic priests. That wouldn't change if there were women priests, it is the power structure that is at fault.

Returning to the caring and supportive role of most churches for the less fortunate, many elderly people would be entirely social contact and aid for small but awkward jobs around the home were it not for the 'extension' services of their local churches. It is a feature of modern Australian culture that extended families have largely been destroyed and adult children may rarely visit elderly relatives, including their own parents who survive into old age.

Perhaps, in order to achieve their freedom, women may have to adopt an androgynous idea of themselves - to grasp the imaginative powers required to transcend their earth-bound subordinate psyche and embark on an odyssey of their own invention.
Emily Brontë achieved it in her towering act of creation - she became Heathcliff (fused with Catherine?)
Or is passion the emotion that mankind is most fearful of. Whenever the fusion of gender takes place there is passion...Flaubert said, "Madame Bovary, c'est moi!".

Dear mjpb,
it's been a looooong day and I'm tired, but I would prefer to have constructive dialogue over this, and so will explain myself more fully asap.

Dear Poirot,
what's not to love about "Madame Bovary"? Though 'tis a poor "persons" Anna Karenina. We'll have to have another literary thread some time.

Well Hi Pericles.. I always know I'm alive when ur around :) and you tend to slice and dice my arguments like a good butcher.. commendable.

How I wish I had more time to respond with great detail.

It should be noted however, that in my 'sidestep' (good vid too) as you put it, I don't deny the validity of Corinthians or Timothy.

Let's be clear, the context for what Paul is writing is 'The Church' as in the congregation gathered. It does not mean that a woman cannot hold a high position in life outside the Church.

The other point which should be noted is that there were women who did obviously speak and even teach.

Acts 18:26 When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, 'they' invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.

So... if we take the passages you cited by themselves, the suggestion or command is quite clear. "women, in the Church...silent"

The issue which should be looked at more closely is what Paul mean't by 'women'.. the context suggests 'wives' and it seems to me that Paul is alluding to some cultural issues here.

You might find some helpful insights from this page which is a Messianic Jewish one.. please have a look and see what they say about it.

Of particular importance I think is the Greek underlying our English translation "silence".. the same word is used in Thessolonians for 'quitness'

11We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. 12Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat.

"settle down" is the same Greek as 'silence' in Corinthians.

When I say 'should be balanced by'... I am referring not to 'contradictory' teaching, but to the emotional/attitudinal context.
Ephesians says "Love you wives as Christ loved the Church" which takes away any idea of 'tyrannical dominance'.

It is a far cry from 'beat them' in the Quran. Surely even you can see this ?

Pericles II ...while not wanting to derail the discussion into something about Islam, I do need to clarify something related to the content of your last post.

You suggest I used the "oh you just don't understand" approach, and this is true.. you don't. Your mind is still in pre born again mode. But for you to jump then into the Nambla deal is errr a bit far out. I've never used that for them..... I've only said that they use the same arguments that the Gay rights mob use to justify their own practice.

On the connection with the Quran, your comparison is unsteady and not reliable.
You can see what I mean partly from my last post, but more now.

BIBLE

a) "Women learn in silence (quietness)"
b) "Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the Church. (context)

QURAN
a) "If you see ill conduct.... beat them"
b) “And among His signs is that He created mates for you from yourselves that you may find comfort and repose in them, and He put between you love and compassion; most surely there are signs in this for a people who reflect.” (30:21)

In both cases, the 'b' does not refute the 'a'..so in the case of the Quran you are still left with a man being able to beat the wife.

I don't need to point out the considerable difference between those 2 situations.

POIROT.. *wow* :)

-achieve freedom ?
-Androgynous idea ?
-Imaginative powers?
-Earthbound subordinate psyche ?
-self invented odyssy ?

woooooo... you are a deep one arn't u :)

Bro...it's not that hard you know .... as Pynchy said:

*Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins. (1 Peter 4:8 )

When a fellowship is based on love and respect.. the negatives that some of us here fear simply don't exist.

Dear mjpb,

my position is that we live in this physical reality, which is somehow unconvincing or unsatisfying for us humans. Herein presumably we differ from other animals who indifferently chew their cud. This 'human condition' appears to be common to all human cultures in history, though it differs in how it is 'manifested culturally'. Myriad belief systems and rituals evolved in all these cultures in response to this curious 'human condition,' only among social 'groups' mind you. So what is the source of what I'll call human 'anxiety?' If we consult these diverse religions (no two the same) we typically find our answers in supernatural causes. The causes do not transcend us, however, but are conceived in the vices and norms peculiar to that group. The respective God provides for punishment, expiation and heavenly reward in relation to our (mis)deeds within the group--usually a hierarchy wherein the priestly caste traditionally governs, in itself or by proxy.
Now you may assert that these cultural institutions accurately and ethically reflect a divinely conceived reality. But there is no evidence for this. The 'miracles' of our modern fundamentalists are fraud and self-deception. If you can show me one real miracle that defies natural law (not as cited in a book) I'll reconsider.

qtd..

ctd..

But this still doesn't solve the problem of human 'anxiety' (including religious experience); is it divinely inspired or does it emerge as a manifestation of the social group? In the absence of any verifiable evidence for the former, logic points to the latter. Now bear in mind that though we are social animals we are still, ostensibly, 'individuals'. Yet can we conceive a single thought that is not derived from groupthink (we use art to try)? Doubtful. Rather than 'thoughts,' what we do experience individually is our animal being and its various appetites and drives, which are adjusted according to chemical dilutions within our bodies, and externally 'inhibited' by social norms. Social norms impose heavy constraints over our animal drives, and to the extent that we contravene these 'artificial' habiliments, even if we do it wilfully, we suffer a concomitant burden of guilt. Our 'epiphanies' can also be explained as psychic manifestations of this 'human condition,' or at least they cannot be 'cogently' explained as supernatural.
The secret ingredient that makes all this possible (we think) is language, or the 'symbolic order,' which we cannot step outside once we are initiated into it. Language structures not just our thoughts but reality itself; we can only conceive reality in our minds via the signs we've learned to identify with our sense perceptions of it. And language is an indigenous cultural form.
Most people do not know this explanation (my simplistic version of it) and are preconditioned anyway with their cultural group's religious explanation. In any case, this materialist version of the human condition is not very flattering or attractive. People will go on preferring flattering supernatural belief systems.
I am not fully satisfied with it myself; but out of genuine 'humility', rather than the disingenuous religious kind, I ponder my condition philosophically.

Dear Al,

It's not as deep as it sounds.
I'm being androgynous now (If you don't already know, this Poirot is a woman). And she is achieving freedom by using her imaginative powers to transcend her earth-bound reality to float around in cyberspace (unaccompanied and unimpeded) on a self-appointed odyssey to talk to you.

Squeers,

Your last two posts were excellent - I agree!

You continue to scale new heights in your attempts to paint Christianity as somehow different from other religions, Boaz.

For example, why did you select these two quotes, particularly, to contrast with those from the Qur'an?

>>a) "Women learn in silence (quietness)"
b) "Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the Church.<<

Why not:

a) "It is good for a man not to touch a woman" 1 Corinthians 7:1
b) "The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder" Luke 12:46

Just asking.

You see, the point is not about the quotations, but the use to which they are put. And your track record on this is pretty dire, as I have mentioned to you on many occasions.

But I notice you are still in denial about your "justification" being analogous to that of NAMBLA.

>> those outside of Christ... cannot embrace or understand the Biblical pattern for male female relationships.<<

Note the similarity to...

>>those Christians... cannot embrace or understand our approach to man-boy relationships<<

Have a look through their web site - it is chock-full of this type of "you outsiders simply don't understand" arguments. If you reject their rationale - which I suspect you do - you can easily see why I view yours in the same light.

But how about you tell us what you think, instead of what you think Paul thought.

>>the context for what Paul is writing is 'The Church' as in the congregation gathered. It does not mean that a woman cannot hold a high position in life outside the Church.<<

I can only assume that this indicates your own support for the stance that "a woman cannot hold a high position in life inside the Church"

Can you, absent 2000 year-old dogma, written, as you readily accept, when "things were different", justify this position?

Poirot I love your style.

Squeers you express it so well and have that unique ability to look outside the square while still valuing the stuff that works inside the square and putting your finger on the complex nature of the human psyche.

On topic, if I was a Church goer I would much prefer to reveal myself to another woman should I need to, just as I prefer going to a female GP. Men may also feel more comfortable in talking with another male - I am not sure - my androgynous hat does not stretch that far (courtesy Poirot).

There needs to be recognised an important place for women and men in the Church not only to share in the leadership role, but to be able to do justice to the needs of their congregations.

In the Churches I attend I find the women are fulfilled, happy and active serving each person and not seeking some sort of power over others. The Church is a place of encouragement, care and support to enhance the abilities of each person. Being male or female is not an issue as is supposed by some outsiders who listen to secular news. Women with ability are involved in every position held by anyone in the Church. If the person has the ability and the committment to serve they are involved.

Pericles... your query to AGIR about 'leaving out' the 2000 year old dogma.... clearly, I cannot provide his answer, only he can, but that is the same issue that mjpb has too....welded to unchanging dogma as the drowning man is to the life-raft.

The 'dogma' as you describe it, is 'fact' for AGIR, mjpb and others.

It is 'Sacred', text and tradition, in the 'always has been always will be' mode.

Of course, AGIR may well not be a Catholic but the deal is the same.... Jesus never-done-it, tradition-never-seen-it, God-never-thoughta-it, what was, is and will be, forever and ever, Amen.

Our problem is in trying to bring a rational approach to it, which does not work, and never will/can.

That's why Foxy has bailed out. For her, there clearly is no gender attached to the Sacred Tradition or Sacred Texts, they are just The Word, and genderless, being the word of God, who is neither male nor female, but both and neither at the same time, presumably.

Interestingly, I am scouring Bishop Holloway for clues as to what he thinks about Him.

A 'bad man' is our Dickie.

'Godless Morality' is his tome, the 22nd of his scribblings to hit the presses.

An ex-Bishop of Edinburgh, and many other titles and accolades to his name...perhaps Dickie 'Thomas' Holloway?

I think, like Spong, he sees some benefit in all the mumbo, perhaps such as Cornflower rightly describes the social-glue aspect of church circles, something I discovered as a 'branch member' years ago, and as a TLC rep, when, with others, putting aside our other differences that were anyway always unspoken about, we forged ahead with our collective plans.

Powerful stuff for sure, and to be found in all sorts of groups with nothing at all to do with 'the church'.

As far as women go, Bish Holls says that all the 'great traditions' have generated casualties, but women and children have "paid the highest price", being "most vulnerable to the abusive power of the systems that enclosed them" (Holloway 2002, p.153).

But it's not a 'gender issue', it's a 'tradition'.

The Blue Cross,

"Pericles... your query to AGIR about 'leaving out' the 2000 year old dogma.... clearly, I cannot provide his answer, only he can, but that is the same issue that mjpb has too....welded to unchanging dogma as the drowning man is to the life-raft.

The 'dogma' as you describe it, is 'fact' for AGIR, mjpb and others.

It is 'Sacred', text and tradition, in the 'always has been always will be' mode.

Of course, AGIR may well not be a Catholic but the deal is the same.... Jesus never-done-it, tradition-never-seen-it, God-never-thoughta-it, what was, is and will be, forever and ever, Amen.

Our problem is in trying to bring a rational approach to it, which does not work, and never will/can."

As long as you dogmatically subscribe to the idea that your opinion is rational but opposing opinions cannot be the result of rational thinking then it won't help communication. There will definitely be a problem in persuading us that your approach has merit when you dogmatically stick to something so untenable. Personally as a former atheist my strong point hasn't been faith. I headed in the direction that I judged to be most reasonable based on facts. I can respect a contrary opinion based on the same facts but it is hard to respect something that is contradicted by my experience. For someone in my situation (and many others) how am I supposed to accept your dogma?

mjpb... you assume there that believing in the crucifixion story, and all that goes with it, is rational, or more precisely, that the story of the crucifixion is not a cruci-fiction.

As Paul said, if yers can't believe in that, all else is dust.

I do not regard myself as a proselytising evangelist for my views, as Christians are required to be for theirs, so I am not interested in 'converts' thanks.

Besides, reformed 'smokers', which ever way they travel, have no interest in changing again, and are not open to different ideas.

I confess, I have no idea what 'facts' might have drawn you to the Vatican, although it might be interesting to hear them, if they are not too personal and intrusive to blog about.

It is also impossible to put forward a case from here, without having any idea what these 'facts' and 'experiences' are that so diverted you from one path to another.

Did you see Jesus in your morning burnt toast, perhaps, as some do, or did your amputated legs regrow overnight, as a local pastor here claims he can achieve?

(I am a bit cynical here, since a relative-in-wheelchair went to Lourdes fully expecting to be, is it the third miracle in 1000 years?, walking home again after a dip in the Holy waters. Needless to say, she is still in the wheelchair. But a miracle did occur, that I do concede. She still believes in the Mumbo, and with even deeper conviction than before: God moves in mysterious ways).

An operating theatre 'white light' experience? Or marry a Catholic and undertook a 'conversion' session with the local priest?

Just solid study of the Bible while thinking you were an atheist perhaps?

I do see a lot of flaky atheists who have 'come over' from the 'other side', a different route to you of course, who seem lost and lonely without the flying buttresses of their local community propping them up every minute of every day, and quite understandable there too... a form of grief I wouldn't be surprised.

How is non-belief “untenable”, mjpb?

<<Personally as a former atheist my strong point hasn't been faith.>>

Then why are you no longer an atheist? Faith is hope an desire mistaken for knowledge, remember? (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3729&page=0)

You may have once been an atheist, but I seriously don’t think you were ever what I would call a “thinking atheist”.

<<I headed in the direction that I judged to be most reasonable based on facts.>>

Which facts are you referring to?

<<I can respect a contrary opinion based on the same facts but it is hard to respect something that is contradicted by my experience.>>

I can certainly relate to this, mjpb.

While I respect the right of others to believe what they want, I don’t and can’t respect beliefs that haven’t earned respect by being based on any sort of real evidence.

<<...how am I supposed to accept your [TBC’s] dogma?>>

The lack of belief in a god is not a “dogma”. Dogma is a doctrine or code of beliefs accepted as authoritative. Your failure to understand this, and other basics such as the fact that it doesn’t take faith to be an atheist (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3729#90563, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1548#29482), is how I know you were never really a ‘thinking’ atheist. I suspect you were more like one of these people who didn’t believe because they just didn’t have any experience with religion growing up.

It’s like a few former-atheists I’ve known...

They liked to say they were once atheists, but they were only ever atheists because they never really thought about the topic of religion at all until tragedy or hardship struck and they became religious. Ironically, they also, somehow, mistook the lack of belief in gods with a system of belief despite having once been atheists that only lacked any sort of belief themselves.

They were suffering from such an acute case of religious ecstasy that they couldn’t even see how dishonest they were being with themselves - inventing whatever they could to feel better about holding such untenable beliefs.

Yikes Pericles :) "scale new heights"? you sure have a way with words.. in fact that was the very first thing I noticed about you in your first ever post..... still in good form I note.

I can't address all that you raised now.. I'm just rejoicing in the fact that all of us can have such an indepth convo online..

*waves at everyone*

Poirot :).. female eh.. shouldn't you be a bit quieter ? (cheeky look)

But *whacks self*.. ok.. I'm back now..... you are correct.. it is a great place to set ourselves free of many usual hinderances..such as distance, and impart and receive the collective wisdom or ignorance as it may be, of others.

Pericles.. I will address those points.. when I get my newly acquired wireless router going...and my grandaughter offffff my puter *I want the kitten! one* she says.. then it's Hi 5 and she dances around my office.. hiding embarassed when I poke my head around the door.

If anyone has asked me anything.. apologies for not specifically addressing it, Pericles keeps me occupied.. blame him :)

FOLKS.. this is a great resource for both sides of many questions on Christian thinking.

http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/search/label/debate

Audio debates. I'm sure there will be something of value for us all.

Cheers

I am in danger of another 'posting' jibe here, apologies to mjpb-no rush intended, but I am indebted to AJP, for not only his response, providing what I never thought to say, about dogma and atheism, thanks, but also for the miracle worked on digging out 'old posts'.

How do you do it? I am amazed.

I'll consult my 16 year old tonight, he knows everything.
I excised mjpb's 'facts' from the post AJP supplied, see below.

"I believe in God's existence.... Why? Because I didn't have enough faith to remain an atheist. The shift was difficult as the lifestyle had its moments but Christianity definitely has its own rewards.... God and Christianity make sense to me".

Well, talk about 'dogma', I'm gobsmacked, floored, overwhelmed, beside meself, what can I say to refute that lot?

God is a BIG magnet, drawing souls in from the lesser magnets of, say, atheism, agnosticism and 'all those wrong religions', who hold their prey in place by injecting 'faith'. If there is not enough 'faith' injected, you simply spiral helter-skelter, or is it Pell Mell?, towards God, and get fixed for life (and hereafter).

Well, you've got me there, I can't compete, and I've seen the error of my foolish ways, hold a seat, I'm coming over.

Apart from the fact that I barely ever call myself 'an atheist', I am totally unaware of any 'lifestyle' that goes with that title.

Do, someone, please let me in on this mystery.

What is an 'atheist lifestyle', for Heavens sake?

Now, I am not going to dispute mjpb's claim that Christianity makes sense to him, clearly it does, and who can complain about that?

The 'rewards' is not so clear cut.

We'd have to excise out of 'human life' what was an action exclusive to Christianity, not done by anyone else in the world, to know that.

I am uncertain what that is, since most people seem to behave in a surprisingly similar way, in a 'human' way.

Any pointers would be appreciated.

Ah, no problem TBC.

My finding of old posts is just a combination of a sharp memory along with the help of Google’s site search function.

I simply Googled:

site:forum.onlineopinion.com.au "enough faith”+atheist+mjpb

And viola... http://tiny.cc/k030k

TBC,

As for your puzzlement in regards to what the rewards are, speaking from my personal experience and the experiences I shared with fellow church-goers in Bible study and other miscellaneous moments, the only rewards I can think of are the mental and emotional comfort and security that comes with thinking that the Big Guy’s got it all sorted and that even if the poop hits the fan big time, then there’s always the land of sunshine and lollipops awaiting you at the end of it all anyway. It’s win-win.

