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.