Yikes, sorry OP2. It must have been because your posts were reading a little shrill ;).

I love the Bible for many reasons but I am certainly not a believer in any sense you would recognise. I also love the description of it as a Rorschach test, a kind of inkblot whose interpretation by individuals varies enormously but is hugely informative about their personalities.

From the prosperity gospel pundits to the rabidly anti-gay through to the Salvos, all are reading from essentially the same book and taking away vastly different perspectives, as are you in your denouncement of it. This is why I continue to be curious why you are so veherment when discussing it.

From my experience asking precisely the same question on previous threads, you have Buckley's chance to get an intelligent answer, csteele.

>>This is why I continue to be curious why you are so vehement when discussing it.<<

One of my theories is that OP2 is a confused year 12 student, who was brought up in a Christian household, and has only just learned to question his previously automatic acceptance of Bible stories. He probably had one of those illustrated versions as a child - you know, the ones that depicted Jesus as a six-foot white guy with a beard and a kindly face - and the shock of discovering that he was in fact a swarthy Middle-Eastern Semite was too much for his hormone-fuelled brain.

Hence all the confusion.

I have other theories, of course...

Dear OP2,

My comments were not pretence, but history. That is, historians' history not the Churches' interpretation. Moreover, the comments made more truy relate to Christianised-Judaism, not institutional Christianity, which came later. Here, we need to remember, the time duration between the first Christians and Nicaean Christianity is as long as. the time between the First Fleet and us.

The first Christians were more often women than men and were what we would call working class. Rarely, did the ranks include the wealthly or, the very poor or slaves. Missions were not made to the underclasses, because it was not financially viable. The few better-off Christrians would have their own slaves with the full blessing of the Scriptures and the Church.

Returning now to the OT, we learn that the Christian god allegedly breathed life (spirit) into Adam, not Eve. So, yes, there exists scriptural bias.

Hello Foxy,

I agree with you - again! These Forum threads do provide a more interesting exchange of information than do the Mass or Service. It wuld be hard to call a Priest or Minister, to account, over an error in history, during a sermon and then have the Gathered debate alternative propositions.

It seems as if the Christian Churches see themselves as a censor and the only true channel of knowledge to be acknowledged. The (Evil) Tree of Knowledge is knowledge not endorsed by the Churches.

OMG Csteele are you assessing my gender on "shrillness" and insodoing calling women "shrill"? Brave man!...lol

I know you stated you weren't a Christian csteele - just playing...lol

OMG Pericles you said

<<One of my theories is that OP2 is a confused year 12 student>>

Does this now answer my question, when, I asked, if you were a conspiracy theorist? Isn't it amazing how people show themselves when their guards are down...lol

Pericles I have looked at some of your other posts in other threads. You are far better than this!

I am seeking the TRUTH!

Oliver I understood your comments to be history. I just wanted to make the point, that generally speaking in society, women usually have the greatest inputs and get the least credit. My pal Paul "the feminist male" must have suffered severe rejection in his life to be so anti-female!

Although the Abrahamic religions do have a tradition of limiting women's achievements through discrimination!

I agree with you that the Churches see themselves as far more important in the process of people being spiritual than they ought. Money tends to do that to people...lol

So to recap can I claim the following yet?

1. The Bible is fallible, in error, and therfore cannot be all God's word?

2. That Churches are selling an unitelligent God?

3. That Christians and religious people generally are far too accepting and do not question enough?

4. That Paul was sexist and therefore should be understood in that way?

5. That women are more likely to bring about reasonable change than men in society? They know what it is to be discriminated against?

6. That based on Paul's teachings most churches do discriminate against women? Jesus didn't discriminate man did!

7. That Jesus' words are probably not really Jesus' words and it is difficult to tell which ones were?

8. That Christianity and the Bible are treated as a mutli-level marketing scheme and therfore need to be questioned?

9. That any laws contained in the Bible should be treated as suspect?

10. That God doesn't intercede in our daily lives?

Opinionated2

1. The Bible is words on paper. Nothing more or less.
2. The Churches sell a God of their own creation that has the intelligence of the creator.
3. The Christians follow dogma and are not accepting of anything else.
4. Paul was a Pharisee that created a Jewish sect with Jewish attitudes.
5. Which man? Which women? Elevating women over men is sexist.
6. Paul is the creator of Christianity not Jesus. See point 4
7. You could try looking at and interlinear English/Greek New Testament and play look for the Christian lies. I suggest Marshal. At least you will be able to eliminate Paul.
8. See 1. What the Christians do with it has nothing to do with the Bible.
9. The Whole of Christianity is a set of laws. Moses gets blamed for a lot. He/She only had 15 laws. The rest where added by the Pharisees. The Jewish Pharisees and the Christian Pharisees.
10. The Christian God does not intercede because it does not exist. If another God intercedes it can be over ridden by free will.

The Bible is the Bible and that is all. If the power hungry and the deranged choose to claim it is Gods word it is only a claim to non existent Authority. If God comes and tells me I will believe it. If the Christians tell me I shall ignore them.

Anyone heard for Sells lately?

Oliver

<Tertullian protests especially the participation of “those women among the heretics” who shared with men positions of authority: “They teach, they engage in discussion; they exorcise; they cure” he suspects that they might even baptize, which meant they also acted as Bishops!>
Pagels, Elaine. The Gnostic Gospels. Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1979

Pagels seems to think the Gnostics, as far as can be put together from the limited surviving Gnostic material, included a male and female principle in their teachings.
What is known is that there was complete equality in their teachings, and this is in total opposition to Paul’s doctrine that women are subordinate to men, and women must cover their heads in church as a sign of their subordination to men, and must not speak in church:

Tertullian seems to state that the inclusion of women is a heresy.

Is there any way of knowing which are the church of Paul and which are Gnostic when stating the participation of women?