If you’re life is filled with riches of all sorts, then it’s because god wanted you to have them; If you’re constantly struggling in life and running into misfortune after misfortune, then those with less in life are rewarded the most in the afterlife. Again, win-win.

Boaz,

Thanks for the link. There’s a couple of debates I’d be interested in listening to, but unfortunately with the likes of William Lane Craig, Matt Slick, Jason Lisle and Steven Meyer giving the Christian point-of-view, I’m not confident I’ll learn anything new.

AJP... I am seriously amazed, impressed and thankful.

Now I'll be able to see what rot I've written in posts-past.

I would never have thought of doing that I confess, however simple it might be for others to comprehend. Thanks.

There is no doubt that if we are looking for real miracles from the secular world then 'The Googles' would have to be at the top of the list, on a par with 'The Internets', as dear George used to call them.

If only Lourdes was half as productive, even once a year, as the secular world is every day, there'd be no holding back true believers.

Funny thing.... I have no 'faith' in secular Microsoft type products, but they still seem to weave their black magic and deliver things to me, even while I have no idea how they work (or how to work them properly so it seems). Yet my rellie had ultimate 'faith' in her salvation-at-Lourdes, knew and understood all the main and peripheral bits of Mumbo required to succeed, and it still did nothing worthwhile.

I'm also glad to have received the secret(thanks AJP), having been in awe myself, ever and anon, when some maestro of the medium transmigrates with such omnipresence. TBC; of course your infirm rellie forgot the "jumbo", the essential complement to mumbo.

Poirot,
this changes everything! Now I won't be able to help trying to impress you, along with Pelican :-)

Mjpb,
I'm looking forward to your reply, and I understand about time constraints. Please by all means give me the link to your other thread.

Squeers,

I'm already impressed.

AJP... "the only rewards I can think of are the mental and emotional comfort and security that comes with thinking that the Big Guy’s got it all sorted and that even if the poop hits the fan big time, then there’s always the land of sunshine and lollipops awaiting you at the end of it all anyway".. indeed.

I do understand that sense of 'community' and neither deny it nor knock it, since I too experience that in my own life of secular folly, but that is not a 'Christian' activity. Lions (not the beasts) get this joy, as do Rotary people, and P&C volunteers, and so on, as do people in other religions, and no religions.

The post life is not a Christian monopoly either.

Even those evil non-religiony, and the Pagan devil worshipping, roll-mop eating, environmentalists hope for a better world, albeit here on earth, when they have 'passed on', although not for themselves but for those who are left here (altruism at work?).

No worries AJP :).. I think I detected a mild note of cynicism in your last post... about win win etc.

I don't think that any of the scenario's you portrayed accuractely reflect what Jesus brought to us.. do you ?

I saw a strong note of 'prosperity gospel' aversion there.. happily so.
That was never the Gospel, and never will be.

There is a secret though...that many don't realize... while we who regard ourselves as true evangelicals will speak lots about denying self and not living for this world, or it's vainglory, once you go through that gateway of self denial, and come out the other side...it can be pretty awesome in ways I can't even begin to describe.

But sssshhhhhhh *its a secret* :)

But the bit we can freely tell all and sundry is that there is new life to be had in Christ...but the door (Him) is to walk in His footsteps.

If William Lane Craig is a bit dodgy..(at first I liked him but as some of the weaknesses in his position were pointed out.. I faded)

If you want some fairly solid reformed meat.. try this one.

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?catid=12

James White is quite entertaining with a solid academic foundation.

Have a good weekend.. take a walk.. try the Dandenongs :)

This discussion is based around the principal of equal rights. I don't believe that women have the equal rights in the context of the orthodoxy of the existing Christian religions. Women were clearly defined to a position in the Christian doctrines, and that is of an aid to man. Because of evolving technology and the societal changes that accompany it, women quite rightly are viewed as equals in modern societies, but this freedom has produced the female career predator.

The female career predator has traditionally chosen government departments as their first choice of residence. Govt depts were the first to embrace the ethos of gender equality and positive discrimination. I mention this because of the "easy and protected" career path they offer in comparison to the private sector. Women have now targeted another easy mark, the church. Career lesbians with nothing else in their lives want to destroy the ordained spirit and perspective of a faith because they can.

Adam was created, and Eva created from Adam. The trinity's not "mother son and holy ghostess". After I had read the thread yesterday I asked a handful of people what gender the holy ghost is, all replied male. The scriptures do not berate or subjugate women, but it is plain to see that Adam was the first concept and male was the gender assigned.

Whether you believe in Christianity or not it does not alter the fact that the hub of the church has always been male and that at the meeting of creator and created, Moses was speaking to a male creator, and a male creator to his first concept of humanity made in his own image.

This change is not driven by the need to liberate women in the Christian faith, women parishioners gain nothing from a change. If we were discussing the Muslims I could see a valid reason to have women represented at the top echelon. But I would argue that in the Koran males are aso the chosen heirachy of the faith.

Lesbians with PC agendas are the core of the call for change, ego driven.

Are you serious sonofgloin - or are you tongue in cheek.

Just in case you are serious - "female career predator". What the...! And lesbians no less. Good gracious.

Usuing that logic and analysis men were the first 'career predator' often barring entry for women into many professions. The private sector did not become more egalitarian until much later.

Women did not 'choose' government positions as a first priority necessarily, but government was the first major employer to encourage female applicants at a time highly discriminatory to women.

As an atheist what the Churches do is really none of my concern or business unless their activities impede on other rights and freedoms, however I don't understand how many women can accept the arrogance of some of the attitudes that exist in this very male dominated hierarchy. In particular the tendency to portray women as evil or unclean which also relates to some biological functions. This is the same with Islam - I don't get it.

Why do normally intelligent and reasonable people go along with this rot.

"I asked a handful of people what gender the holy ghost is, all replied male"... well, they must all be a bit daft.

Father, Son and Holy Ghost... they are all the same as each other, God.

And God is genderless because God is simply 'God'.

Unexplainable by us, or else we could be God too.

So, less of the gender stuff please.

pelican:>> Are you serious sonofgloin - or are you tongue in cheek.<<

Serious in the premise but hopefully entertaining (but factual) in my presentation.

Pelican we who have sensibility know there is absolutely no difference in the ability of the genders, other than those governed by testosterone or estrogen. But my point is that the church as an organization has always had males at the upper echelons, as I said the religious and cultural aspects of that thought process are validated by the texts that governed the formation of the early church. Why should it change because of a gender equality issue that started in the late 20th century.

>> Women did not 'choose' government positions as a first priority necessarily, but government was the first major employer to encourage female applicants at a time highly discriminatory to women.<<

Absolutely, that’s what I said, but it was still a choice, the accommodating public service or the make your own way private sector. I would opt for the path of least resistance, but that transition was forty years ago and the private sector has embraced the positive discrimination practices of the government but women are not represented at top level in the private sector as they are in the govt. Does that draw us to any conclusions on choice of environment and accountability career women are prepared to submit to?

Re the male career predators, they tried everything to keep the girls down, but they lost, and died out, good riddance.

The Blue Cross:>> And God is genderless because God is simply 'God'.<<

Not so according to the bible:
Genesis 1:27
King James Bible
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him;"

You may want god genderless but the texts say otherwise.

Dear Pelly,

You asked , "why do normally intelligent people
go along with this rot?"

It's an excellent question.

Most don't, but they choose to stay
within the faith and attempt to change things.

There is of course a great sense of alienation
amongst women. This is made abundantly clear
in, "Woman and Man. One in Christ Jesus,"
a comprehensive report on the participation of
women in the Australian Catholic church,
commissioned in August 1996 by the Australian
Catholic Bishops' Conference (ACBC). The process
involved the largest research and conultation project
ever undertaken by the Australian Catholic Church.
If nothing else, it indicated that there was a realisation
among bishops that something had to be done about
the relationship between women and Catholicism.

Dr Marie Macdonald spoke in August 1999 at the National
Press Club in Canberra, she was the co-ordinator of the
project, and the first Australian woman to
become a Doctor of Theology. She presented the Report
and told the media that during their hearings around
Australia she and her colleagues found:

"A strong sense of pain and alienation resulting from the
Church's stance on women. A dichotomous relationship with
the Church characterised by such feelings as love and
commitment yet anguish and alienation, was experienced by
both individuals and groups. Pain, alienation and often
anger resulted from a strong sense of women's marginalisation...
and lack of acknowledgement within the Church."

She spoke of people's feelings of frustration as they
tried to remain within the church, and of the sadness
of those who felt they had to leave over this issue.
"It was clear," she said, "that many people hope, but
in many cases it is faint."

Many women felt that they will not be pushed out of their
Church. They will not leave, because
by leaving, it would mean they lost the fight, and many
felt it was a cause worth fighting for.

That's why they stay and continue to chip away at the
hierarchy.

The following website may also be of interest:

http://www.womenpriests.org/interact/cuckoo1.asp

The Catholic Church it would seem is a long way from having women priests. Ordination of women is a breach of Canon Law:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/15/vatican-attempted-ordination-women-grave-crime

As noted, it is not merely an issue of what is right for the times, as is the case celibacy; the ordination of women is a significant religious crime.

An interesting dilemma for women in the Vatican team, eh Foxy?

As too for gay/lesbian people, and couples who use contraceptives.

A totally unyielding machine, run by men, says (according to my Dummies for Catholics) that it's not 'about gender' but 'tradition', and 'the word of God.

So, hanging around til change comes is a waste of time, because, according to Dummies, it is simply not possible to change the word of God.

The only sensible path is to give in, give up and succumb to the male God.

Of course, the other option is to denounce the male dominated machine as a total fraud, and set up a far more equal bizzo, that welcomed men and women, or women and men even.

But I can't see that it can be fixed for ever, and worth waiting for change.

The two do not compute

Dear TBC,

Part of the problem is the tendency on the part of
many church leaders and more conservative Catholics
to blame forces outside Catholicism for the church's
failures. The primary responsibility for the church's
failures lies squarely within its own structures and
with its own leadership. As Dr Paul Collins tells us
in his book, "Believers: Does Australian Catholicism
have a future?", "The church is its own worst enemy...
It deludes itself that external social forces or an
internal "faith collapse" are to blame when the
primary cause lies within itself. This is not to claim
that external forces are not important. Contemporary
post-modern society is not an easy context in which to
live the spiritual life of a committed believer...
But the greatest threat to the church comes from the
lack of creative leadership at a diocesan and national
level, as well as from the failure of the papacy to
acknowledge the ministerial crisis facing local churches
like Australia..."

Collins insists that papal ministries consistantly refuse
to confront the internal issues facing Catholicism.
The shortage of priests is a major issue - yet the ordination
of women continues to be ignored. A central problem is
that many bishops feel that their sole line of
responsibility is upward to Rome, because the Vatican
appointed them. There is no or little consciousness that
they are responsible to the local church and that they
must answer to priests and laity.

I'm not as pessimistic as others may be, and I still believe
that there is hope. As Dr Collins confirms, "Fortunately,
Australia still has a majority of bishops whose orientation
is essentially pastoral and whose primary care is their
dioceses..."

Fingers-crossed that with time they will listen to their
parishes and Rome in turn will listen to their bishops.

Dear Foxy
I realised later my post may have come across as a bit abrupt especially as I have great respect for women like yourself,Pynchme and many others who do have faith in a more positive future for the Church.

I should have clarified the "put up with part" was more to highlight what you outlined about hope and change from within rather than an acceptance of the status quo.

Apologies if I offended. :)

Sonofgloin
You certainly have a way with words. I agree the premise in Christianity and indeed with Islam is to place women as secondary to men (or complement to as the generous interpretation), as per the orthodoxy. It just doesn't sit right that women are viewed in this way which for me as an atheist is further evidence that these religious texts were products of the imagination of man rather than a kind and all-powerful supernatural force

pelican,
Your premise; "I agree the premise in Christianity is to place women as secondary to men (or complement to as the generous interpretation), as per the orthodoxy. It just doesn't sit right that women are viewed in this way which for me as an atheist is further evidence that these religious texts were products of the imagination of man rather than a kind and all-powerful supernatural force:"is nonsence as no second class person is viewed by Christ.

"IN THE CHURCH THERE IS NEITHER MALE OR FEMALE, SLAVE OR FREE" Galatians 3: 28
The doctrine for the Christian Church has a historical setting and was written to reflect the best of culture of the time in the Greco-Roman world to teach respect and love for each other. I suggest you read the life of Christ in the Gospels and his relationship with wemon who were in the local culture considered second class - John 4 is a prime example.

For you as an atheist I suggest you look rather at the culture of women under the Taliban and you might have a campaign worth fighting for. Women in Australia are not supressed or denied equality.

pelican:>> It just doesn't sit right that women are viewed in this way which for me as an atheist is further evidence that these religious texts were products of the imagination <<


May well have been the product of the imagination of man, but I defend the status quo when it comes to who staff the church. I base that position on history and current sentiment. If an “all women’s club” of any description was forced to take on male members I would defend their right to their status quo based on history and sentiment.
Pelican you see a gender discrimination issue in the current policy, but I see a historical tradition being followed faithfully.

Although Jesus’ mum is not big to the Anglicans, she rates second to the two boys with the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox faiths, and those churches were the first broad umbrellas that united the faithful under the name of Christianity.

Foxy... I see why you adhere to Collins.

He sounds like a reasonable person.

But he too is ignoring what your own mob are saying.

There can be no 'reform', or movement from, the Word of God.

It is simply not possible, ever, is it?

I too would think that the Vatican might wish to move with the times, and adapt to changing values, since, of course, I believe that all they hold as 'magical' is but the word of man, imposed by men, for power, but I do realise that others seem to believe that a 'mystery' said it all.

But if you are a 'real' Roman Catholic, then you would also reject the ordination of women outright, and gay marriage, and all the other ideas the Pope believes in, including that condoms spread AIDS and are going to be the downfall of humankind, and so on.

That you look to heretics like Collins, and see some decent humanity peeking out, and support that glimmer of hope, shows that you are of a doubting faith, rather than the true one.... like some of the other posters on this thread.

The problem is this... if God said no women can ever be priests, as He clearly did cos the Pope says so, and the Vatican agrees to make them priests, then the Vatican is suddenly in league with Nick.

continued....

from above...
So you need to put Collins down, and take up your Pell & Pope, and return to the one-true-fold.

Although I believe there should be change, you cannot, you are not allowed to, in fact, you have no right to think so, because to do so, is to challenge the very foundations of your faith.

Believing in female priests, for a Catholic at least, would be as wrong as not believing in the resurrection.

And if you don't believe in the resurrection, then you cannot be a Christian.

Since all the structures are man made from imaginations, there should be no problem with moving out and imagining a new church that covered all bases.

Let the old one wither and die, and regard your actions as no more than those of a good gardener, pruning off the deadwood, and letting the new growth come through... the role of the gardener is exalted by God (so I'd imagine, others can find quotes supporting or denouncing that claim), and part of His plan.

We all live and die, and so should all human institutions.

The Vatican gang is getting on, and may well have reached its use-by date.

Time to ease it into respite care, before pulling the plug when the brain waves start flat lining, as they seem to be these days.

Dear TBC,

I think that Father James Kavanaugh
sums up my feelings in his
book, "A modern priest looks at his
outdated Church," when he says:

"Faith has passed from the passive and
complete acceptance of a body of truths
to the honest search for total commitment.
The world has become man-centered,
meaning-centered, and the individual measures
the traditional truths in terms of personal
value. The individual refuses to accept
irrelevant sermons, a sterile liturgy, a
passe and speculative theology which explores
publicly dry and distant formulas, a law which
does not explain its own origins. He/she demands a
pastor who reaches them in honest dialogue.
They will not be bullied by an authoritarian demand
nor by moralizing which ignores the true and
complex context of modern life..."

I may not be a very good Catholic, as I will not be
forced to believe that the present structure of the
Church is an adequate representation of the Christ
of Gospel and history. I however, shall be a Catholic
who follows her conscience, demands meaning and
relevance from her Church, and will not permit my
God to be reduced to empty ritual and all-absorbing law.

Dear Pelly,

You dear friend, are not capable of offending anyone.
Don't give it another thought. I always value
your input.

Dear Pelican - it's all ok; no offence taken. I share many of your concerns (and Foxy's).

<"Why do normally intelligent and reasonable people go along with this rot.">

Well we don't; I'm a feminist as well and I see the way that Churches have incorporated male dominance (pre-Jesus) into their structure and laws; and clung to them as 'tradition'. Frankly they are not living up to the promise brought by Jesus, but merely perpetuating ancient laws that favour (traditional) masculine dominance.

Galatians 3
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+3&version=KJV

Here is an example of the argument about faith and law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinomianism

(I would be somewhere on the continuum towards antinomianism I suppose).

Just FYI: This has to be one of the most horrific stories:

http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?passage=Judges+19%3A1-30

- and here is an analysis; though it has a few typos - the writer presents some significant ideas about the way that story compares to the nonsense interpretation of the destruction of Sodom (as if it says something about homosexuality, which has been the favoured (mis) interpretation of the mainstream dominant culture:

http://myqueerscripture.blogspot.com/2010/03/abomination-of-heterosexuality-sin-of.html

If nothing else, what these readings and debates illustrate is that there is no immutable law; all has been negotiated and reinterpreted many, many times throughout history. The only constants have been Jesus - his way of being in the world; the promise of salvation through faith; our duty to protect the vulnerable and outcast; the statement that love covers many sins.

It's Jesus that keeps me tied to Christianity; not all the hoo-hah-hippy-crap that supports patriarchal power.

Btw: I'm not Catholic. I was raised mainly as Presbyterian (family tradition) but because we moved a lot and often lived in remote locations, we were encouraged to visit any church with an open door. I quite early pondered the way that almost every church organization had different ideas and beliefs (like speaking in tongues; or taking communion) and yet how each one claimed to have a corner on THE TRUTH.

When I was in my 20s I was studying for my first degree. The local Presbyterian Church that we attended disapproved of my study and pressured me in many ways to stop. For example, if the guild wanted me to cook or work on a stall or something there would be many offers of help to mind the children. However, if I was to sit an exam, people would preempt any request to mind the children by making it clear with a disapproving 'air' that they wouldn't be available for that.

