Topic awaiting preservation: Doing Jesus II (Page 2 of 3)

Mmmm....it depends on what is meant by women being perceived as evil.

Is the perception unfair? Yes. (not that I haven't known some awfully evil women.... )

But is the statement that women have been perceived that way innacurate? Of course not.

I mean....shall we talk about Eve??

And let's look at islamic societies where women need to cover their flesh so as not to tempt men...

Society has undoubtedly portrayed women as evil throughout history. Male dominated groups have certainly enjoyed blaming women for their own shortcomings.

ohh and jade why does satan needs to snatch souls?

I have never understood the concept of hell. God has banished the angel Lucifer Morningstar from heaven, and into hell. Now wouldn't it make sense that Satan, to spite God, would make hell a rather enjoyable and luxurious place to live. That way he could persuade more people to his cause. Why would someone who is trying to overthrow God campaign by making himself sound cruel, unfair, and evil? It just doesn't make sense.

(((IN STEREO))) the Peter.Pansy way

[This message has been edited by peterpansy (edited 08-16-2003).]

As with all religious debates I shall feel compelled to say that Bhuddism rocks hard, and then my neighbor is a unitarian. She MOST DEFINATELY thinks for herself and most times she's very unique when it comes to advise or problem solving. Part of it is the kind of person she is, and the other part I believe is her religion.

Secondly, my AP Psychology Teacher in highschool who I loved very much was catholic. She was awesome. She didn't press anyone to convert ever in or out of school, instead I remember her for her interest in Harry Potter, and stories of her daughter. She died of cancer early summer this year. And going to the funeral, I feel like there was a lot of LOVE in the church for her. Sure, a lot of christians were in there but religions aren't really all about following rules, or conforming to jesus. I think it's like a guide for making better people. Jesus could have been fictional for all I know, and in that case I admire the author for writing about a great hero who is worth following. And in that way I guess I am a little christian too.

Shine and shine. :: [Cell=992] :: [See my team's 30 second animation!! ]

quote:

---

1. It was only until recent times that women could actually lead a congregation. Up until then the highest level a woman could reach in the church was that of a Mother Superior and in the eyes of the church, she still held less power than the local priests. In the Catholic Church, a woman cannot even be a priest.

---

MD
Your correct here. In my faith, today women are not allowed to be priest. But that doesn't mean the role of women in the church is not esteemed. They are viewed as caretakers of the faith in that they nurture and shape the newborn Christians from infancy. They are a powerful force within the church. More women assist in lay positions than men do. The church does not veiw them as subordiate to men, but with different roles. In my family, my mother was the one who taught us to do chores with love and self sacrifice. She taught us of the lives of saints and how we could imitate them. She along with my father instilled in us a great love for all people, regardless of race, or creed.

In the beginnings of Christianity though, women were instrumental in the start & in safegarding of the faith of the church. There were many Christian women who were maryters and there were also women priest . Through the history of the faith, the teachings on the role of women in the church have evolved into the teachings of today. We believe the early church in its infancy with the help of the Holy Spirit is guided in matters of faith and doctrine to what it teaches today. So we may question it, but we must obey. We probably have an opinion about women in the priesthood, but we have to be submissive. The system of our faith is not like a democracy. Christ is in charge and the absolute ruler and king. If it was like a democracy, we would have splintered off into thousands of Christian sects. Sure, we think for ourselves, but we must be obediant to Christ.

Women are are not allowed to act in the role of "persona in Christi"(acting in place of Christ in the power to change bread & wine to his body and blood). This ritual of transubstanciation is the whole focus of our what our faith centers upon. The view of the church is that Christ handed these powers to men. And the church in keeping with this tradition will not change it. If I don't believe it this, should I leave the church and find a faith who lets women be priest or stay and pray that Christ knows what he is doing for his family here on earth. I stay and remain faithful.

Ruski, I think peterpansy answered you question like I would have about Lucifer.

Bmud. They only thing I can say about why Christians evangelize is that its what we are called to do. Its like we have no control because the Spirit compels & propels us to act. It pushes us like puppets to go and make Christ known to all peoples. I guess the Christ in us wants us to share him like a good friend that we think everyone would love to meet. Why we can't just be content to just know Christ ourselves and leave everyone else alone only God knows.


[This message has been edited by jade (edited 08-18-2003).]

[This message has been edited by jade (edited 08-18-2003).]

On the Lucifer issue, I have a take on it that was passed on to me. As an agnostic and a psychology grad, I find religion (and its inevitable paradoxes) fascinating. Anyway, here it is, with absolutely no scriptural references to back it up:

Supposedly, God wanted to give Man free will, ever the optimist that Man could use it responsibly. Lucifer argued that Man wouldn't be able to handle free will. After his fall, Lucifer set to tempting Man to sin and thereby prove God wrong about the whole free will issue. The idea was also raised that, like God, Lucifer dislikes sin (but still insists on tempting Man, just to show God), which is why Hell is depicted as a place of torture.

So basically, Hell is a direct result of the equivalent of a bar bet between God and Lucifer.



Evil in theory, not so much in practice...

Or Lucifer could be a metaphorical reflection of the worst sadistic parts of human nature...the part that enjoys pain, especially inflicting pain and suffering on others...

That's basically what any deity in any mythos has been.

