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.