Strangely, one exam supervisor was an old Anglican priest and he was most helpful. When I went to an exam and had my baby with me, he would allow me to sit with baby on my knee while I wrote and sometimes he'd rock the baby for me while I did my exams.

No church organization is perfect. They think they are doing good by pressuring towards conformity, but they aren't, though they also did many real kindnesses.

About then my spouse had a serious fall off a horse; hospital for 6 months then invalidism. Fortunately, because of my study I was able to secure a higher paying job that gave me some flexibility in time so that I could still care for our kiddies to school age myself.

I've never since joined a church organization; though I still attend Church - whichever door is open. I usually go in the evening so that I can have quiet communion with God. It's a meditative time. I don't go often enough, but I go. My daughter chose to be married in an Anglican Church rather than the family-traditional Presbyterian.

Philo. "For you as an atheist I suggest you look rather at the culture of women under the Taliban and you might have a campaign worth fighting for"

As far as I'm aware we have not yet had a PM, premier, or significant number of politicians who are members of the Taliban (not many muslim pollies for that matter). We had plenty of PM's and other politicians who are members of christian churches. The situation in Australia is nowhere near what the Taliban did but the teachings and attitudes of the christian churches are much more likely to impact on Australian legislation than those of the Taliban (or other muslim groups).

That's not to say treatment of women within muslim groups should be ignored, rather that for local impacts the christian churches teachings and attitudes are more significant.

R0bert

What RObert said in response to Philo. I particularly included Islam in the previous comment to recognise I was not singling out Christianity perse, it is only that Christianity is the culture within which I live and feel more able to comment.

I am thankful I do live in a moderate Christian country and as an atheist would not be set upon while walking down the street, but this does not mean the Church is perfect as Pynchme points out - the relationship is between a person and their God.

Thanks Foxy and Pynchme for your understanding of my basic premise.

sonofgloin
Traditions can be a good thing but not always. Comparing the male dominated Christian hierarchy with possible 'entry into a women's club' is stretching things a bit. We are not talking about men invading the CWA or women seeking entry into male country clubs.

Faith is not a man's club but includes women otherwise there would only be male parishioners. The relationship between God and the believer is a personal one I would imagine and who leads or influences administrative matters would hardly impede that relationship. Traditions set in concrete by men during a time when women held lesser status is hardly a tradition to uphold IMO but I can understand, even if I don't agree, that some would find changes to those traditions difficult.

I'd suggest you begin to talk to women in the Church and find out their real feelings - Do they feel suppressed or restricted or second class? For feminist atheist to attempt to demean men in the Christian Church is a weak issue and identifies the depth of reality they understand and the hostility they try to whip up outside Christ. That the Roman Church maintains old Roman world gender traditions does not demean women as second class.

Wake up! Australia's only Catholic saint is a woman.

I am not Roman Catholic but find fine women within the Roman Catholic Church with devotion and care they give to family and community. Some of the atheist feminists could learn much from these women's fulfilled lives and attitudes.

In the Church I attend we do not have priests as we believe each believer is a priest and can act on the behalf of another before God. This prieshood includes both men and women.

Philo
Please point out where I have demeaned men. Why is it when people (regardless of faith/atheist perspective) speak in terms of addressing equality for women or seek fairer representation of women in any field they are 'demeaning' men. Yet there is no acknowledgment of the fact that lack of women priests might be seen as demeaningn to women particularly when the idea is compared to pedophilia.

My parents were both raised as Catholics so I do know a fair bit about the Church and its effects on others as well as many friends who are Christians who also believe in female priests. I don't have to ask them if they feel oppressed because they tell me.

Why do some men resort to this sort of defensive doublespeak with hand on heart as though it is real. Please look within before making this type of comment and read the intent in a post rather than automatically taking a defensive position.

But surely, Philo...

>>That the Roman Church maintains old Roman world gender traditions does not demean women as second class.<<

...that is exactly what it does?

The fact that many of those women may accept this situation without question, does not mean that is is not a valid observation.

Questions that come from people who are not "one of the team", by the way, does not render them irrelevant.

>>For feminist atheist to attempt to demean men in the Christian Church is a weak issue<<

It is only by being asked these questions that the insiders can acquire a different perspective, and with it the chance to use that input to - possibly - re-evaluate their position.

Think of it this way: you are a nineteenth-century explorer in the jungles of Africa, and you come across a tribe that practises cannibalism. They have done so since the dawn of time. Would you accept the argument that you are "attempting to demean the tribe", when you politely explain that the rest of the world gave up the practice of cannibalism, some time ago?

Pericles,
Unless you are willing to identify with the tribe as your equal brothers then you have no right to campaign against cannibalism; similarly with the church. We have a right as members of the human race with a set of values to educate our fellow humans on our values because we wish to improve their social lifestyle. But when your set of values diametrically opposes good social structures your motivations are suspect. Give us a current society where social improvements have been made by atheistic feminists.

Our Armed services are currently serving in Afganistan because women are unneducated and considered not more than dogs by the Taliban. The armed services have a cause and a campaign - I suggest you support the armed coalition rather than attacking a healthy functioning society that you are not willing to be a committed part of it.

Philo... "Our Armed services are currently serving in Afganistan because women are unneducated and considered not more than dogs by the Taliban"... this is utter balderdash!

Our armed forces are there because Howard sent them to assist his mates in the USA.

They are there supporting corruption in the Afghan government, as do all of us at home here by keeping them there.

They are there as an invading force to 'halt terrorism' even as their presence there encourages it all, and their comrades end up dead and maimed as a result.

Anyway, it's just a bit rich to be worrying about women there, when women are not exactly 'equal' in our own society, are they?

As for this line, "We have a right as members of the human race with a set of values to educate our fellow humans on our values because we wish to improve their social lifestyle" ... you have no right to impose your medieval (and older) beliefs on your fellow human beings, which is what Christianity aims to do.

As for this claptrap, "But when your set of values diametrically opposes good social structures your motivations are suspect"... excuse me... where does child abuse as a set-of-values fit in our world? Where does using 'tradition' to whip women fit? Where does bludging on taxpayers fit as a 'good value'?

We all see things from where we sit, but you have to be open to the understanding that even as you impose your values onto others, others are able to see just how slim your claims for purity really are.

Dear o dear,
it looks like mjpb has bolted from the field :-(
But while I was looking forward to stripping him of his armour in Homeric style, I suppose I may defray the cost, in terms of my satisfaction, against his conceded defeat by default.
Ah, but 'tis a paltry prize without the combat.

Squeers,

The other thread is:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3729&page=0

You will see that in my second most recent post (I think) I expressed my intentions concerning that topic (and other things). Thank you for being responsive. I really don’t have time right now (understatement) but I wouldn't bolt without giving you the link.

The Blue Cross,

”Besides, reformed 'smokers', which ever way they travel, have no interest in changing again, and are not open to different ideas.”

So someone labeling contrary views as irrational are open to different ideas and people saying that they can respect them but haven’t reached the same conclusion are like a reformed smoker.

”Did you see Jesus in your morning burnt toast, perhaps, …session with the local priest?”
No

”Just solid study of the Bible while thinking you were an atheist perhaps?”
Not just but no conversion is complete without some consideration of the Bible.

”How is non-belief “untenable”, mjpb?”

Saying it is intenable is stronger than I would politely put it but I couldn’t in intellectual honesty accept it myself. Different people form different conclusions based on the same evidence.

”Then why are you no longer an atheist? Faith is hope an desire mistaken for knowledge, remember? (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3729&page=0)”

When I suggested that you were referring to all faith as blind faith you said.

“Faith IS blind. We’d call it “knowledge” otherwise. Faith is hope and desire mistaken for knowledge.”

Blind seems to be putting it too strongly (and I don’t accept that hope and desire are necessarily required for faith)

Situation 1 the best someone can do is examine the evidence and form a conclusion
Situation 2 “Belief for no good reason; belief against evidence to the contrary”.

Situation 1 may be blind in the sense that it isn’t actual knowledge or perhaps from actual experience. However it is typically distinguished from situation 2. Situation 2 is commonly referred to as blind faith. I don’t believe that the two should be conflated.

”don’t think you were ever what I would call a “thinking atheist”.”
Sticks and stones.

”Which facts are you referring to?”
I fully intend to getting into that topic in the thread that you linked to above. I have knocked off the Hitler thing. That is next on the list I gave in there for things I want to do when I get time.

”While I respect the right of others to believe what they want, I don’t and can’t respect beliefs ...”

That sure is a significant qualification. I suspect that that is about the size of it with the added proviso that you decide what evidence is “real” evidence. Respecting the right of others to believe what they want is a worthwhile general rule that may require people who adhere to it to allow exceptions. However have you considered that some exceptions destroy the whole point of the rule?

”...lack of belief in a god is not a “dogma”.”

But the belief that anyone who forms a belief in God is being irrational appears to be dogma for TBC and you.

“ ...is how I know you were never really a ‘thinking’ atheist.”

That seems a rather generous assumption particularly the one where I typed that I became a theist through reason but it makes sense to you.

“I suspect you were more like one of these people who didn’t believe because they just didn’t have any experience with religion growing up.”

I probably was one of those people who didn’t believe because they just didn’t have any experience with religion growing up. Then I decided to give the matter thought and reached a conclusion.

”They liked to say they were once atheists, but they were only ever atheists because they never really thought about the topic of religion at all until tragedy or hardship struck ...”

How is it like that? I refer you to the first quote that you gave from me. Falling into faith in crisis seems to be prima facie the opposite of choosing faith because it makes the most sense to the decider.

Squeers,

Hang on I just looked it again. There is a bone to pick. "conceding defeat". You were the one who acknowledged the lack of time and then when I am away a few days you call it "conceding defeat".

Ah, glad you took the bait :-)

I'm referring to my two posts earlier on in the thread, where I obligingly elaborated my position for you.
But look, I'm frantically busy too and spending too much time here, so if you're too busy that's fine---and you can keep your armour :-). Not that I wouldn't like to read what you have to say..

If you're interested, I've elaborated a little more in the last couple of posts here:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10496

mjpb,

You’ve spoken a lot about not being able to accept non-belief and religious belief being based on facts and good reasoning, but you are still yet to provide one single solitary bit of fact or reasoning. I’m always willing to learn different points of view, so please, by all means, spill it.

<<Blind seems to be putting it too strongly (and I don’t accept that hope and desire are necessarily required for faith)>>

I don’t think it’s putting it too strongly at all. Hope and desire for security in an omnipotent father figure and the promise of eternal life is essentially what the mainstream religions are all about. If that’s not hope and desire, then I don’t know what is.

<<Situation 1 may be blind in the sense that it isn’t actual knowledge or perhaps from actual experience. However it is typically distinguished from situation 2. Situation 2 is commonly referred to as blind faith. I don’t believe that the two should be conflated.>>

Yes, but they’re both still ‘blind’, as you’ve admitted.

You’re saying “the best someone can do is examine the evidence and form a conclusion” and that it’s “blind in the sense that it isn’t actual knowledge” and “typically” distinguishable from ‘Situation 2’, but the glaring gap in what you’re saying is the actual evidence itself. Without this evidence you’re referring to, I can’t make an informed decision on the whether or not the two situations can actually be “typically” distinguishable.

<<Sticks and stones.>>

I didn’t mean that in an offensive or condescending way. I simply meant that I don’t think you were an atheist who ever gave the topic of religion much thought. There’s nothing bad about that. Many people don’t for many reasons. Some just have more important things to do.

<<I fully intend to getting into that topic [facts are were referring to] in the thread that you linked to above.>>

If you can’t list these “facts” in a few minutes, then they’re probably not really facts. Facts can be rattled off rather quickly, if not, then it’s usually just sophistry.

Continued...

...Continued

I suspect you don’t actually know what these facts are yet.

Anyway, that thread is dead now. I’m sure you’ll get the opportunity to make your points in the not-too-distant future.

<<I suspect that that is about the size of it with the added proviso that you decide what evidence is “real” evidence.>>

Nope. By “real evidence” I mean something you can easily show/demonstrate to others.

Saying you’ve had some sort of personal revelation might be sufficient reason for you yourself to believe, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good reason for anyone else to believe. It would also beg the question as to why you are so special that the evidence has been personally delivered to you, while it is hidden from the rest of us.

Others on OLO argue that you need the presupposition that there is “something else” out there, but that hardly seems fair to those who aren’t gifted with this presupposition considering they’re going to miss out on an eternity of bliss because of this. Pretty pathetic and irrational god too if they require that people presuppose their existence before they reveal themselves.

<<However have you considered that some exceptions destroy the whole point of the rule?>>

Could you give an example? I’m not sure I know exactly what you’re getting at here.

<<But the belief that anyone who forms a belief in God is being irrational appears to be dogma for TBC and you.>>

I can’t speak for TBC, but this is an observation of mine that has remained consistent despite seeing many different cases.

<<That seems a rather generous assumption particularly the one where I typed that I became a theist through reason but it makes sense to you.>>

Again, you’ve never explained your reasoning, so I can only go by experience and assume that it’s not very good. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have to call your belief “faith”. But please, by all means, prove me wrong here. Nothing would blow my mind more than to have my beliefs shown to be wrong on this topic.

Continued...

...Continued

<<I probably was one of those people who didn’t believe because they just didn’t have any experience with religion growing up. Then I decided to give the matter thought and reached a conclusion.>>

As above.

<<Falling into faith in crisis seems to be prima facie the opposite of choosing faith because it makes the most sense to the decider.>>

I find your implication that you gave it some thought and just decided that, not only does god exist, but that the Christian faith is somehow the one true faith, hard to believe. Sorry, mjpb, but people just don’t start believing like that.

But who knows? You may be different to every case I’ve ever personally witnessed (and I’ve witness a LOT of conversions), and if you could provide me some of the reasoning, then great. I’ll consider it. Who knows, you may even fulfill your obligation to be a fisher of men.

Unfortunately though, I’m not too confident that you can provide me with any solid reasoning. Over many years I’ve heard it all - many times over - and even used them all when trying to convince others of the existence of god. But I’m afraid none of them hold.

Dear AJ

You may find the following article of interest. Doubtless, it won't give MJPB et al pause for thought, but it is reassuring to know that there are plenty of folk who raise the same questions regarding the existence or not of a supernatural deity.

http://www.alternet.org/belief/147623/why_does_god_reveal_himself_to_some_people_and_not_to_others/?page=entire

"I've said it before, and I'll say it again: If God existed, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. If God existed, it would just be obvious. If God existed, there'd be no reason for him to keep his existence a secret. There'd be no reason for him to create life, and yet somehow make that life look exactly like it would have if it had evolved naturally… right down to the inefficiencies, jury-rigs, superfluities, mind-numbing brutality, and other glaring flaws in life's supposed "design." There'd be no reason for him to animate conscious beings with immaterial souls, and yet somehow make those souls look exactly like they would have if they were biological products of the brain…. right down to the radical changes in people's consciousness and character that happen when our brains change.

There'd be no reason for him to hide."

So why don't we see him?

Doesn't it seem likely that the reason we don't see him is that he doesn't exist?"

Severin... 'God moves in mysterious ways', or, as He may say it.... in that jarringly inane manner of 'the ordinary Australian', 'that's for me to know and you to find out'.

So, we'll all have to 'build a bridge and get over it'.

mjpb... you'd have to define 'dogma'.

I do not have a faith tradition or belief system that requires dogma, so that angle is out.

Do I pursue my point 'dogmatically'? If that is what you mean by it?

I think not.

I am a small voice of one, against the hegemonic forces of 2000 Christian years, plus all those that came before, that have bred an inability into so many to see just a little more clearly, take Severin's post above as an example of clear thinking if you will.

Of course, being a small voice of one does not discount the other small voices of one, but we tend not to organise, having no need to organise around a central 'belief' theme like your lot have to to handle the same world we all live in.

It could be that I am wrong, which will be of little moment to me or anyone else, but I do concede it at least.

Believers like you, see no doubt at all, which is why we have disaster after disaster rain down upon us all, be it within religion, politics or, say, economics, the subject matters not.

Except, that religion is so corrosive, toxic, and cancerous... but then, so too is economics, and politics, I suppose.

AJ Philips:>> Unfortunately though, I’m not too confident that you can provide me with any solid reasoning. Over many years I’ve heard it all - many times over - and even used them all when trying to convince others of the existence of god.<<

AJ, when we consider what we can prove in regard to existence we know that a big bang created matter and the energy from that millisecond is still expanding the universe in directions away from a focal point.

Consider the premise "how could there be no god" and use it in the context of the big bang, the reality we exist by. My mind puzzled over the concept of "matter" from nothing,. The "matter" was here, I grew up with it, I am a part of it, but what was before the bang. Why did the bang occur, if there was one big bang why not another in the 13 billion years since the last, or is it one bang per universe?

What motivated the bang is the quandary? Is it an atomic physical imperative that happens when who knows what interacts with another who knows what, perhaps? Was it generated by a "will" for who knows what reason, perhaps? What was there before the bang, nothing, and what is nothing? We have been listening to the universe in a competent way for sixty years now and not a single willfully produced anomaly, why are we alone? Was the universe produced to keep humans entertained. Why do only humans have consciousness from all the creatures that live?

That is my stumbling block when it comes to a definitive atheist view, the bloody perhaps’. I find more reason in a willful act rather than an atomic reaction, I don't know why but what was there before the bang concerns me. That is why my flag is firmly planted in the "how would I know camp".

sonofgloin... maybe it really does not matter?

You will never know for certain what was there 'in the beginning', any more than I will.

Maybe though, there was no 'beginning' at all, it just all 'is'?

That way, we could escape the agony of knowing precisely when the beginning was, and without a beginning, there could be no end either.

Surely the prospect of no end for all life, is almost as good as eternal personal life, isn't it?

It makes no difference, except that some are fixated on the question, and construct total nonsense around their own fears, and powerful ambitions, riding over others in their desperate rush for certitude and sense of being.... not to mention the total corruption of the otherwise harmless but interesting past time of wondering about 'the meaning of life' as it is harnessed by silly old goats into declarations that 'in the beginning' women were not favoured, so will never ever be in the future....or that to ordain a woman is on a par with having sex with a child and other such total, absolute, garbage.

