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.