JP, there is a difference between 'judging' and scrutinizing. Judging is saying 'your bad' or 'your good'

I'm saying that what you shared appears to tell a lot more about your mindset than anything else mate. U use the term 'sucked in' in regard to your mum and dad, which carries with it the implicit suggestion

they were 'deceived', which (depending on the 'brand' of church) may well be the case, and you could be speaking 100% accurately, but it seemed that you were yourself 'assessing' :) (avoids the term 'judging') "The Church" as something which only 'sucks people in'. Which I think is a bit unfair.

COL

I can see where your coming from, and agree in principle, in fact a lot of what you said echoes my own thoughts prior to comitting to Christ. Hence, I embraced a tradition which is much less beaurocratic and 'big church' kind of thing, and in my opinion much more like the New Testament pattern of small independant but spiritually linked groups of Christians. I hope you can see past that rather limited image of what real Christianity is, and not let it keep you from a relationship with Jesus.

XENA "...and they were amazed, because she spoke with AUTHORITY" "who then is this, that she calms all our fears and opens our minds to all truth in 3 sentences" :) ..... U were a bit over the top dear....don't expect Peter or me or anyone to get it totally 'right' all the time. Nor will be always express Christian truths in ways which actually scratch where ur itching. But with dialogue, humility and an attempt to actually resolve outstanding issues, we can make a nicer community.

DI your right, my typing was ATROCIOUS. I'll try to do better this time. You call it 'sexist' as IF the current understanding of the term is an absolute truth, its not. The world was different then and it will be diff 2morrow. Your description showed you are a just a child of your generation. Have a wander outside that square.

Mr BOAZ_david says to Di ."Your description showed you are a just a child of your generation. Have a wander outside that square."
Come on now! to suggest in this paternalistic manner that Di is contained in some kind of post-modernist square is denying your own limits of thought. Is your first century mindset the only valid one? This relates directly to Sells article. Because Di sees sexism today that remained invisible two thousand years ago does not make it any less so? It is for this very reason that religion must bend with the winds of time or collapse and the state of the pews attest to the fact that something is badly wrong. Where did this "personal relationship with Jesus" thing come from?. It is pure 20th Century American individualism. The Yankee arm waving evangelical crazies are promising not only salvation in the afterlife but monetary riches in this life. Is this the good 'ol Christianity of Paul?

Hear, hear, Priscillian. Very well said indeed. Unfortunately our resident 'biblical warriors' just won't comprehend you, for the simple reason that their 'faith' doesn't allow them to. These guys are literally missionaries in some cases, which I guess is about all that needs to be said about the possibility of reasoning with them :)

Pricillian your doing the same thing as Di "Because 'sexism' remained invisable'..... what IS sexism ? who defined it ? on what grounds ? is the ground valid ? why ? etc etc. On what authority does the whole concept of 'sexism' rest ?
The point I'm making is that sexism is a cultural invention of modern western/feminist thinking, nothing more. Cultures always have balance, what appears to be 'sexism' in one, usually will have some kind of balancing aspect. The definition of 'sexism' is where an institutional structure treats people differntly because of their gender. Welllll lets show show rediculous that is quick smart. Front line combat ! Female policing of riots, females put in charge of a 6 foot rapist who then takes here gun, shoots her and kills 3 others. U know why he managed that ? its because she is FEMALE and therefore weaker than an equivalent male counterpart.

It is absolute codswallop that males and females should not be treated differently in SOME areas of life purely and absolutely because of their gender.

But back to the topic or I'll get lost in side issues. I agree that the Church SHOULD adapt the presentation of the gospel to a degree in the light of prevailing cultural conditions, but NOT that the essential message should in any way be compromised. It is still the same, though the method of communication may vary.

As for liturgical churches (some would say "lethargical") they are great for those who identify more with that style, as are the Charismatics who cater for a different personality. Peter speaks of 'Sacrements' whereas I would speak more of memorials (communion) and symbolic acts (Baptism)

I'll take up other points of yours priscillian in a 2nd go here.

Let me conclude with Pauls words "If Christ is not risen, then let us eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die"

Stick to the god bothering Boaz, where do you get off saying that sexism was invented by modern day women's thinking. It's an practice, not a concept. No one but a man would say that women should be treated differently than men. And I suppose you, as a man should decide in what areas they should be? If the Church doesn't move with the times, it will disappear up its own pulpit. Attitudes such as yourself that would have it frozen in time are the ones that will be responsible for its demise. Keep up the good work!

Mr BOAZ_David, you ask "On what authority does the whole concept of 'sexism' rest ? a good question and you are right, it is modern concept that would have been unknown in the first century along with quaint concepts such as democracy, science, rational logic, medicine, secular government, human rights etc. etc. etc.

You go on "I agree that the Church SHOULD adapt the presentation of the gospel to a degree in the light of prevailing cultural conditions"
Exactly right! just like they have done for all the things I mentioned above. Where are the churches going wrong then?

In the first century goverment needed authority and what was it ? the authority of a god. It is still so today in theocratic states like Israel, Iran, USA etc. you know, the ones that still carry out state murder(with the appropriate authority of course!). Instead of science they had/have superstition, spirits, miracles. Instead of rational debate they had/have literal scripture and myth. Why then are you still persisting with the old irrational ideas and concepts when you have been provided (by your god perhaps) with better tools? What actually is the central tenets of your faith today? Strip away the post first century doctrine/politics and what have you got?......as I said right back at the beginning..a Pagan dying and resurrecting god-man promising the same 'ol things as the god-men before him e.g Dionysus/Bacchus/Mithra/Osiris promising forgiveness of sin/everlasting life/etc. Try moving out of THAT square, you might have to even considerer thinking an original thought.