The Blue Cross,
The armed forces are serving in Afganistan to establish social order which includes establishing unisex schools and conditions where women are now educated and can mix in public places without fear of violating extremist laws. Education of women and women mixing in public places was and is denied by the Taliban.

Your imagination that the armed forces just shoot weapons is not their primary purpose. Ask Julia Gillard what programmes our service men have assisted the Afgani people with. Good society also need police to maintain social order, but they are not the be all of good social order. It comes by education and cooperation to work together as a society.

Your world view is coloured by hearsay propagander in the Media and not facts.

The Blue Cross:>> sonofgloin... maybe it really does not matter?<<

Perhaps.

Philo...yes, yes, yes... an admirable side issue to be engaged in and I am in agreement there to some extent.

And what better than to impose these Western values of ours on their entire nation, with guns and flying robots?

Yes, indeed, a worthy exercise.

I can see it's catching on too, with the citizens throwing themselves onto the Western Christian troops and avoiding all the Islamic ones there... what's that, there are only Christian troops there?

My, my, that's a bit of a mistake, isn't it?

Where are our great allies, the Saudi Army?

"which includes establishing unisex schools" now, is that culturally 'in' with the citizens I wonder, or just with 'us'?

Blimey, even Sydney north shore would rail at having to send their precious daughters into a school with oiky boys, to say nothing of the Rugbugian fathers who would not tolerate girl-germs in a Rugger! school.

Why is it OK to force a system that even our community does not agree on, onto 'them'?

"and conditions where women are now educated and can mix in public places without fear of violating extremist laws"... I like the sentiment, but if they are 'laws' then they are 'laws', otherwise we'd be invading the USA and China (and a thousand other nation-states)to rid both of their extremist 'laws' on capital punishment, but we tend to reserve our wagging fingers only when people are geting stoned to death, eh?

It is the globally agreed right of a sovereign nation to conduct its internal affairs as it sees fit, remember, otherwise we'd be invaded next week too.

Far more civilised to shoot 'em, hang 'em, fry 'em or inject 'em, than stone 'em to death... how backward can yer be?.

Philo, life is so complex, isn't it?

I suspect we all suffer a "world view [that] is coloured by hearsay propagander [sic] in the Media and not facts" to some extent, but which 'media' do you get dis-informed by?

Question for you The Blue Cross:

When are you going to ever cease generalising about Christians, the Catholic Church congregations, and other Christian Churches made up of everyday Australian people from all walks of life.

Your thread issue is interesting to read and raised some additional things from OLO contributors; yet you continually annoy me with your disrespect, generalisations and cynicism of christian and catholic people across Australia; many of whom are undoubtedly your work colleagues associates or friends; if you work.

The tone within your postings suggests you have a definite problem with Christians and Church people from a past experience[s]. Otherwise, why the constant tones within your postings of cynicism, sarcasm, disrespect and generalisation of people?

How many people of Christian faith display your characteristics when talking of people who proclaim they are Atheists? Do Christian people term Atheists 'Dummies'?

Undoubtedly there are traits and ways of life that you follow and are not termed a 'Dummy'. However, you are quite careful I have noticed, not to discuss your personal life [ie be open] as many others on OLO have generously and confidently done.

Your condescending remarks to people who make it quite clear they are of christian backgrounds is disrespectful and hurtful; however states more about the hurt you are hiding within that clearly requires healing.

I hope you heal using other processes.

We are unique, whilst I agree that a lot of christains are fairly normal and decent people there are extremists and some fairly nasty people.
"Do Christian people term Atheists 'Dummies'?" - have you ready many of runners posts?

Non-believers are regularly accussed of not being able to have values/ethics/morals because we have not picked a god concept then called that a basis for absolutes.

Rarely do those who loudly proclaim their christianity rebutt the excesses or other christains. Pynchme being an exception and I recall one instance when Philo corrected Gibbo over a point of theology.

So yes some christains on OLO (and other places) do call non-believers idiot's. They stand in mute silence while their brothers behave in the vilest manner.

R0bert

we are unique... the 'dummies' reference you do not like is a book, called 'Catholicism for Dummies'.

It is part of a series of 'x for Dummies', fill in the gap yourself.

I did not choose the title, but I do understand that the 'Dummies' series of books is very popular.

Here, take a look:
http://www.shearersbookshop.com.au/DummiesBooks.asp?gclid=CNGAvs-WiqMCFQcbewodyS1zeQ

Here is their list of 'religion for Dummies':
http://www.shearersbookshop.com.au/DummiesBooks.asp?cat=REL000000

I have not been able to find an 'Atheism for Dummies' but that might be because it's not a 'faith' business, being an atheist.

As for my 'bad expereince' with religion...really, it is all around us.

Mad evangelisers pushing their way into people's lives, pretending to 'love' them, ripping off the tax take, creating division in global society, riding roughshod over children, poor people, anyone who looks like a 'mark'.

Heavens above WAU.... as to whether every last Christian, or other follower of a religion, is all of these things all at once, then no, of course not.

But the stain of religion is upon us all, and it is a dirty stain.

That some within religions are also decent people is all that saves us from the extremes of all religions.

You know, we really do not need 'religion' to fund soup kitchens or hospitals, and we should never allow them to run schools or universities.

I am, indeed, disgusted by 'religion' and 'religious' people.

we are unique.... here, read this rubbish below.

This is from the Australian Prayer Network, a secretive bunch of no-hopers who lurk around the nations parliaments, like the ACL, lobbying our pollies with prayers and seeking out tax free lurks and power from the weakest marks in our pay, vote seeking politicians.

This is but one prayer, there is a whole week's worth.

It is sickening to read,and is simply a plea to have people vote for Abbott, disguised as a worthwhile and 'caring' prayer. The stuff from Catch The Fire is even more directly anti-government and pro-God.

This is, no doubt, all part of the world you love and protect.

I find it repulsive, dangerous, and anti-democratic.

PRAYING FOR A NATION THAT REFLECTS GOD'S JUSTICE

Sunday 1st August

Justice in the Church - Let us pray for justice to be manifested in the Church. Let us repent of our prayerlessness for those in government, and for the times we have judged and criticized them, instead of praying. Pray that the Church will be faithful in praying for all members of Parliament, and their advisors, taking the time to find out the policies and intentions of those in their own constituencies standing for parliament, and ask the Lord to grant His grace and favour to those who would stand up for justice and truth to be elected.

Bible Readings: Matthew 5: 13-16 Col 4: 2

That women in the Christian Churches in Australia have a problem with men in the Church; as male leadership makes them feel second class - is a non-issue.

That the Atheist Feminists have a problem with the men of the Church appears to be the real motive of this thread. They wish to impose their value system on the Church is the issue.

For Blue Cross sake the Church has workable principles in marriage and human relationships and social structures that are healthy and accepted by the whole Christian society. That atheist feminists object to the senior role of men in the church is not the Churches problem it is their ego problem. They have no respect for the role of family of mother, father and children; thay assume because father is the head of the family that he treats his wife as second class. Absolute nonsense!

The agenda of feminists is to have lesbians head up the Catholic and Anglican Church heirarchy and they are smarting because they cannot seize that power. To the committed members of the Christian faith power and control of people is outside the principles of Faith; as Jesus taught, "the greatest in the kingdom of God is the humblest servant". Ask Mother Teresa if her role was second class. Learn from the servants of society not the power hungry.

Philo

The women in the Christian church wishing to be ordained as Priests are not atheist.

I think you may have overlooked this teeny tiny elephant.

If Christian women were content to remain in secondary positions in the church, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

That "feminist atheists" have opinions is the same right as any one else, irrespective of race or creed. That you object to "feminist atheists" expressing their opinions is your problem. It is not a problem for many people including many Christian men.

Thanks for the link, Severin! I really enjoy reading that kind of stuff. Some brilliant arguments there in regards to some insurmountable problems theists face. I think I’ll bookmark that one.

Mr Gloin

Like I said in the paragraph you quoted...

Over many years I’ve heard it all - many times over - and even used them all when trying to convince others of the existence of god.

...and the same applies to the point you’ve put forward.

They’re all very good questions in your third paragraph, but when you have questions you want answered, do you search for the truth, or do you just make something up? I suspect you do the former because the latter wouldn’t be a very honest way of dealing with a question and this is why your point is fallacious.

As I said in the last sentence of my last post: none of the arguments for the existence of god hold.

Carl Sagan, in his book ,Cosmos, answers your argument very well...

“In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from? And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?” (Carl Sagan, Cosmos, page 257)

<<That is my stumbling block when it comes to a definitive atheist view, the bloody perhaps’>>

Then what “definitive atheist view” is this you’re referring to? There are many considering atheism has no tenets other than the lack of religious belief.

If you’re making the classic mistake of thinking that atheism somehow implies absolute certainty or knowledge, then no, it doesn’t. That’s gnosticism and agnosticism - which both deal with knowledge. Atheism and theism are subsets of those and deal with belief. Atheism is essentially the lack of a theistic belief.

Continued...

...Continued

The failure of some, like your good self, to understand this very basic point is testimony to the success of the attempts by many theists to attach some sort of absolutism or ‘minitantism’ to the term “atheist”.

Gnosticism and agnosticism go to what you know, and theism and atheism go to what you believe.

<<I find more reason in a willful act rather than an atomic reaction...>>

So then, what do you think of Carl Sagan’s take on this, and why do you not think that Occam’s razor should be applied in this instance?

<<That is why my flag is firmly planted in the "how would I know camp".>>

That makes two of us.

It’s nice to know that you too are a fellow agnostic when it comes to knowledge. Heck, we all are considering how we can’t actually know for sure.

But what do you actually believe?

Philo... you are speaking in tongues with that last post.

Not being a woman makes it hard for me to be a lesbian, so I might leave your blunderbus assault on 'atheist lesbians feminists' to any that might be on the thread, but really, get a grip on yourself man.

Clearly, a lot of Christian women do have 'an issue' with a range of matters within 'the church', and many of those issues are centred on male hegemony.

As for demanding that atheist feminists have no regard for 'family', what utter tripe!

Where do you get that from?

And this line, "social structures that are healthy and accepted by the whole Christian society"... hang on... do 'all Christians' support the social structures imposed with the Brethren gulags? Do Anglicans support the design of the Vatican?

I doubt it auld chum. I'd say there are just as many concerns about how 'the church' organises itself from within, as there is from without.

I had to laugh at this though, "The agenda of feminists is to have lesbians head up the Catholic and Anglican Church heirarchy".

Actually Philo, I have it on good authority that 'lesbians' are actually planning to install a lesbian muslim into the Vatican and introduce Sharia law there, while the plan for Canterbury is to implant a Vatican lesbian priest, naturally one who had been gender re-assigned, and retake the turf stolen by 'enery VIII.

A CUNNING PLAN for sure, but I can see it is already 'moving forward'.

Is indoctrination be the problem here?

Does oppression of women start early and continues throughout their lives?

Is the Bible the oppressor and the religions, the misguided enforces of that oppression?

Why do the religions teach "Dumb God"?

Right from the beginning it was women who were oppressed and blamed.

Genesis 2:22....They are only a rib...http://tinyurl.com/264xgz4

Then God creates the "tree of good and evil" and allegedly fibs by saying...if they eat they will SURELY DIE"...Genesis 2:17....http://tinyurl.com/24qh9tr

The snake...tells the truth...Genesis 3:3-4...http://tinyurl.com/29apxv5

They won't "SURELY DIE" and didn't...God who knows all things past present and future, knows they will eat but allegedly fibs and then blames the woman.

Adam's rib tempts poor little insecure man....he couldn't say no to the temptation?...of course he could, but it suits men to blame women and for men to rule churches.

Genesis 3:6...Eve the temptress tempts poor little Adam...(and man fails)...http://tinyurl.com/3ajj2tw

But he spinelessly blames woman...Genesis 3:11-14...http://tinyurl.com/28m2nbe

See you just can't trust a woman...lol

Does God allegedly tell another fib in Genesis 3:14?....do snakes eat dust?...lol

But quickly we jump a few millennia or more and we get to Paul the opressor, who says

"women can't teach and should be quiet".....1 Timothy 2:11-12...http://tinyurl.com/2dvp78s and the churches....(don't Jesus' teachings preach against discrimination)...use this to restrict women in their journeys of faith.

I hope all you Christian women who have posted here are following Paul's teachings and are now silent...only joking...lol

So we can't blame the Churches for taking dumb decisions, can we aren't they run by men?

Wasn't man made dumb and spineless according to God's inerrant word?

So if the inerrant Bible is correct, and God is as unintelligent as Religions teach...(afterall HE is allegedly male)...then isn't the indoctrination process whilst effective is dumb also?

Why do thinking women remain in these oppressive Churches, and not rebel against oppression?

Should people relate...Revelations 17...to their churches?...http://tinyurl.com/36glux6

Should men, whom the Bible proves spineless, whose mothers, daughters and wives are being restricted in their walk with the Lord, stand up for their womenfolk?

Weren't men spineless from the beginning?...lol

It all sound alien to me...lol

Philo,

Mother Teresa is an interesting case in point. While she worked within the framework of the Catholic church, she also found a way to conduct her own faith directly through Jesus - whom she saw in every sick and dying person she tended.
The reason she made an impact is because instead of vicariously experiencing communion through the sacraments and signs and crosses of the priests and their acolytes, she found her own way to commune. It was more to her than just serving, it was a way for her to touch Christ.
She said: "Actually we are touching Christ's body in the poor. In the poor it is the hungry Christ that we are feeding, it is the naked Christ that we are clothing, it is the homeless Christ that we are giving shelter".
She found a way to participate more practically in her faith - something that is not easy for women in the Catholic Church.

Poirot

Interesting. I've never read anything beyond newspaper articles about Mother T.

Why did Hitchens get stuck into her?

Did he offer anything insightful, do you know?

Hi TBC,

This is really my own interpretation of the way it was for Mother Teresa. I'm always interested in people who do things a little differently or who find extra meaning inside institutions.
She appears to be someone who, although she embraced the church and its traditions, found another dimension of meaning in her work.

What did Hitchen's say?

I have no idea what he said, I couldn't be bothered to read his book when it came out, but he got quite nasty about her by all accounts.

It may or may not have been justified, I have no idea.

Hmm, just visited a wealth of Hitch' related stuff on The Googles.

I think the book might be worth reading after all:
http://www.slate.com/id/2090083

Quite a nasty article.

BTW, I'm not a catholic or a christian.

It's interesting that someone like Mother Teresa, who seems an authentic example of the teachings of Christ, and who undertook practical service to the poor and destitute should be attacked in this way...Not enough dogma, perhaps?

She worked in a country where suffering is on daily display, not hidden behind walls and clean white linen. She found her way by using humility, and brought comfort to those who crossed her path.
She thought suffering could become, "a means to greater love and greater generosity".

I think we'd have to both read the book, and then more, to find out if it really is a nasty article.

It's impossible to tell from that snippet, but there were some angles there that looked interesting and relevant, and much concerning the machine of the Vatican and how it used MT for its ends.

Beyond 'good vs. bad' she certainly built an amazing structure from there, an achievement in itself.

AJ Philips:>> why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?” (Carl Sagan, Cosmos, page 257)<<

AJ, I do not want to be pedantic but the universe has an age, 13 billion years. The science behind determining that use the same constants that apply to all the physics we exist by, measureable and constant. So from that premise Carl was being philosophical when he said the universe always existed.

>> If you’re making the classic mistake of thinking that atheism somehow implies absolute certainty or knowledge <<

Well yes, in general discussion given that the subject has no foreseeable resolution, I take being an atheist as a statement of denial and theist as a statement of belief.

>>That’s gnosticism and agnosticism - which both deal with knowledge. Atheism and theism are subsets.<<

No not quite. The first bit is right but to link atheism and theism as subsets is incorrect because the terms are particular to the belief in a creator, the other is knowledge on any subject including the existence of god.

>> and why do you not think that Occam’s razor should be applied in this instance?<<

Occams deems that if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is a duck. I am saying "what" we have to look at to make a judgment is in real time, produced when the bang made all we can experience, yet the answer lies before time, a place alien to our physicality.

>> But what do you actually believe?<<

That anything is possible even though not particularly plausible.

SOG

>> That anything is possible even though not particularly plausible. <<

Using your logic, I should not rule out the possibility of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Fairies at the bottom of my garden (I am hoping that one is plausible, because the description of the Abrahamic god, quite frankly, is appalling and fairies would be a great counter to such a egocentric piece of work).

Think I'll stick to being atheist until evidence proves me wrong. And that, SOG, is all atheism is about - no proof; no belief.

Quite right, Severin.
I don't even ask for proof, just a crumb or two of evidence would be a start!

If we're being pedantic, sonofgloin...

>>I do not want to be pedantic but the universe has an age, 13 billion years<<

...might be better stated as: "this universe has an age, 13 billion years"

SoG,

<<The science behind determining that use the same constants that apply to all the physics we exist by, measureable and constant.>>

Yes, and anyone who claims that their god transcends this, believes in a god that is indistinguishable from nothing. That aside though, how do you go from the above, to...

<<So from that premise Carl was being philosophical when he said the universe always existed.>>

Why does that mean that he was just being philosophical? As far as I’m concerned, he was also being logical and more scientific.

<<The first bit is right but to link atheism and theism as subsets is incorrect because the terms are particular to the belief in a creator, the other is knowledge on any subject including the existence of god.>>

Note that I didn’t say they were they were the only subsets.

<<Occams deems that if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is a duck.>>

That’s an oversimplification of one variation of Occam's razor. By “Occam’s razor”, I meant “entities shouldn’t be multiplied without necessity”, or “of two equivalent explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred”.

That being said, again, why don’t you think that Occam’s razor should apply here? (c.f. My Sagan quote).

<<I am saying "what" we have to look at to make a judgment is in real time, produced when the bang made all we can experience, yet the answer lies before time, a place alien to our physicality.>>

So you’re just going to call this “place alien to our physicality” “god” then, are you? What if it’s not alien to our physicality? What if the hypothesis that our universe (or the hypothesized multiverse) is just a never-ending series of expansions and collapses?

[Speaking of which, Pericles’ pedanticism made a brilliant point that I didn’t pick up on.]

Anyway, going back to what I said before, what’s the more honest approach to this problem...

