Great thread TBC.

I'd have thought a Christian woman may have started it, or, a Christian male in defence of women. But as the Bible tells us some men (beginning with Adam) are spineless!

Does this indicate how sad and oppressed Christians have allowed themselves to become?

According to Moses, GOD allegedly gave precise instructions on priests and marriage.

Leviticus 21.....http://tinyurl.com/26syokp

Paul remained single, and some allege he might have been a homosexual. There is no proof of this, however.

1 Corinthians 7...http://tinyurl.com/2daskgh Is always a good read. Paul gives widows permission to re-marry.

What about poor old widowers...they don't even get a mention...lol

1 Corinthians 7:8-9 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.

But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

So the only reason a single person or Widow should marry is if they burn with passion, and can't contain themselves...WOW!

Sorry to all those burning ex-widows for me pointing this out....lol Ya little devils...lol

Jesus said this on Eunuchs...Matthew http://tinyurl.com/2695x6e

And this is the verse that the Catholic Encyclopaedia justifies Clergy Celibacy....http://tinyurl.com/2yp5o

Yet Paul has this to say about Bishops according to the Catholic Encyclopaedia...1 Timothy 3...http://tinyurl.com/28d89gz

But in 1 Timothy 3:10 He says ".....they should have NO CRIME"

How then do the Churches who have moved criminal clergy justify their actions?

Could this be Satan at work from within? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7056689.ece

So if organisations have made so many "man made decisions" that can be shown to be at odds with the GOD they say they follow, should we trust any of their decisions?

If women can't see that an organisation who rules against the ordination of women is wrong, then should those women at least hang their heads in shame for letting down their fellow women?

What does 1 Timothy 4:1-3.....http://tinyurl.com/24nxx76 warn us about some will forbid marriage? And what does that mean?

At some time or other, do Christians need to question whether their church follows GOD's instructions or instructions made up by men?

Opinionated2.. if, like me, you believe that men created gods, then the answer is provided therein.

I rather like this song, which explains all we need to know, about the origins of gods anyway:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9bMi4s_yOE

That said, I have no issue with any of us wondering if we do have a 'purpose', particularly if that assists in developing a greater sense of cooperation.

Also, one should never sneeze at the real, positive as well as negative, effect of the social glue that religion provides.

I appreciate the good bits, but do not believe they are exclusive to 'religion'.

As for the bad bits, I am happy to put that down to 'human behaviour', but isn't that what the good bits are too?

Which rather makes me wonder what 'religion' really does for us all.

One doesn't need to be a woman involved inthe Christian Church to be affected by the Christian Church.

Read the comments by devout Christian Runner on his thread:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3834

Nor will what passes for debate such as this be found under General Discussion, it has been placed under the Elections heading. Apparently what female politicians do in the bedroom is a matter for voters.

Severin,
People with a set of moral values similar to the Churches will decide for themselves who thay will support. That the Church makes a statement on their held values does not mean people are under duress to follow as is evident in your own case. Give people the right to know. You equally express an opinion in a public place, obviously different to mine. It is called an opinion on information or held values. Obviously you do not believe in democracy, "the right to believe or express an opinion. Of course your opinion is the only worthy opinion and in Government you would enforce it upon us all.

Opinionated2:

Lots of waffle to drown out the crux of my message, which is that apostles who had known Jesus directly (and people such as the two slave women described by an observer as "deaconesses")endured terrible
tortures and execution for their refusal to deny the truth of their experiences alongside Jesus.

You refer to the Blue Bible - thanks for the link. This one is a more pleasant page to use:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2018:2-6;%20Mark%2010:15;%20Luke%2018:17

Jesus was a revolutionary in the way that he treated women, given the constraints of civil and social laws and conditions of that time. Some old diehards still insist on literal interpretation of words and stories arising in a completely foreign context. One example is the quote you provide re: "generation" - taken from the Greek 'genera' I think; as the closest word we have in our language - BUT debate continues about whether 'generation' (genera) refers to spiritual generation (as in - all belonging to the Christian family spiritually) or tribe or race.... and so on.

This is interesting too:
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/mat24.pdf

My personal method is this: I consider how Jesus is reported to have behaved and his essential lessons (like: love covers a multitude of sins) - if whatever interpretation doesn't seem to reflect what we know of Jesus; then I await further information on what the passage means or on its historical relevance, if any.

Severin:

Thanks for that; I didn't see that thread. I can't even be bothered posting on it (yet; maybe later). Can anyone recall a male EVER being accused of "sleeping his way to the top"? I can't think of anyone.

I suppose President Clinton (a great President who shouldn't have been booted IMO) could be said to have slept his way to the bottom, yet a huge following around the world (including me) mourned the loss of a great political talent.

The point being - when females get anywhere the accusation often arises that they used their sexuality to buy a ticket upwards. Their talent (as in Julia G) is seen as secondary, if existing at all, to their bonk value.

Pynchme: <Can anyone recall a male EVER being accused of "sleeping his way to the top"? I can't think of anyone.>

=Giacomo Casanova.
He was immortalised for the feat rather than vulgarly accused, mind you. I have the two volumes of his memoirs, beautifully bound in green cloth. A wonderful read an enduring testimony to the foolishness of both sexes.

Gillard's exploits (including an affair with a married man with kids, no less, along with merely living in sin) should of course have no bearing on her suitability for office (everyone has affairs, in reality or in their minds. 'Tis the price of civility, and makes for much better sex!). Yet it does, and these are the issues that seem to be dragging her down in the polls, in the context of a vacuous campaign on both sides. There was a fascinating analysis on "Insiders" this morning.
Now I'm willing to bet that it's the ladies, by and large, who are here dragging morality into politics, regardless of religios persuasion?
After all, their husbands might be next!