pelican,
I can tell you there is no problem in most Christian Churches today as women make up the majority of employee of the Church and involvement in the service of the Church. That some Churches (i.e. Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican) have men as priests does not stop women from seeking participation in Churches who do not have priests.

There is total freedom in these Churches as each person is a priest and can act on another’s behalf to pray to God. These Churches hold Jesus as the only priest through which we pray to the Father. The Scripture teaches each believer is part of a kingdom of priests (Revelation 1: 6; 5: 10; 20: 6). That women are suppressed in Christianity is nonsense and a non issue.

That some Churches hold to ancient Roman culture of male leadership, that Mosques hold to ancient Arabic culture a woman's testimony is half that of a man and Synagogues to ancient Semitic culture where men thank G-d they were not born a woman; is their business providing they are not verbally or physically abusing women. We live in a free culture and women have choice where they worship.

In ancient religious cultures it was forbidden for anyone with a body discharge to enter a sanctuary of worship, which included men also. Women because of monthly menstruation then were not available during that period and therefore unsuitable for the service.

There are millions of women who are Christian who are not of those ancient cultures. Let the complaining women seeking image and power in Christ's kingdom examine their motives and join a Church where no hierarchy of priests, bishops and Pope exist. In these Churches equality exists; but do they want equality or power and image?

pelican:>> why women should not be admitted to the Church leadership - other than a commitment (or enslavement) to the historical context. Is that enough in itself.<<

P, the term mother church has been used historically to holistically describe "the church" from the earliest Christian times. Mother Mary is revered in all denominations, and Mary Magdalene is referred to in the first Christian writings as "the apostle to the apostles", not an insignificant station. Gnostic gospels written in the early second century even describe Mary as the special disciple of Jesus who has a deeper understanding of his teachings and whose role is to impart this to the other disciples.

Why I recount this is to qualify that the "Church" hold women in reverence as the vessels of life and the purveyors of true understanding, roles far superior to that of man. But from the first Church women were not the face of the ministry, so it could be argued that women are excluded from the politics of the Church to leave them unsullied and uncorrupted.

The movement for female clergy was born from the reinterpretation of who Mary of Magdala was, re her supposed chosen vocation in her early life. It is a feminist movement headed up by career lesbians who want to break the glass ceiling. It is ego driven rather than equality seeking. Female parishioners are not screaming for women clergy from the bell towers, only those who have an interest in power are.

Pynchme:>>Maybe we're living on an atom of a way bigger reality of enormous others.<<

Yes Pyme scale and dimension are governed by our minds and they are governed by input, and some think they have input all there is, there is nothing more, they are sure.

Severin:>> We forget that our planet itself recycles, our atoms are reabsorbed into environment earth,<<

S, not interested in recycling, nothing in our dimension is ever destroyed it merely changes form. I am interested in the void before being, whether a single event or a recurring event after the energy from the first is spent.

Severin:>> There are still debates as to whether the universe is contracting or expanding; at the moment the science suggests the universe is still expanding.<<

S and unless the laws of physics change the suggestion of a universe expanding will be around and popular for a while.

Philo... where's that? Hillsong?

You are kidding yourself when you talk about 'equality' in Christianity?

And what's all this nonsense about 'bodily discharges'...does that include men farting in the pews?

"women make up the majority of employees"... simple comrade, cheap labour, old mate.

Wouldn't get men making the tea, cleaning the dunny and keeping the books would you? Not on those 'air-wages'.

"Women because of monthly menstruation then were not available during that period and therefore unsuitable for the service"..'oh dear', or 'what a surprise'?

And so Philo, the 'equality' of the sexes plays out even in the 'bodily discharges' trick the men play on the women (who make their tea).

There is something grindingly dull and incomplete about the world you glory in, and raise up as if it was worth... a cracker.

If the table-turner came back, do you really think He would be pleased by what He saw done in His name? All the idol worship, all the discrimination, all the false prophets raised up to exalted status, even as the clay peeks through their genuine non-leather white shoes?

Abbotts, Bishops, Cardinals, Popes, Mullahs, vicars bludging on tax free wages... the whole pathetic edifice of con, a giant pyramid scam, a Sargasso Sea of junk (full of sea serpents too Philo), all pretending to each other that 'they' serve their Lord 'the best'.

The denial of humanity, the good and bad aspects of it both, by a retreat into a closed system, a total system of thinking and behaviour that brooks no challenges and denies love, may well linger longer than it should, but it will not triumph in the end.

It lacks compassion, and mistakes that for power. That's why it focuses on 'the poor folk' and fails to remove the log in its own eye first.

Fool yourself if you want to Philo... but why?

SoG,

<<I never proffered any defined arguments to whether there is a god or not.>>

I realise this, but you responded to my claim that none of the arguments for the existence of god hold and I responded in turn explaining why the argument that the big bang could have been the act of a god is not a good reason to think that a god may exist - especially if one is going to let their life be guided by such a belief - since it’s fallacious.

<<What I endeavored to do was justify doubt of certainty on the premise that what we see may not be all there is.>>

Well, we've been wasting our time then. I’ve never said anything about certainty and neither does atheism, as you originally thought...

<<That is my stumbling block when it comes to a definitive atheist view, the bloody perhaps’.>>

So I apologise if I responded as though I was reading too much into what you were saying. I was simply trying to cover my bases because experience caused me to strongly suspected there was a little more to your argument than a mere “You just never know”, and after the religious knowledge you displayed in your response to Pelican, I’m certain of it.

You see, people who present the “You just never know...”, or the “How can you be so certain?” arguments usually fit into one or more of the following categories: -

1. They were indoctrinated as children; now realise that religion is nonsense; but still have that little voice in the back of their minds (often from an engrained fear of Hell) telling them, “What if...”;

2. They’re Right-wing atheists who are disturbed/embarrassed that a large portion of those who they’re politically aligned with let their lives be guided by something that is equivalent to reading the entrails of a chicken, and want to soften the blow;

3. They’re religious people who understand that if they argue certain issues - such as the ordination of women - from a the perspective of a believer, they’ll lose credibility.

AJ Philips:>> 1.they were indoctrinated as children; now realise that
2. They’re Right-wing atheists who are disturbed/embarrassed
3. They’re religious people who understand that if they argue certain issues <<

AJ, as I said we regurgitate input, and some are sure or satisfied with the input they regurgitate. Some consider alternatives, but whichever way it is, there is more than you know, that is evident.