1. Admit that you don’t know, and accept that you may never know, or;
2. Make something up?

Continued...

...Continued

Most of the world’s religions exist/ed because primitive people chose 2 over 1.

So for all intents and purposes, I think the chances that these ancient people actually got it right when it comes to this “place alien to our physicality”, is so immeasurably small that we can safely say, beyond any reasonable doubt, that it’s zero.

<<That anything is possible even though not particularly plausible.>>

I don’t think there’s much more that I can add to what Severin has said here other than to say that I think my point - that none of the arguments for the existence of god hold - still stands.

Severin,

You are so wrong...I for one believe in Santa...His fat butt was our annual chimney clean out....lol

I also believe in the Easter Bunny... he gave me chocolates and cavities as a bonus...lol

Now I don't have fairies at the bottom of my garden but I do have bats in my belfry...lol

But back to the topic....

I suppose once you start asking questions, following the recent decision and ongoing turbulence against women in the religions, then shouldn't you think about scripture more deeply?

I suspect GOD is far more intelligent than his followers.

And I suspect he/she/it won't be all that happy with those who misinterpret and teach falsehoods.

Afterall Jesus said "A tree shall be known by it's fruit"....Matthew 7:15-20....http://tinyurl.com/32ku5qs

These verses are quite instructive. What fruits do the religions bear? And what happens to those who bear bad fruit? "THE FIRE"!

So if the religions are ruled by men and they are bearing "bad fruit" then don't women owe it to their Lord to act? Why do women accept this obvious discrimination?

If Foxy's statistics are correct is the minority ruling over, and oppressing the majority? Is this Christian?

This article is quite concerning

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/03/16/vatican.exorcist.devil/index.html

If as this priest alleges Satan does exist, and knowing the alleged Satan is divisive and evil, then who and what, is he effecting in the Vatican and broader Catholic Church?

If he exists, could the recent decision on the ordination of women be Satan's work? It appears divisive.

AND, if he exists in the Vatican, what mischief is he getting up to in other denominations, religions and churches?

Is the discrimination against women from GOD or Satan?

Will Christian men grow spines and stand up for women? The Bible suggest NO!

I'll let you Christians ponder on that for a while!

Dear Poirot,
Hitch is rather nasty, and a dogmatic defender of Western righteousness. I wish he would turn his critical gaze on his own liberal rational credentials and their pseudo/religious foundations.

Just dropping in to light spot fires for a while :-)

Opi2

You shining light, you breath of oxygen, you SPINEFUL MAN! Be still my beating heart.

Everything is clear; the Church patriarchy have been possessed by satan - should be obvious even to blind Freddy (whoever blind Freddy is).

I'll trade you some fairies for a few bats - love bats, their penchant for sh1tting on those below is so endearing. You'll enjoy the fairies, they love nothing more than scaring off Mormans, JW's and anyone who is dressed far too neatly and is of too earnest a disposition.

Dear Squeers,

Feel free to light a few spot fires - I know you're busy but I'm devising a thread to lure you back....something like "Alienation Under Capitalism" would probably do it.
I'm not as knowledgeable about these things as I'd like to be...my education has been a mere smattering of all sorts of things...but I'm eager to learn from the more enlightened souls on the forum.

Thanks for the hint about Hitchens - I got that impression from the article.

Severin:>> Using your logic, I should not rule out the possibility of Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Fairies.<<

S, be a little focused, I only referred to "anything is possible" in the context of before the big bang, before time, before matter existed. What could we know of the laws that governed void, because before the big bang there must have been void.

>>Think I'll stick to being atheist until evidence proves me wrong. And that, SOG, is all atheism is about - no proof; no belief.<<

S, I am not from Hillsong Church, you thoughts are your own, I am not an evangelist or an advocate for a god. It is purely that there is a start time to existence as we understand it, and before existence I ponder on what was there and what motivated the explosion that created time and matter. Was it random or was it willful.

AJ Philips:>> That’s an oversimplification of one variation of Occam's razor. By “Occam’s razor”, I meant “entities shouldn’t be multiplied without necessity”, or “of two equivalent explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred”.<<

AJ, I do understand, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is a duck but you miss a crucial aspect to the employment of Occam’s in regard to this subject. We are theorising on whether the "cause" of the big bang was random or willful, so we ask what was there before the big bang. There was no time, no matter, just energy. But so compressed as to not exist dimensionally.

There was nothing but it then produced everything, and that everything has this incredible binding imperative called physics. The logic in using Occam’s is apparent, but the logic of the physics we employ with Occam’s is only valid to 13 billion years ago and we are searching before that point. So anything is possible in a considered sense, disregarding Severins fairies but including your multiverses.

SoG,

<<…the logic of the physics we employ with Occam’s is only valid to 13 billion years ago and we are searching before that point.>>

Occam’s razor is just general rule of thumb. It’s not scientific and science doesn’t determine when it can start or stop either.

<<So anything is possible in a considered sense…>>

Well, it’s one thing to say that anything’s possible, but it’s another to suggest the big bang could have been a wilful act as a way of saying “Ya reckon?” in response to my claim that none of the arguments for the existence for god hold. The reason being, because it’s simply a ‘God of the Gaps’ argument - a logical fallacy - further proving my point that there are no arguments for the existence of god that hold.

<<…disregarding Severins fairies but including your multiverses.>>

Yes, but gods are in the same league as Severin’s fairies here and hence her point...

I ask how many women around the World are affected by this ruling by the Catholic and Anglican Churches to not endorce women as Priests? Are there 200?

Obviously the noise has captured the immagination of atheists who just want to Church Bash. I am neither Catholic or Anglican but this thread has merely become a thread for trolls.

Philo, I think deep in your soul you know that is untrue. Disagreeing with the lack of women in the Church is not Christian bashing but why let commonsense get in the way of this debate.

This affects all women who wish to become involved in the Church and opens up opportunities in the future for younger women contemplating a career in the clergy. Would you ask the same question if all Church leaders were women and prevented men joining their ranks. I think not.

AJ Philips:>> Well, it’s one thing to say that anything’s possible, but it’s another to suggest the big bang could have been a wilful act as a way of saying “Ya reckon?” in response to my claim that none of the arguments for the existence for god hold.<<

AJ your lack of scope is tenacious; and your ability to misconstrue script is exemplary. I never proffered any defined arguments to whether there is a god or not. What I endeavored to do was justify doubt of certainty on the premise that what we see may not be all there is. If you cannot grasp the concept so be it.

pelican:>> Would you ask the same question if all Church leaders were women and prevented men joining their ranks. I think not.<<

Pelican we would have exactly the same resistance on exactly the same grounds, historical.

SOG
While I understand the resistance from a historical religious perspective, this does not make it fair nor imply continued discrimination should be sanctioned. Many things stem from a historical context but have evolved from higher learning, education and social change.

What are the reasons why women should not be admitted to the Church leadership - other than a commitment (or enslavement) to the historical context. Is that enough in itself.

sonofgolin: <"The logic in using Occam’s is apparent, but the logic of the physics we employ with Occam’s is only valid to 13 billion years ago and we are searching before that point. So anything is possible in a considered sense...>"

Maybe we're living on an atom of a way bigger reality of enormous others.

If our earth was an atom or part of one; what do you think the atom might be part of - creature, vegetable, mineral?

I like adventuresome thinking.

I tend to think that all things are possible until proven otherwise.

SOG

>> It is purely that there is a start time to existence as we understand it, and before existence I ponder on what was there and what motivated the explosion that created time and matter. Was it random or was it willful (sic). <<

You are making the assumption that there is a beginning and an end; for we creatures of earth that is true, we are born, we die. We have a linear perspective of time and space. We forget that our planet itself recycles, our atoms are reabsorbed into environment earth, which in turn will be absorbed by our sun when that star's nuclear reactor runs out of fuel to burn, at the same 'time' our milky way has at its core a black hole of such proportion as to eventually engulf our galaxy, expelling the contents where? Into another universe? Who knows? There are still debates as to whether the universe is contracting or expanding; at the moment the science suggests the universe is still expanding. We are not likely to discover any time soon whether there is or was a "wilful" mind behind all this. And even if it is true, this "mind" is so far beyond anything described in any paltry terrestrial religion as to be redundant.

Nice to ponder, but not to be used as a basis to discriminate against one gender of a species of life. Completely illogical in fact.

pelican,
I can tell you there is no problem in most Christian Churches today as women make up the majority of employee of the Church and involvement in the service of the Church. That some Churches (i.e. Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican) have men as priests does not stop women from seeking participation in Churches who do not have priests.

There is total freedom in these Churches as each person is a priest and can act on another’s behalf to pray to God. These Churches hold Jesus as the only priest through which we pray to the Father. The Scripture teaches each believer is part of a kingdom of priests (Revelation 1: 6; 5: 10; 20: 6). That women are suppressed in Christianity is nonsense and a non issue.

That some Churches hold to ancient Roman culture of male leadership, that Mosques hold to ancient Arabic culture a woman's testimony is half that of a man and Synagogues to ancient Semitic culture where men thank G-d they were not born a woman; is their business providing they are not verbally or physically abusing women. We live in a free culture and women have choice where they worship.

In ancient religious cultures it was forbidden for anyone with a body discharge to enter a sanctuary of worship, which included men also. Women because of monthly menstruation then were not available during that period and therefore unsuitable for the service.

There are millions of women who are Christian who are not of those ancient cultures. Let the complaining women seeking image and power in Christ's kingdom examine their motives and join a Church where no hierarchy of priests, bishops and Pope exist. In these Churches equality exists; but do they want equality or power and image?

pelican:>> why women should not be admitted to the Church leadership - other than a commitment (or enslavement) to the historical context. Is that enough in itself.<<

P, the term mother church has been used historically to holistically describe "the church" from the earliest Christian times. Mother Mary is revered in all denominations, and Mary Magdalene is referred to in the first Christian writings as "the apostle to the apostles", not an insignificant station. Gnostic gospels written in the early second century even describe Mary as the special disciple of Jesus who has a deeper understanding of his teachings and whose role is to impart this to the other disciples.

Why I recount this is to qualify that the "Church" hold women in reverence as the vessels of life and the purveyors of true understanding, roles far superior to that of man. But from the first Church women were not the face of the ministry, so it could be argued that women are excluded from the politics of the Church to leave them unsullied and uncorrupted.

The movement for female clergy was born from the reinterpretation of who Mary of Magdala was, re her supposed chosen vocation in her early life. It is a feminist movement headed up by career lesbians who want to break the glass ceiling. It is ego driven rather than equality seeking. Female parishioners are not screaming for women clergy from the bell towers, only those who have an interest in power are.

Pynchme:>>Maybe we're living on an atom of a way bigger reality of enormous others.<<

Yes Pyme scale and dimension are governed by our minds and they are governed by input, and some think they have input all there is, there is nothing more, they are sure.

Severin:>> We forget that our planet itself recycles, our atoms are reabsorbed into environment earth,<<

S, not interested in recycling, nothing in our dimension is ever destroyed it merely changes form. I am interested in the void before being, whether a single event or a recurring event after the energy from the first is spent.

Severin:>> There are still debates as to whether the universe is contracting or expanding; at the moment the science suggests the universe is still expanding.<<

S and unless the laws of physics change the suggestion of a universe expanding will be around and popular for a while.

Philo... where's that? Hillsong?

You are kidding yourself when you talk about 'equality' in Christianity?

And what's all this nonsense about 'bodily discharges'...does that include men farting in the pews?

"women make up the majority of employees"... simple comrade, cheap labour, old mate.

Wouldn't get men making the tea, cleaning the dunny and keeping the books would you? Not on those 'air-wages'.

"Women because of monthly menstruation then were not available during that period and therefore unsuitable for the service"..'oh dear', or 'what a surprise'?

And so Philo, the 'equality' of the sexes plays out even in the 'bodily discharges' trick the men play on the women (who make their tea).

There is something grindingly dull and incomplete about the world you glory in, and raise up as if it was worth... a cracker.

If the table-turner came back, do you really think He would be pleased by what He saw done in His name? All the idol worship, all the discrimination, all the false prophets raised up to exalted status, even as the clay peeks through their genuine non-leather white shoes?

Abbotts, Bishops, Cardinals, Popes, Mullahs, vicars bludging on tax free wages... the whole pathetic edifice of con, a giant pyramid scam, a Sargasso Sea of junk (full of sea serpents too Philo), all pretending to each other that 'they' serve their Lord 'the best'.

The denial of humanity, the good and bad aspects of it both, by a retreat into a closed system, a total system of thinking and behaviour that brooks no challenges and denies love, may well linger longer than it should, but it will not triumph in the end.

It lacks compassion, and mistakes that for power. That's why it focuses on 'the poor folk' and fails to remove the log in its own eye first.

Fool yourself if you want to Philo... but why?

SoG,

<<I never proffered any defined arguments to whether there is a god or not.>>

I realise this, but you responded to my claim that none of the arguments for the existence of god hold and I responded in turn explaining why the argument that the big bang could have been the act of a god is not a good reason to think that a god may exist - especially if one is going to let their life be guided by such a belief - since it’s fallacious.

<<What I endeavored to do was justify doubt of certainty on the premise that what we see may not be all there is.>>

Well, we've been wasting our time then. I’ve never said anything about certainty and neither does atheism, as you originally thought...

<<That is my stumbling block when it comes to a definitive atheist view, the bloody perhaps’.>>

So I apologise if I responded as though I was reading too much into what you were saying. I was simply trying to cover my bases because experience caused me to strongly suspected there was a little more to your argument than a mere “You just never know”, and after the religious knowledge you displayed in your response to Pelican, I’m certain of it.

You see, people who present the “You just never know...”, or the “How can you be so certain?” arguments usually fit into one or more of the following categories: -

1. They were indoctrinated as children; now realise that religion is nonsense; but still have that little voice in the back of their minds (often from an engrained fear of Hell) telling them, “What if...”;

2. They’re Right-wing atheists who are disturbed/embarrassed that a large portion of those who they’re politically aligned with let their lives be guided by something that is equivalent to reading the entrails of a chicken, and want to soften the blow;

3. They’re religious people who understand that if they argue certain issues - such as the ordination of women - from a the perspective of a believer, they’ll lose credibility.

AJ Philips:>> 1.they were indoctrinated as children; now realise that
2. They’re Right-wing atheists who are disturbed/embarrassed
3. They’re religious people who understand that if they argue certain issues <<

AJ, as I said we regurgitate input, and some are sure or satisfied with the input they regurgitate. Some consider alternatives, but whichever way it is, there is more than you know, that is evident.

SOG

The laws of physics as we currently understand them work fine until we enter the realm of quantum physics.

The "void" before the "big bang" is a hypothesis, not proven like, say evolution, which has mega evidence. Our universe could've been created out of a big bang from an "absorbed" universe - the science is not 100% sure on this.

You are free to ponder away, but at least try a bit of lateral pondering, instead of assuming that the science is closed on the beginning of our universe. In fact you just stated that "there is more than we know".

All of which is beside the point.

There is still no excuse for any religion to discriminate against women. Religion of whatever stripe is meant to be of benefit to human beings (aka people, humanity), there may be a goldfish religion, it would probably only accept other goldfish of any gender, or the great philosophies of the lesser chicken-hawk gospel would only apply to all lesser chicken-hawks irrespective of gender.

And just in case:

You have been arguing "because its traditional", a very weak argument indeed, it used to be "traditional" for Chinese women to have their feet bound, such a practice causes physical harm and probably mental anguish given that women would be completely helpless if in danger. Keeping women in a secondary status in religion is harm against an entire gender's entitlement to respect and equality.

Severin,

This may still your beating heart....lol

"EVOLUTION PROVED" oh no...no...no...It is still the "Theory of Evolution" and by dropping the "Theory of",...just calling it Evolution is a major flaw in our understanding.

Of course it should possibly also be the theory of the Bible...OOps Philo/Runner&co.....just had coronaries...lol

Here is another very interesting theory to watch, if you have the time...http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1285345463618889531#

Like Evolution, the Big Bang is theory...Dropping the word Theory allows theory to be misrepresented as fact, for the unwary...

It's like this...about 400 years ago there was a study called "apokalupsis eschaton" - "lifting the veil on the end times" and that through poor teaching the "eschaton" was dropped and from then on Apocolypse was continually misrepresented as "end times or end of days".

"Eschatology" comes from two Greek words last, and discourse or study

"The study of the end times" be it an era, an age, a life etc.

Words can be very important, and deleting just one can change things dramatically.

Philo,

Should a Christian call people names?...OUCH!

Jesus said "A tree shall be known by it's fruit"....Matthew 7:15-20....http://tinyurl.com/32ku5qs

Is a nut, a fruit?...lol

What don’t you understand about Jesus’ teachings that makes you choose to call people Troll?

If you can’t defend your position that’s fine…GOD works in mysterious ways!...lol

With that one word what biblical teachings might you be breaking?

Do not judge others(Matthew 7:1-5....http://tinyurl.com/28ht3vo FAIL?

Anger...Matthew 5:21-24...http://tinyurl.com/2ectd2a FAIL?

Are you working for peace with your words?...Matthew 5:9...http://tinyurl.com/2882exg FAIL?

Are you merciful to others?...Matthew 5:7...http://tinyurl.com/24fl98n FAIL?

Turn the other cheek...Matthew 5:39....http://tinyurl.com/24yk2z3 FAIL?

"Do unto others...."...Matthew 7:12...http://tinyurl.com/28ht3vo FAIL?

Do not bear false witness"...Exodus 20:16....http://tinyurl.com/2fty23u FAIL?

Philo do you represent GOD well?

In answer to your question..."how many women around the World are affected by this ruling"...EVERY WOMAN & EVERY MAN

and with these few words..."but do they want equality or power and image"...Aren't you illustrating your lack of understanding on all things biblical?

Back to Bible 101 Philo...lol

Here I'll help you on your way

Fist remove the log from your own eye Philo...Matthew 7:4-5...http://tinyurl.com/2ahcbp5

I'm a Bible bashing non-Christian,...lol

For those who never attend Church you haven't got a clue about the kingdom of God. What your campaign is about is absolute nonsense. If you want to carry on a campaign start attending Church and study (research) what is actually happening. There are a lot of things I disagree with in many churches and Women seeking priests positions is not one of them.

Philo... we done yers wrong..."There are a lot of things I disagree with in many churches and Women seeking priests positions is not one of them"... but it has sure seemed that way.

Good on yers, getting with the strength now, eh?

But... there is only one church, and the man acknowledged this when he said , 'In my Fathers house, there are many rooms'.

Sadly, some are in good knick, others look like brothels.

The Vatican one is more brothel like, but the Hillsong one is just an empty vessel, from which spurts white noise, not altogether too hospitable either.

In fact, in the way that brothels are (reputed to be) hospitable places, I imagine the Vatican sucks people in and disarms them in a more pleasing way, than all that shrieking, swaying, and bucket-giving ever could.

No smoking handbags, no cries of 'Nominee, nominee Dobson', or 'My Father plays dominoes better than, yours does' in a Protestant stainless steel Chapel to the Bland.

Dear Blue Cross,

I never liked that translation. I prefer the King James:

John 14:2-3 (King James Version)

2In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

3And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

I think that something is lost in changing 'mansions' to 'rooms'.

This is an example where human interpretation may alter the meaning.
For example, in our understanding a mansion is much bigger than a house. If the KJ is an accurate translation, maybe we were provided with a symbolic image and we are meant to ponder it. It could be a symbol of liberating space beyond the basic (Christian) house.

Just something I have often wondered about. One day I need to take the trouble to check out which translation is closest to the original.

Dear Severin and BC and others,

I read the link about God playing hide and seek. I can only ask how much evidence we need. If God appeared in every generation there would still be people denying the reality. As follows:

I've said that it's Jesus that ties me to my religion.

Just a couple of things I want to add.

1. The matter of how information carried by largely illiterate masses was transferred into writing over time needs to be appreciated; as I've mentioned before - the use of symbols and imagery etc helped ensure vivid recollection of various lessons and maybe helped avoid some political consequences - but the consistency, years after the crucifixion, when the stories were finally recorded in different places by different writers, is still astonishing:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/oral.html

2. The people who were closest to Jesus spread out, preaching and telling about what they'd seen and done. Look at those who experienced awful treatment and torturous deaths; all most of them needed to do was renounce Jesus, but even years later, none did:

http://www.ichthus.info/Disciples/intro.html

Their deaths are not recorded in the Bible (except for Judas who did himself in out of self disgust for denying Jesus); but some are known from other documents and writings by ancient historians and others who had nothing to gain by lamenting that those who had seen Jesus couldn't be persuaded to change their accounts of what they'd seen and experienced:

As an example:

Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome.

(A letter from Pliny to Trajan)

Full communication:
http://www.ichthus.info/CaseForChrist/02/pliny.html

...

Pliny: "They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition."

Just a particularly interesting part of the letter.

Note: the "oath"; "Forbidden political associations" and again that torture could not obtain denial by two "deaconesses" who held to "superstitions."

Trajan's reply is very interesting too - and familiar!

"... whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it--that is, by worshiping our gods--even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance. But anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution. For this is both a dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age."

Trajan wouldn't be out of place if he was posting on this OLO thread.

...

Correction: Apologies - The death of Judas is not the only one mentioned in the Bible; see Acts.

Found this account too (from Meet the Apostles). Even one of the persecutors ultimately demonstrated some belief in Thomas' power to heal:

After an active career as a preacher and healer, Thomas is put to death by order of a King Misdeus, on the charge of heresy. In this account, Thomas is executed by spear:

“And when he had prayed, he said to the soldiers: Come and finish the work of him that sent you. And the four struck him at once, and killed him. And all the brethren wept, and wrapped him up in beautiful shawls, and many linen cloths, and laid him in the tomb in which of old the kings used to be buried.”

Later, King Misdeus believes that the bones of the apostle may be able to heal his daughter, who is possessed by a demon. When he goes to the tomb “he did not find the bones (for one of the brethren had taken them, and carried them into the regions of the West).”

Philo,

On reading your last post I could feel the pain in your heart.

Calling people trolls totally undermines your wishes for people to know GOD.

However, for my part I apologise, if my last post upset you.

Pynchme,

A good reference the Blue Bible....http://www.blueletterbible.org/index.cfm gives you many of the versions of the Bible including Greek and Hebrew versions.

The article on the oral handing down of information seems a little dubious to me.

In my mind, there had to be written texts from closer to Jesus' days, because of the volume of the information shared. I doubt that 40 years of oral teaching would result in such detail of what Jesus was alleged to have actually said.

The "consistency" as you put it is simple, if people work from the same texts, and add bits that they either remember or have been told.

Whilst still debated Mark was allegedly the first Gospel http://www.carm.org/when-were-gospels-written-and-by-whom but the argument rages on.

To suggest that all Jesus' teachings were handed down in an oral tradition, in such detail, seems highly speculative.

Look at the direct quotations and detail here Matthew 24:20-36...http://tinyurl.com/27banm7 How could this be handed down by oral tradition?

Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Seems to have come and gone without that what was foretold occurring. How can this be?

But of course this has little to do with the roles of women in the church.

How can allegedly Christian organisations use Paul's words in 1 Timothy 2:11-12...http://tinyurl.com/2dvp78s to oppress a whole gender.

So when it suits the Churches they hold strictly to a man's teachings (Paul's in this case) BUT when it suits they change the Sabbath to a Sunday defying GODS explicit teaching...http://tinyurl.com/28phzdv

How can this be?

Finally in 1 Corinthians 14:35....http://tinyurl.com/373do5r...Paul says "And 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" and yet this man is still held in high regard by Christians.

Most puzzling!

Here we go, more Vatican scandal:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/24/catholic-church-gay-priests-exposed

"A member of the clergy quoted by the magazine put the proportion of gay priests in the Italian capital at "98%". The Rome diocese insisted the vast majority of priests in the city were "models of morality for all", while adding that the number of gay clergyman was "small, but not to be written off as isolated cases". A review eight years ago of research on the American church concluded that between a quarter and a half of seminarians and priests there were homosexual."

Now, it doesn't concern me that Catholic priests are gay, well, most of them so it seems, but it says a lot that so many find sanctuary within a moralising organisation that pays out on the danger of women becoming priests, and prohibits them from joining in.

Puts it in perspective really doesn't it?

No wonder there is no room at the Gay Inn for women!

It really is time for this outdated, lieing, immoral machine to 'reform' or pack up.

Sadly, it will not pack up, so that only leaves 'reform'.

It probably needs some form of Protestant reaction to the central power of Rome, and a destruction of the power of the priests.

I hate to say this, but the Evangelicals probably have a more up-to-date view of their direct relationship to their god, not being filtered through a distant and uninterested central authority.

The only thing that will prevent this, is the toxic grip of 'tradition' on all the smoking handbag peripherals that add 'mystery' to a day in church.

Very good TBC.
It is curious that the RC church is such a staunch defender of doctrine when it comes to debarring female priests, yet it accommodates "mortal sins".
I'm sure there are sound theological premises :-)

Squeers... I think that falls under, as do so many things, the overarching rubric 'God moves in mysterious ways, his wonders to perform', although with the Vatican He seems to have planted his feet, not so much 'in the sea'.... as in the &hit.

Never mind Squeers... people BELIEVE in it, and that is what REALLY matters, isn't it?

After all, if you are like Gillard, and BELIEVE in NOTHING, then you have nothing to whinge about, and have to be held resposnible for your own behaviour.

Mind you, if you behave well, I reckon that's worth a 'plus 10' for acting without any MORAL GUIDANCE.

Jesus!, if I may be allowed a profanity within the blog..... we are a silly mob, are we not?

Falling for a bunch of gay priests, who reckon they can save the world, so long as no one knows they are gay!

What a LARK!

And, even more than usual, it seems there is absolutely NO ROOM for women, so why on Earth do they bother?

Because they 'believe'?

In what?

Great thread TBC.

I'd have thought a Christian woman may have started it, or, a Christian male in defence of women. But as the Bible tells us some men (beginning with Adam) are spineless!

Does this indicate how sad and oppressed Christians have allowed themselves to become?

According to Moses, GOD allegedly gave precise instructions on priests and marriage.

Leviticus 21.....http://tinyurl.com/26syokp

Paul remained single, and some allege he might have been a homosexual. There is no proof of this, however.

1 Corinthians 7...http://tinyurl.com/2daskgh Is always a good read. Paul gives widows permission to re-marry.

What about poor old widowers...they don't even get a mention...lol

1 Corinthians 7:8-9 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.

But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

So the only reason a single person or Widow should marry is if they burn with passion, and can't contain themselves...WOW!

Sorry to all those burning ex-widows for me pointing this out....lol Ya little devils...lol

Jesus said this on Eunuchs...Matthew http://tinyurl.com/2695x6e

And this is the verse that the Catholic Encyclopaedia justifies Clergy Celibacy....http://tinyurl.com/2yp5o

Yet Paul has this to say about Bishops according to the Catholic Encyclopaedia...1 Timothy 3...http://tinyurl.com/28d89gz

But in 1 Timothy 3:10 He says ".....they should have NO CRIME"

How then do the Churches who have moved criminal clergy justify their actions?

Could this be Satan at work from within? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7056689.ece

So if organisations have made so many "man made decisions" that can be shown to be at odds with the GOD they say they follow, should we trust any of their decisions?

If women can't see that an organisation who rules against the ordination of women is wrong, then should those women at least hang their heads in shame for letting down their fellow women?

What does 1 Timothy 4:1-3.....http://tinyurl.com/24nxx76 warn us about some will forbid marriage? And what does that mean?

At some time or other, do Christians need to question whether their church follows GOD's instructions or instructions made up by men?

Opinionated2.. if, like me, you believe that men created gods, then the answer is provided therein.

I rather like this song, which explains all we need to know, about the origins of gods anyway:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9bMi4s_yOE

That said, I have no issue with any of us wondering if we do have a 'purpose', particularly if that assists in developing a greater sense of cooperation.

Also, one should never sneeze at the real, positive as well as negative, effect of the social glue that religion provides.

I appreciate the good bits, but do not believe they are exclusive to 'religion'.

As for the bad bits, I am happy to put that down to 'human behaviour', but isn't that what the good bits are too?

Which rather makes me wonder what 'religion' really does for us all.

One doesn't need to be a woman involved inthe Christian Church to be affected by the Christian Church.

Read the comments by devout Christian Runner on his thread:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3834

Nor will what passes for debate such as this be found under General Discussion, it has been placed under the Elections heading. Apparently what female politicians do in the bedroom is a matter for voters.

Severin,
People with a set of moral values similar to the Churches will decide for themselves who thay will support. That the Church makes a statement on their held values does not mean people are under duress to follow as is evident in your own case. Give people the right to know. You equally express an opinion in a public place, obviously different to mine. It is called an opinion on information or held values. Obviously you do not believe in democracy, "the right to believe or express an opinion. Of course your opinion is the only worthy opinion and in Government you would enforce it upon us all.

Opinionated2:

Lots of waffle to drown out the crux of my message, which is that apostles who had known Jesus directly (and people such as the two slave women described by an observer as "deaconesses")endured terrible
tortures and execution for their refusal to deny the truth of their experiences alongside Jesus.

You refer to the Blue Bible - thanks for the link. This one is a more pleasant page to use:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2018:2-6;%20Mark%2010:15;%20Luke%2018:17

Jesus was a revolutionary in the way that he treated women, given the constraints of civil and social laws and conditions of that time. Some old diehards still insist on literal interpretation of words and stories arising in a completely foreign context. One example is the quote you provide re: "generation" - taken from the Greek 'genera' I think; as the closest word we have in our language - BUT debate continues about whether 'generation' (genera) refers to spiritual generation (as in - all belonging to the Christian family spiritually) or tribe or race.... and so on.

This is interesting too:
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/mat24.pdf

My personal method is this: I consider how Jesus is reported to have behaved and his essential lessons (like: love covers a multitude of sins) - if whatever interpretation doesn't seem to reflect what we know of Jesus; then I await further information on what the passage means or on its historical relevance, if any.

Severin:

Thanks for that; I didn't see that thread. I can't even be bothered posting on it (yet; maybe later). Can anyone recall a male EVER being accused of "sleeping his way to the top"? I can't think of anyone.

I suppose President Clinton (a great President who shouldn't have been booted IMO) could be said to have slept his way to the bottom, yet a huge following around the world (including me) mourned the loss of a great political talent.

The point being - when females get anywhere the accusation often arises that they used their sexuality to buy a ticket upwards. Their talent (as in Julia G) is seen as secondary, if existing at all, to their bonk value.

Pynchme: <Can anyone recall a male EVER being accused of "sleeping his way to the top"? I can't think of anyone.>

=Giacomo Casanova.
He was immortalised for the feat rather than vulgarly accused, mind you. I have the two volumes of his memoirs, beautifully bound in green cloth. A wonderful read an enduring testimony to the foolishness of both sexes.

Gillard's exploits (including an affair with a married man with kids, no less, along with merely living in sin) should of course have no bearing on her suitability for office (everyone has affairs, in reality or in their minds. 'Tis the price of civility, and makes for much better sex!). Yet it does, and these are the issues that seem to be dragging her down in the polls, in the context of a vacuous campaign on both sides. There was a fascinating analysis on "Insiders" this morning.
Now I'm willing to bet that it's the ladies, by and large, who are here dragging morality into politics, regardless of religios persuasion?
After all, their husbands might be next!

Pynchme...So direct Bible quotations are waffle...good-one.

I wasn't drowning you out...and you could be right about the generation thing...but it might be another excuse for Christians to manipulate the innerant word to suit their argument..lol

The fact they suffered could be important, or the stories exaggerated or something else...Many people throughout history have suffered for beliefs.

Can you point out which bits can be taken literally and which can't?

When Jesus said "I am going to the father for he is greater than I"... did he mean that literally?

John14:28...http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=John+14%3A28&version1=47#cen-ESV-26685D

Severin,

Poor Runner might be an irrelevancy both in Biblical matters and politics?

That is why Runner practices religion...he is hoping one day, to accidentally, get it right...lol

Did my reply to your post above still your beating heart?...lol

TBC, I'm in a tough predicament when it comes to belief.

I am neither Christian nor Atheist. I look for evidence.

I have had a near death experience (but didn't meet God or the Devil)....so that changes things.

I also had a visual visitation from a friend's spirit who died, at the exact time he died, when we lived two States away from each other. How do I rationalise that, when the man and I had an agreement to try and get a message to the other about the afterlife, if one should die first, if one existed?

If Jesus was the SON of GOD then he will understand my position. If GOD exists GOD too will understand my position. If there is no GOD the universe will recycle me anyway so I really can't lose...lol

I could even make a strong case that atheists maybe more pleasing to GOD, because they haven't corrupted his alleged word....PLUS those who are first shall be last and vice versa.

Too many Christians teach "dumb GOD" which amazes me.

Many things Christians do are fine...except they usually have a hidden agenda. They are doing it to save themselves from eternal damnation...or...they feed the poor both food and a Bible.

I don't think GOD wants people brought to GOD by deceit?

Opinionated2: <"When Jesus said "I am going to the father for he is greater than I"... did he mean that literally?

John14:28...http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=John+14%3A28&version1=47#cen-ESV-26685D ">

Hi OP2,

You seem to be asking for my opinion of the Holy Trinity or the resurrection or something. I believe in the resurrection.

Just think for a sec though; does the relative power of any of the trinity entities matter to our belief and behaviour ? It doesn't alter mine - therefore; I prefer to believe "like a little child."

I spent years agonizing over all of that and picking through endless details until I realized that, since I am not a scholar of ancient languages, any opinion I adopted constituted faith in various middle men - the translator(s); interpreters; ministers and the like. - and we've seen how much damage middlemen can do. However, as an example of complexity:

http://bible.org/seriespage/exegetical-commentary-john-14

Which explanation would you choose? I still enjoy reading things like that and I believe that one way of understanding it might become clear to me; but that it doesn't really matter if it doesn't. I am glad that there are scholars and scientists working on all of this and have endless interest in their findings, however for me, my belief is about as uncomplicated as it can get. Jesus saves plus - treat each other decently; protect the weak and vulnerable; live as closely to the Ten Commandments as we can.

I think that knowing that the first believers who were prepared to completely change their ways of life and die agonizing deaths because they could not deny what they had seen and heard, is the strongest witness of all.

(Yes waffle; not the quotes obviously - nawty you to try and screw that comment around and put a guilt trip on. Waffle that you threw them in a heap to avoid the issue of Apostles and others dying because they would not deny what they had seen.)

Pynchme,

Thanks for that link regarding the translations from Greek to English.

I had never seen that before.

You are correct about the Jesus as reported in the Gospels....He was better to everyone (including women) than what had been done in the past.

He was silent on homosexuality...In the end his simple message was "Love one another as I have loved you”.

I too labored hard and long in my thinking over the trinity. On other sites where Trinitarian/non-trinitarian debate rages I have tried to bring peace by expressing…in the end it doesn’t really matter for all will be explained (if any of this is true) to us all.

BUT what do the churches teach? And how strongly do they enforce their doctrines, and what would Jesus say about wrong teachings?

He chastised the Pharisees and Sadducees “calling them snakes” and yet the modern Churches seem little better, and with the covering up of crime much worse..

BUT within his teachings there are far more things.

Jesus, empowers the law of Moses plus categorically states in verse 18 "As long as heaven and earth last, not the least point nor the smallest detail of the law will be done away with...."… (Matthew 5:17-20)….. http://tinyurl.com/24f4ocd

This statement appears unequivocal! It includes the commandments and all other of Moses' laws!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah

Moses laws were against women. They were second rate citizens.

At this point shouldn’t one admit a massive contradiction?

Christians preach loving Jesus...ignoring Matthew 5:17-20 because it suits them and won't face the truth about Moses' ugly laws.

People can't have it both ways...either Jesus stated Matthew 5:17-20 or the Bible is wrong and then how many other parts are wrong?

I think I will enjoy discussing and debating the Bible with you Pynchme...you have passed the I believe in the "dumb God" test...lol

My waffle (as you call it) is for a reason...lol

Hi Opi2,

Thanks; I reckon we can have some good chats too. (Sorry for my absences I'm a bit preoccupied elsewhere at the moment).

Again with that piece we have the translation and interpretation problem. An insert in this page says something about use of the word
'Pleroo' (Fulfil):

http://www.ukapologetics.net/Jesusandthelaw.html

- and sets the rest of it out really well I think.

To me it's like an ethical dilemma such as: If someone was in dying and you could save them by stealing some medicine, would you do it - OR, would you not steal because the commandments say not to. See, it might be the wrong decision to steal, but I believe that God would know our hearts and that the intention was to put the wellbeing of someone else before our own. Selflessness. I suspect that person would be likely to get to heaven ahead of someone who kept the law in a bid to guarantee a place in heaven, but lacked selflessness.

It seems to me that we are faced with moral challenges or ethical dilemmas all the time and that's where we draw on the proposition that love compensates for many sins.

Hi Pynchme,

Sorry for the delay I too have time constraints.

Thanks for the link....but I think this is people waffling about confusing pieces in a lengthy justification from a belief basis.

Even if the word...'Pleroo'...means any of what that article suggests it is obvious what Jesus is saying.

As your article link states The Law is the Hebrew Bible...and Jesus re-enforces and defends the Torah in...Matthew5:17-20....http://tinyurl.com/24f4ocd

But in Matthew 5,6 & 7 he changes it reasonably in places.

The Sabbath (Saturday) is to be kept Holy...It is the 4th commandent....Exodus31:15...http://tinyurl.com/3xst2p3 How many Christians fail this law?

Jesus didn't alter this one except to say "you can get an ass out of a ditch,” and defending his disciples eating grain in a field.

BUT if The LAW is the Torah, then that includes Moses’crazy laws, which Jesus is silent on.

And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death...Leviticus20:10...http://tinyurl.com/387ueaz

"But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:

Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you....Deuteronomy22:20-21...http://tinyurl.com/2urger6

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found,

Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days..Deuteronomy22:28-29 ..http://tinyurl.com/246nwov

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/deu22.pdf

Surely Jesus can’t defend a woman having to marry her rapist as long as he has 50 sheckels to buy the woman?

AJ Phillips,

Thank you for your reply. Apologies for my tardy response. Again can we keep the topic of reason or evidence to support a belief in God to:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3729&page=0

It has tangential relevance here but since this is being discussed there and we are discussing it why not keep it in one thread? I am biased by my lack of time but surely it makes some sense. You seem to think that a sound byte summary should do the job of demonstrating reasoning and that anything more is sophistry. I am concerned about that reasoning. Sound bytes seem to be a way of avoiding reasoning rather than replacing it.

Nevertheless I naturally can’t resist responding to your comments in here (whilst trying to avoid a full discussion). Please feel free to copy and paste my quotes and your reply into the other thread to add to our discussion there and put an end to the replication in here. I note that I haven’t yet read the discussion that you invited me to read in the other thread (I looked at it and there seemed to be a lot of stuff there) but intend to do so before going to much further.

”...I’m always willing to learn different points of view, so please, by all means, spill it.”

No problem. That is what I expect to deal with extensively in the other thread.

<<Blind seems to be putting it too strongly (and I don’t accept that hope and desire are necessarily required for faith)>>

”I don’t think it’s putting it too strongly at all. Hope and desire for security in an omnipotent father figure and the promise of eternal life is essentially what the mainstream religions are all about. If that’s not hope and desire, then I don’t know what is.”

The religions definitely offer hope and some desire security but many people come to faith without that.

CONT.

“Yes, but they’re both still ‘blind’, as you’ve admitted.”

You could say that theism and atheism are blind in that way but I’d suggest it would be more meaningful to maintain the dichotomy.

The problem is that you seem to be adopting Dawkins unrealistic definition of faith that he uses to set up a straw man so that he can compellingly get up the nose of his Southern Baptist readers (with a few anti-theists perhaps like you).

A more realistic definition is “Faith is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted in spite of your changing moods” with the proviso that some anti-theists and theists hold a blind faith.

”Saying you’ve had some sort of personal revelation might be sufficient reason for you yourself to believe, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good reason for anyone else to believe. It would also beg the question as to why you are so special that the evidence has been personally delivered to you, while it is hidden from the rest of us.”

I’m Catholic not Pentecostal and not some type of mystic.

“<<However have you considered that some exceptions destroy the whole point of the rule?>>

Could you give an example? I’m not sure I know exactly what you’re getting at here.”

The idea of respecting peoples’ right to believe what they want to seems to be a courtesy derived from an ideal of respecting other people and their autonomy. Many people form beliefs without much evidence. To limit your observation of that courtesy to only respecting people’s beliefs when they are based on evidence seems to result in an awful number of people and their beliefs being excluded. To me this defeats the purpose. You might as well not respect people’s right to believe but instead only accept people’s beliefs that you know are evidence based. There isn’t much difference. I also noted your inclusion of the word “real”. That hangs over it ominously as a further limitation and I expressed my suspicion as to what you might mean by it.

CONT

”<<But the belief that anyone who forms a belief in God is being irrational appears to be dogma for TBC and you.>>

…an observation of mine that has remained consistent despite seeing many different cases.”

Well hopefully these types of discussions will change that.

”Again, you’ve never explained your reasoning, so I can only go by experience and assume ..”

Okay so you are just expressing your bias. That is fair enough.

“ Who knows, you may even fulfill your obligation to be a fisher of men.”

A man much wiser than me once said that if someone isn’t open to the idea of divinity then someone could return from the dead and they still wouldn’t believe. You really don’t seem to be someone who would change belief simply because of evidence to the contrary or reasoning to the contrary. I simply want you to adopt a more balanced view being that both theists and anti-theists reason and consider evidence.

”… argument that the big bang could have been the act of a god is not a good reason to think that a god may exist - especially if one is going to let their life be guided by such a belief - since it’s fallacious.”

But taking that evidence to keep an open mind doesn’t entail guiding one’s life. Unless there is a positive belief that God exists why would you assume that people would guide their life?

If I were to point to that evidence alone then it would be a fairer comment.

”… I’ve never said anything about certainty and neither does atheism, as you originally thought...”

Nb. “it’s fallacious” “haven’t earned respect by being based on any sort of real evidence” “untenable beliefs”

That is true of atheism in the sense of a mere absence of theism but certainly not the anti-theism that is often described as atheism.

I don’t believe it is realistic to dogmatically subscribe to the idea that your opinion is rational but opposing opinions cannot be the result of rational thinking in a topic such as this.

mjpb,

I certainly hope you weren’t waiting until the ‘Having been started’ setting on the ‘General discussions‘ index page needed to be switched to ‘One quarter back’ before you responded so that I couldn’t see the response. Dan S de Merengue was caught out doing that once before. Anyway...

<<You seem to think that a sound byte summary should do the job of demonstrating reasoning and that anything more is sophistry.>>

Not at all. Here’s what I actually said:

“If you can’t list these “facts” in a few minutes, then they’re probably not really facts. Facts can be rattled off rather quickly, if not, then it’s usually just sophistry.”

“Facts”, not “reasoning”. Note that I also said “usually”.

Speaking of sophistry though, sophistry is the use of deliberately invalid arguments that display ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone, and that is exactly how what you’ve said above appears.

We’re not off to a good start here, and it gets worse unfortunately...

<<Sound bytes seem to be a way of avoiding reasoning rather than replacing it.>>

Not only did I not say anything about sound bites, but you’ve deliberately left your point very open-ended by using the term “sound bites” without defining what exactly you mean.

<<Please feel free to copy and paste my quotes and your reply into the other thread to add to our discussion there and put an end to the replication in here.>>

If you want to present your “facts” that support the existence of god on the other thread, then by all means, go for it. I’ll keep an eye out for them. But I’m, still intrigued as to why it’s taking so long to mention them. This is starting to feel like one of those dreams you have where you’re trying to get somewhere, but no matter how hard you try, you just can’t seem to get there.

<<You could say that theism and atheism are blind in that way...>>

No, atheism cannot be blind because theists are yet to demonstrate that anything like what they’re suggesting exists.

Continued...

...Continued

<<The problem is that you seem to be adopting Dawkins unrealistic definition of faith that he uses to set up a straw man so that he can compellingly get up the nose of his Southern Baptist readers...>>

I’ve never actually heard Dawkins use the definition I used for faith at all. In fact, I don’t recall how exactly Dawkins defines faith.

<<A more realistic definition is “Faith is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted in spite of your changing moods”...>>

How is that more realistic?

Faith is a term applied to beliefs that don’t have any justification for being held. Put more crudely and bluntly, faith is simply belief for no good reason.

<<...with the proviso that some anti-theists and theists hold a blind faith.>>

I demonstrated to you several times before that atheists don’t hold any faith. Changing your target to the more overt “anti-theists” doesn’t change what I said.

The onus is still on the believers to provide the evidence. That’s the bottom line.

<<I’m Catholic not Pentecostal and not some type of mystic.>>

I’m not sure how you differentiate between Catholic and Pentecostal then. Both would usually say their reasons for believing are due to personal revelation.

As for mystics though, I’ve found Catholics to be the most mystical of all the denominations. Take their acceptance of evolution and the resultant (and necessary) mystifying of god (as opposed to the Pentecostal’s ‘bearded old man’ version of god) as just one example.

Then there’s the “mystery” they always speak of. I’m amused to hear how many times the word “mystery” is mentioned in Catholic mass. What Catholics don’t realise though, is that you can’t answer a mystery with a mystery.

<<Many people form beliefs without much evidence. To limit your observation of that courtesy to only respecting people’s beliefs when they are based on evidence seems to result in an awful number of people and their beliefs being excluded.>>

There’s a lot more to the respect I pay than whether or not they’re based on any real evidence.

Continued...

...Continued

There’s the resulting affect these beliefs have had up until now (in conjunction with the lack of evidence) that is the real clincher here. My Bill Maher quote spread over the following two links explain very well why religious beliefs don’t deserve respect...

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10496#178700
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10496#178701

<<I also noted your inclusion of the word “real”. That hangs over it ominously as a further limitation and I expressed my suspicion as to what you might mean by it.>>

Something that is demonstrable, measurable and verifiable.

<<Okay so you are just expressing your bias. That is fair enough.>>

I was expressing an observation, but you’ve used the term “bias” to imply that I am unable to see otherwise. Well, all I can say is that I had a strong Christian bias at the time of the majority of my observations. So any implication that I can’t see past my own biases is just plain silly.

<<A man much wiser than me once said that if someone isn’t open to the idea of divinity then someone could return from the dead and they still wouldn’t believe.>>

Firstly, considering there are no reliable accounts of anyone rising from the dead, what this supposedly wise man said was nothing more than a bald-faced assertion. How on Earth could he possible know that?

Secondly, atheists will often say that all it would take for them to believe is evidence. Compare that to the fact that theists often say that no amount of evidence would stop them believing.

This man you speak of certainly doesn’t sound wise to me at all.

<<I simply want you to adopt a more balanced view being that both theists and anti-theists reason and consider evidence.>>

Considering there is no evidence for god and that no one has ever presented me with some reasoning that wasn’t sophism or fallacious, I think my view is very balanced. It would actually be unbalanced of me to give any sort of credit to a position that has never been justified.

Continued...

...Continued

<<But taking that evidence [that the big bang was triggered by god] to keep an open mind doesn’t entail guiding one’s life. Unless there is a positive belief that God exists why would you assume that people would [use it to] guide their life?>>

I didn’t. Note the words “especially if”.

<<If I were to point to that evidence alone then it would be a fairer comment.>>

Well unfortunately it’s not even evidence to begin with. It’s an argument from ignorance and thus fallacious.

<<[Atheism not saying anything about certainty] is true of atheism in the sense of a mere absence of theism but certainly not the anti-theism that is often described as atheism.>>

Anti-theism doesn’t mean certainty either. It is simply a staunch position taken against something that is perceived to be very harmful.

I’m not sure what the “NB” was about either. If you’re implying that they are certainties of atheism/anti-theism, then you’re mistaken. They are not intrinsically tied to atheism, but merely my opinions.

<<I don’t believe it is realistic to dogmatically subscribe to the idea that your opinion is rational but opposing opinions cannot be the result of rational thinking in a topic such as this.>>

“Have not yet shown themselves to be the result of rational thinking”, would be a better way of putting it.

With that correction in place, I think I’ve more than adequately demonstrated that it is realistic.

Anyway, I’ll keep a keen eye out for these long-awaited facts on the other thread.

"If you want to present your “facts” that support the existence of god on the other thread, then by all means, go for it. I’ll keep an eye out for them. But I’m, still intrigued as to why it’s taking so long to mention them."

I'm very short of time. Even my recent comments which attempted to avoid getting to the meaty discussion have resulted in 3 posts of comments from me and 4 from you. Given that a discussion cuts off in 21 days and I have had the experience of trying to get back to something when I have finally had time but being unable to, the last thing I want to do is start something I can't finish. It is better to wait until I can give it attention then find myself in the position of a caller debating with a talkback radio host who cuts them off and keeps debating with them. In other words it is better to risk being cut off before starting then being cut off without having a reasonable conversation after starting. The God thing is close to my heart and I thus don't want to support Christianity with the effectiveness of Fred Phelps.

I have been meaning to put something in the other thread to ensure it keeps going as I was concerned it might expire soon. I thought the final posts here would be suitable with a brief introduction explaining why I am putting them there.

However I just went in and the button has faded. The most recent post was on the 16th August. It happens quickly.

Now I propose that we conduct our discussion in here. The other one is clearly not an option.

I thought I'd drop in to try to keep this going long enough that I have time to get into it.

I meant sound byte the way it is commonly understood ie. a brief comment/something "rattled off" quickly. Yep I said reasoning instead of facts but the mistake hardly looks sinister. Your first two sentences were "You’ve spoken a lot about not being able to accept non-belief and religious belief being based on facts and good reasoning, but you are still yet to provide one single solitary bit of fact or reasoning." Is it really implausible, even to the point that you need to make assumptions about deceiving, that I associated the 2 and put in the wrong one?

Should I associate your drawing the first ad hominem blood with your claim that theists have the onus of proof to infer a lack of confidence in your argument?

Given the qualification you had built into the sound byte thing so that it didn't mean the way it appeared on my quick reading I looked for any qualification in your quoting Maher (I just looked at your link). I didn't spot any so it looks like you accept it. You also claimed to read my mind suggesting that it appeared that not quoting you perfectly was using deliberately invalid arguments in the hope of decieving someone. Not only are you wrong in your mind reading but you aren't even discerning when looking at Maher's arguments. If you don't show a strong ability to even be discerning you might as well give up on considering yourself a mind reader.

Perhaps I can help. It isn't a long quote but perhaps putting certain sentences side by side you will spot something without me commenting. What do you notice?

“The plain fact is, religion must die for mankind to live."

"Except that since there are no gods actually talking to us, that void is filled in by people with their own corruptions, limitations and agendas."

("And anyone who tells you they know, they just know what happens when you die, I promise you, you don't.")

"those who would steer the ship of state not by a compass, but by the equivalent of reading the entrails of a chicken"

cf.

"The only appropriate attitude for man to have about the big questions is not the arrogant certitude that is the hallmark of religion, but doubt."

How about:

“The plain fact is, religion must die for mankind to live."
"by religious people, by irrationalists"
"Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking."

cf.

"the true devils of extremism"

Anyway this should be an interesting discussion eventually. Sorry to take so long.

mjpb,

<<Yep I said reasoning instead of facts but the mistake hardly looks sinister.>>

Of course it doesn’t look sinister. Sophistry would hardly display ingenuity in reasoning, or deceive if it was blatant.

Don’t feel too bad about me pointing it out. Every theist does it. It’s a necessity when defending untenable beliefs for which there is no evidence, that need to be held even if the face of evidence to the contrary.

<<Is it really implausible, even to the point that you need to make assumptions about deceiving, that I associated the 2 and put in the wrong one?>>

I don’t “need” to make “assumptions” at all. The total lack of any evidence is sufficient by itself. Not to mention your dodging and weaving here.

Besides which, my accusations of sophistry aren’t mere assumptions, but observations based heavily on past experience in debating this topic with a wide variety of Christians - and with all due respect, yourself included.

Of course, it’s possible that you simply slipped there and if so, I would suggest that you be a little more careful in future with your wording. But when these kinds of tricks are employed on a regular basis, my accusation becomes less of an assumption and more of a recognized technique.

No mind reading required.

<<Should I associate your drawing the first ad hominem blood with your claim that theists have the onus of proof to infer a lack of confidence in your argument?>>

Firstly, my accusation wasn’t an ad homimen because I addressed the issue. I didn’t just “play the man”.

Secondly, I think you’re just playing dumb here. You know precisely why the onus is on the one making the claim to provide the evidence.

Either way, the total lack of evidence for any gods becomes my evidence, and the further you drag this out, the more you solidify my unnecessary case.

Should I associate your dragging-out of this with a lack of confidence in YOUR argument? After all, you are the one who needs to refer to your position as “faith”.

Continued...

...Continued

As for your Maher quotes, I have no idea what you’re intention is in quoting them. Especially since there’s no sophistry in what he’s said given that it can all be backed by examples and reasoning. If your motivation for quoting Maher was to make a point about my alleged “mind reading”, well, I trust that I’ve demonstrated above why attempting to read minds is, not only something that I’m not doing here, but isn’t even necessary to begin with.

But even if there was sophistry I Maher’s arguments, that wouldn’t weaken my main claim here: That there is no evidence for the existence of any gods.

So this is a mere (and I would suggest deliberate) diversionary tactic used to steer discussion away from your inability to point out any facts supporting the existence of any gods.

Sorry, mjpb. It’s back to the drawing board for you, I’m afraid.

AJ Philips,

”Of course it doesn’t look sinister. Sophistry would hardly display ingenuity in reasoning, or deceive if it was blatant.”

So appearing like a genuine mistake makes it more ingenious and more likely to be sophistry? Excuse me if that sounds a little like McCarthyism but it looks like,from theists, you will see sophistry no matter what so at least I know now what to expect.

”It’s a necessity when defending untenable beliefs for which there is no evidence, that need to be held even if the face of evidence to the contrary.”

Well hopefully some day you will realize that it is about holding on to things your reason has once accepted in spite of changing moods and you won’t find the need to rationalize everything as sophistry. I apologise if I am not yet helping but I have explained the reasons for my hesitation above (even if you take another swipe in the post under reply).

“The total lack of any evidence is sufficient by itself.”

I shake my head any time someone claims there is a total lack of evidence on something like this. That is a pretty extreme position. I can’t see how you could have completely missed any evidence.

”Besides which, my accusations of sophistry aren’t mere assumptions, but observations based heavily on past experience in debating this topic with a wide variety of Christians - and with all due respect, yourself included.”

But you see sophistry when it isn’t there so the confirmation is only in your mind. It may or may not have happened but there is no reason for me to assume that it has.

”Of course, it’s possible that you simply slipped there and if so, I would suggest that you be a little more careful in future with your wording.”

I do try and I’m not illiterate so such mistakes are embarrassing (all the more so when discussing it with someone who will jump on them so heavily) but I knock these things out with limited time and I’m human so no guarantees.
CONT

”Firstly, my accusation wasn’t an ad homimen because I addressed the issue. I didn’t just “play the man”.”

There was no issue but since you have made it clear that we are working on different premises I understand what you are saying. I believe you are being sincere so I guess that makes it not ad hominem on the assumption that ad hominem needs to be intentional. Does it need to be intentional?

”Secondly, I think you’re just playing dumb here. You know precisely why the onus is on the one making the claim to provide the evidence.”

I am playing a little with that bit by flagging it without further discussion and I did disingenuously tag it on but am not playing dumb. My guess is that you have adopted an evasive maneuver but your uncritical acceptance of everything from one view point means that you haven’t realized it. You deserve some teasing for being silly.

”Either way, the total lack of evidence for any gods becomes my evidence, and the further you drag this out, the more you solidify my unnecessary case.”

At the moment my claim that dragging it out will actually avoid solidification appears to you as a mere assertion of mine but I nevertheless reiterate it.

Now speaking of mere assertions if Maher just gave mere assertions based on nothing going nowhere I would only be critical on that basis or perhaps even leave it alone and chalk it up to artistic licence. But his assertions are so contradictory in only a few paragraphs. He needs to choose his weapon when attacking the religious and avoid contradiction to be effectual. Instead he is enjoying the attack too much to take that step. I concede that he probably should have some licence when writing atheist porn but too much contradiction is distracting.

You seem to be taking atheist porn way too seriously. Like real porn it is purely for the entertainment value not something to take seriously.
CONT

”So this is a mere (and I would suggest deliberate) diversionary tactic used to steer discussion away from your inability to point out any facts supporting the existence of any gods.”

But you quoted it. You seemed to be relying upon it to explain why religious beliefs don’t deserve respect as if it were gospel. His comments were so comment worthy I couldn’t resist. Since you are critical virtually to the point of paranoid of theist’s comments but so uncritical with anti-theist comments I’ll explain.

“The plain fact is, religion must die for mankind to live." Religion or lack thereof relates to one of the big questions namely whether or not there is a god/s. The word must expresses certitude (cf. eg. may) and saying that a belief that differs from yours must die for mankind to live (even if it has gone from a tiny population to billions of people in thousands of years with religion) would have to add arrogance.

"Except that since there are no gods actually talking to us, that void is filled in by people with their own corruptions, limitations and agendas." This expresses with certitude that the big question of God or no God is answered in the negative.

("And anyone who tells you they know, they just know what happens when you die, I promise you, you don't.") This indirectly appears to address some big issues. It appears to be expressed agnostically but it is shortly after a pronouncement that there is no God and divine revelation is a void filled by people’s pronouncements so in reality he isn’t as open minded as he tries to suggest. He is simply trying to sound like it so that he can then claim not to have arrogant certitude and level that attack on theists. Since that is not as clear as the others I put it in brackets.
CONT

"those who would steer the ship of state not by a compass, but by the equivalent of reading the entrails of a chicken" To dismiss the beliefs of the majority of the world’s population with pejorative comparison is arrogant in the extreme and it is hard to see how it would make sense if he wasn’t also expressing certitude.

cf.

"The only appropriate attitude for man to have about the big questions is not the arrogant certitude that is the hallmark of religion, but doubt." Compare this with the above quotes and you should see a contradiction.

How about:

“The plain fact is, religion must die for mankind to live."
Do I need to explain why that is an extreme statement?

"by religious people, by irrationalists"
Calling people who disagree with you irrational is pretty extreme particularly when most of the world are being characterized as irrational.

"Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking."
Dismissing most of the history of philosophy, the thinking documented in the history of Christianity, and the entire discipline of theology as lacking virtue by religious standards (in the Catholic brand of Christianity those who assist the authoritative shepherds in explaining scripture and tradition are considered Doctors of the Church) and defining faith to set up a straw man is a pretty extreme approach.

cf.

"the true devils of extremism"
Devils tends to connote a negative view of the thing it is describing so I take this to mean that extremism is bad and he is saying that theism is bad on that basis. Hopefully you will see the contradiction.

mjpb,

<<So appearing like a genuine mistake makes it more ingenious and more likely to be sophistry?>>

No, not “appearing like a genuine mistake”, sophistry is designed to appear as though it displays ingenuity in reasoning.

This isn’t the first time you’ve tried this tactic either... http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3814#93594

<<...it looks like,from theists, you will see sophistry no matter what so at least I know now what to expect.>>

Wrong.

It’s easy to spot and demonstrate why sophistry is what it is. Pericles recently did on another thread for example... http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11008#184338

<<Well hopefully some day you will realize that it is about holding on to things your reason has once accepted...>>

But you can’t even mention why your reason once accepted it. That’s the whole point here.

<<...you won’t find the need to rationalize everything as sophistry.>>

Pointing out sophistry is a passing observation, not my rationalisation. My rationalisation is that there is no evidence. That’s it.

<<I apologise if I am not yet helping but I have explained the reasons for my hesitation above...>>

I promise I won’t point out your sophistry from now on if you’d prefer.

<<I shake my head any time someone claims there is a total lack of evidence on something like this ... I can’t see how you could have completely missed any evidence.

If it’s so obvious, then why can’t you just spit it out?!

<<But you see sophistry when it isn’t there so the confirmation is only in your mind. It may or may not have happened but there is no reason for me to assume that it has.>>

Wrong.

I am able to point out why my observations are sophistry every time. Of course, anyone can say it was a slip of the tongue, but that would mean that theists have impossibly slippery tongues.

Continued...

...Continued

<<My guess is that you have adopted an evasive maneuver but your uncritical acceptance of everything from one view point means that you haven’t realized it.>>

Evasive maneuver for what? What kind of evidence would disprove something that didn’t exist? What part of “the onus is on the believer to provide the evidence” do you not understand? If I claim that unicorns exist, does it then become your responsibility to prove me wrong?

You’re not stupid, so I can only assume that you’re trying to paint me as someone who needs to be evasive as yet another diversionary tactic.

It’s also a bit rich to claim that my acceptance of one view-point is uncritical when you can’t give me one single argument to challenge me with - which hardly makes my acceptance look uncritical now, does it.

<<But you quoted [Maher].>>

Yes, and you focused on it while dodging the main point. Perhaps you should re-examine your priorities here.

<<You seemed to be relying upon it to explain why religious beliefs don’t deserve respect as if it were gospel.>>

Try proving his points (which aren’t original by the way) wrong or unreasonable then.

<<Religion or lack thereof relates to one of the big questions namely whether or not there is a god/s. The word must expresses certitude (cf. eg. may) and saying that a belief that differs from yours must die for mankind to live (even if it has gone from a tiny population to billions of people in thousands of years with religion) would have to add arrogance.>>

There’s nothing wrong with certainty about demonstrable positions, and it’s not arrogance when an unfounded belief system, with no legitimacy due to the total lack of evidence, has proven itself to be dangerous, even to the point of apocalyptically dangerous.

<<This expresses with certitude that the big question of God or no God is answered in the negative.>>

Yes, and as we are demonstrating now, that’s a perfectly reasonable thing to be certain about after hundreds and hundreds of years of religion and still not a shred of proof.

Continued...

...Continued

<<This indirectly appears to address some big issues. It appears to be expressed agnostically but it is shortly after a pronouncement that there is no God...>>

Yes, belief and knowledge are two different things. No contradiction there.

<<To dismiss the beliefs of the majority of the world’s population with pejorative comparison is arrogant in the extreme and it is hard to see how it would make sense if he wasn’t also expressing certitude.>>

Again, it’s not arrogant if it’s demonstrable. People interpret their holy books however they want to, which is no different to interpreting chicken entrails.

<<"The only appropriate attitude for man to have about the big questions is not the arrogant certitude that is the hallmark of religion, but doubt." Compare this with the above quotes and you should see a contradiction.>>

We can be certain about certain things while maintaining a more humble attitude of doubt when dealing with situations that could cost lives. Like the decision to go to war because god said you should, or destroying the environment because you don’t believe we could possibly destroy it before the coming of a messiah that will never arrive.

So again, no contradiction.

<<“The plain fact is, religion must die for mankind to live."
Do I need to explain why that is an extreme statement?>>

It’s not extreme when the following paragraphs provide a good case as to why.

<<Calling people who disagree with you irrational is pretty extreme particularly when most of the world are being characterized as irrational.>>

It’s not extreme when it can be demonstrated.

Continued...

...Continued

<<Dismissing most of the history of philosophy, the thinking documented in the history of Christianity, and the entire discipline of theology as lacking virtue by religious standards (in the Catholic brand of Christianity those who assist the authoritative shepherds in explaining scripture and tradition are considered Doctors of the Church) and defining faith to set up a straw man is a pretty extreme approach.>>

When we live in much more enlightened and scientifically aware times, yes, faith certainly does make a virtue out of not thinking. Just take, for example, the many theists on OLO who you’d think must sit there with their fingers in their ears singing: “La, la, la... I can’t here you.”

<<Devils tends to connote a negative view of the thing it is describing so I take this to mean that extremism is bad and he is saying that theism is bad on that basis. Hopefully you will see the contradiction.>>

No, he is not saying theism is bad because extremism is. Although he is making the valid point that moderates need to accept some of the blame for the extremists since they provide them with cover and inadvertently legitimize them.

Once again, no contradiction.

Like I said, mjpb... back to the drawing board.

Actually mjpb, after giving it some thought, I’m starting to think that I may have gone a little overboard with the accusation of sophistry (in that particular instance).

Sophistry tends to be a little more obfuscated and obscured. Often one of the intentions of sophistry is to make the argument so baffling that the intended recipient - in the end - just makes the assumption that the sophist knows what their talking about and just leaves it at that without questioning any further.

I think your (accidental?) word-switch (assuming it wasn’t an accident) would be better referred to as a verbal sleight-of-hand - another technique required by even the most sincere of theists in order to defend their belief.

In regards to this line from CS Lewis you keep repeating about faith being “ the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted in spite of your changing moods”, there are two problems with it:

Firstly, “reason” isn’t always why we come to accept/believe something. On the contrary, we can see that it never is when it comes to religion: something used to fill an emotional or intellectual void or as a crutch when we feel our lives have hit rock-bottom.

Secondly, Lewis’s definition of faith could apply to a lot of things. It could even apply to explicit atheism and we know that atheism is not a faith.

That being said, I think my definition of faith (hope and desire mistaken for knowledge) is far more accurate and honest.

I wouldn’t pay too much attention to what Lewis had to say though. His false trichotomy of Jesus being either liar, lunatic or lord doesn’t say much for his reasoning skills considering he left out the most obvious, rational and likely possibility: legend.

Let’s be honest here though, mjpb. There are no facts, are there? And this explains the lengthy delay, the eventual excuse for being reluctant to mention any facts, along with the preparations for a possible withdrawal from the ever mentioning them, in your statement: “I apologise if I am not yet helping but I have explained the reasons for my hesitation [in mentioning the facts] above.”

If you do have facts, then how could I possibly accuse you of sophistry (or verbal sleight-of-hand for that matter) for listing them? One could no sooner accuse another of sophistry for pointing out the fact that the sky is blue.

I should remind you too that you would be obliged, as a fisher of men, to let the world in on these facts that you have obtained. Particularly if you are the only one in possession of them - as you appear to be.

If you have indeed obtained some facts, then I would strongly advise that you let us in on them. Doing so will change the world as we know it. Text books may need to be re-written.

Mankind will never be the same.

Sorry I don't have time to read all that but I'm just dropping in to keep this ticking in the hope that it will be here when I do get time.

Well mjpb, it’s been 20 days since the last post and the thread’s about to close.

You‘ve posted seven comments on other various threads since you last posted here, and so I don’t think being too busy is much of an excuse anymore. Especially since the facts to support the existence of god are apparently so abundant and obvious that you shake your head every time someone claims there’s a total lack of it. Heck you even went as far as to say it was “extreme” to claim such a thing.

So if you’re not going to point out any facts in support of the existence of god, could you at least admit that there are none?

That is why they call it faith after all.

Faith is not blind it observes the most likley position and so acts upon it. AJ you obviously have a blind spot.

Good luck, AJ, with getting a response from mjpb. I think his promise to get back to me is even older than his promise to you? No doubt he's too busy preaching to the converted to have time to fulfil his promises, or address valid criticism.

Sorry Philo. The term “faith” is applied to beliefs that seek protection from criticism since they cannot be supported by evidence or reason. That it “observes the most likely position and so acts upon it” is something you’ve just made up now.

<<AJ you obviously have a blind spot.>>

If all it takes is a blind spot to miss the most powerful and significant being/thing in this universe, then that being (god) has failed on the most basic test of communication, and is therefore not a god.

Interesting to note too that you were unable to prove your point (while assisting mjpb in his presentation of the “facts”) by providing some sort of evidence for this claim.

Squeers,

To be honest, I never really expected an answer. Interesting to hear that this isn’t the first time this has happened though.

Thanks for recent posters for keeping it going. This visit was also for the purpose. I glanced at your last post but didn't read it through properly. It was something about how I've posted elsewhere. I didn't believe there were any comments in other threads that would require a lot of continuation.

mjpb,

It doesn't matter that your other posts in other threads don’t require continuation because they still would have taken time to write-up and you’re apparently too busy to do that.

<<I glanced at your last post but didn't read it through properly.>>

Your attempts at giving the appearance of dropping in real quick look feigned too, I’m afraid.

Philo,

I noticed your comment and it stuck in my mind. It has such a ring of truth.

I previously pointed out to AJ that "Faith is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted in spite of your changing moods" but he prefers to rely on some silly atheist porn definition. Ironically I think he proved your point. I suspect no matter how many people professing a religious faith explain their faith he will be effectively blind to the ramifications.

This thread must be pretty unlikely to encounter by now so the fact that there are people out there mean that I will need to pay more attention to it. That is another reason I came in today. The issue of whether it is worth debating this topic with someone who quite seriously says that there is no evidence of God and accepts a rather ludicrous concept of faith has crossed my mind recently. What can I hope to achieve with someone with such extreme views? Conversion? Now that I know it isn't a one on one it increases my enthusiasm.

To you and all like you I suspect this conversation is going to pick up soon. Thanks for hanging in.

Squeers,

That is pretty funny given the circumstances. It wasn't deliberate but you got what you deserved.

AJ Phillips,

I'm not sure how long they took to think up but continuation is an issue when one is short of time. I explained before that the worst thing is starting something that gets timed out without my response. It just looks bad. Now as regards actually writing or in this case typing my typing speed is quite good.

"Your attempts at giving the appearance of dropping in real quick look feigned too, I’m afraid."

I can never work out whether these types of things are just some taunt to get me going or whether you believe them. Given the other things you believe I give you the benefit of the doubt.

”...you would be obliged, as a fisher of men, to let the world in on these facts that you have obtained. Particularly if you are the only one in possession of them …Mankind will never be the same.”

Don’t be silly. I’d be surprised if the vast majority of humankind haven’t been religious.

“I think your (accidental?) word-switch (assuming it wasn’t an accident) ...”

You are still going on about that?

”Firstly, “reason” ...we can see that it never is when it comes to religion: something used to fill an emotional or intellectual void or as a crutch when we feel our lives have hit rock-bottom.”

All I see is people convert to atheism when they worry about the burden of carrying the cross. I’ve never seen anyone come into religion in the circumstances you outlined. My experience has been either family or reasoning. Although I have heard pentecostal pastors claiming to have had that type of experience. I generously left open the issue of whether or not it was just a good story.

”Secondly, Lewis’s definition of faith could apply to a lot of things. It could even apply to explicit atheism and we know that atheism is not a faith.”

I don't know where to look... there is a secular system of belief that holds onto some pretty implausible things by blind faith. Why do you think the term "secular fundamentalist" now gets used. There are atheists with a type of faith even if atheism perse isn't necessarily a faith.

That can be contrasted with atheism in the broad sense. Take Pericles. He is an atheist but doesn't seem to hold blind faith just an opinion based on his call of things (or so my experience has indicated).

”I wouldn’t pay too much attention to what Lewis had to say though. His false trichotomy of Jesus ...doesn’t say much for his reasoning skills considering he left out the most obvious, rational and likely possibility: legend.”

Lewis was a clever learned man. I’m sure he wasn’t ignorant of the fact that a legend explanation is implausible.

mjpb, (and Philo),
You might remember that I have been an enthusiastic reader of your posts and polemics on this OLO. So I thought you could be interested in the book I recently came accross:

FAITH AND ITS CRITICS: A Conversation by David Ferguson (OUP 2009) 195pp, USD 25.25 or EUR 20.99 (paperbacjk to appear in May 2011 for EUR 11.99). I have just ordered the book via amazon.com but you can read the Intro online. Some quotes:

" …the work of the new atheists is intensely interesting; the range of questions and subjects raised are of concern to every person ...Perhaps the most important reason for a theological study of atheism is that it may have something salutary to teach us who remain committed to faith. Of course, this is far removed from the intention of the new atheists, who advocate the abandonment of religion rather than its renovation. Yet the consideration of the most powerful challenges that can be leveled against religion may itself enable a clearer and more chastened perception of what it is one believes and to which one is committed. ... There are times and places where silence and scepticism serve us better than the passionate certainties that may later appear misplaced and even harmful. ... (I) plea for a coalition of humanists and believers who can together find ways of working for common goals even amidst significant intellectual disagreement …"

This seems to agree with the atheist Jürgen Habermass' plea (http://www.signandsight.com/features/1714.html) though - I hope - easier to understand.