Including the judeo-christian mythos. =)

Peterpansy,

I am sorry to say I skimmed thur your post and really didn't catch the thought of it. Regarding Ruski's post, I don't think anyone knows what hell really is. Its a burning, but what kind of burning, who knows. I try to imagine when burning a needle or sharp object to purify it and then I think of a purging of the soul for being totally pure without contamination to prepare to face the almighty God, the only one who can do any damage. Because with the Lucifer your the pawn and the doer. In hell the burn doesn't purify, but maybe its a hurting, burning, aching. Or maybe if you could think of life without hope it would be a hell. Like being a life long prisoner without parole incarcerated in a small cubicle or being in a situation where hope was lost & dead. I am so blessed in waking up AM for the hope of good day, a good tommorrow or week, month, and so on. Some of us love to sieze the moment. For Christians, in regard to Lucifer, the deceiver, the father of lies, trickster, illusionist, ect., evil gets us confused on what is good. Like if feels good, it must be good, so do it. If it looks good, it must be good or good for you. Or how could something that feels so good, be so wrong? God would think this is good. Satan confuses the mind into thinking its kind of evil is good and comes from God. So you think Evil is God. For Christians, even in all this bad, good can come from it if the soul is able to see Satan for its evil and is able get out of its clutches. Maybe the tormented soul can advise others thru experience not to go there where it has been.

[This message has been edited by jade (edited 08-18-2003).]

[This message has been edited by jade (edited 08-18-2003).]

so what are you telling jade is that since Jesus handed man power and stuff and not to women so thats like he pretty much IS sayint women are lower than men(or in whatever way you say it) thats is catholic way of thinking but it seems christians dont agree on that with you.

now since God is all powerful and he knows that satan is confusing his children=humans why dont he just destroy satan I mean cmon big guy, you like to see us tempted? hehe what you said jade in all those post represents fanaticism, no joke about it.

Its kinda fun to read

jade-

quote:

---

If it was like a democracy, we would have splintered off into thousands of Christian sects.

---

And how many denominations of Christianity (recognized or not) are in existence today?

quote:

---

The view of the church is that Christ handed these powers to men.

---

This is the point that I am trying to make about the distinction between Faith (the belief) and Practice (the religion) Show me where in Christ's teachings it is said that women cannot perform "ritual of transubstantiation "! This is, as you stated, the view of the church! This view was determined by mortal men based on Biblical interpretation and on their own bias and assumption. If you can show me where in the Bible it states that women are not allowed to administer communion, then I will happily eat my words regarding this particular example.

Also, you neglected to address my second point regarding the Burning Times. A woman who did not go to church on Sunday as recently as the 1600's was regarded as a heretic and subject to intense scrutiny or accused of being a witch. It mattered not if she were laying in bed desperately ill. This was then explained as punishment for consorting with Satan or other such nefarious activity. It was simply assumed that due to a woman's inherently wicked nature, she was guilty. Truly a sad state of affairs and very much unlike the happy picture you painted above.

I am going to reiterate this one more time: This example was simply used to illustrate the distinction between Belief and Application- they are not one in the same.

Here is another example: One of the Commandments is to Remember the Sabbath day and Keep it Holy. Who decided that the Sabbath should be celebrated on Sunday? In the Jewish tradition, Sabbath begins on Friday night - but someone along the way decided that the Christian Sabbath should be on Sunday. Who it was doesn't matter. The fact of the matter is, the Bible does not state that Sunday must be the day of rest. "Sunday" did not exist before the Gregorian or Julian calendar. The current western calendar did not come into existance until several hundred years after Christianity was an established religion. But it has been the stance of many churches that you are sinful if you do not attend church on Sunday. What does it matter what day you spend in meditation and rest, contemplating the Holiness of God & Christ? It doesn't - so long as a practitioner of the Faith, you remember that even God took a day of rest. I really don't think He cares if that day happens to be a Wednesday.

The reason it does seem to matter? The church basically said: "Theology: Leave the thinking to us."


[edit]durn greek suffixes[/edit]


[This message has been edited by Moon Dancer (edited 08-19-2003).]

Jade - So....what you're saying is, you're allowed to think for your self, so long as you agree with and are submissive to (even if you do actually disagree with) the church.....?

For the record, that's not really considered thinking for your self =)

Moon Dancer - Hurray!

quote:

---

. . . After all, a closed mind is a safe soul.
Wesley Treat 2003

---

ThanQ Wes.

And I see way too many Christian parents embracing that philosophy when raising their kids.

Jesus was the Son of God.

Are you alive?

Ruski said:

quote:

---

so what are you telling jade is that since Jesus handed man power and stuff and not to women so thats like he pretty much IS sayint women are lower than men(or in whatever way you say it) thats is catholic way of thinking but it seems christians dont agree on that with you.

---

You've got to understand from jade's perspective, Ruski. When she says Jesus set it up that way, she is going on the word of her church which she believes is directly led by the Holy Spirit through its leaders. You are correct in saying that some Christians don't agree that women should not be allowed to lead. I happen to be one of them.

However, you should know that I only came to that decision a few years ago after much study and consideration on the subject. Before that time, I believed very strongly that the New Testament said women could not hold leadership positions. But then I came across a section in one of Paul's letters that gave instructions on how women were to preach in church. If the very person I had thought prohibited women from preaching was instructing them the proper way of doing it, then I must have had something wrong. That is just one example of how my thinking changed on the subject of women's role in God's kingdom.

I am not so quick to judge people who disagree with me because we are all learning as we go. I find the time is far better spent making positive arguments in favor of the things I believe are right. Minds can be changed, I'm proof of that

Moon Dancer, how many different sects of Xianity? It's got to be in the thousands by now

I wanted to chime in on the Sabbath versus Lord's Day thingy. The Sabbath was and is Saturday. That has never changed. The view that the church moved the Sabbath to Sunday is not quite what happened. The early Xians celebrated the resurrection which just so happened to have been on the first day of the week. The early church also met on this day because most of them still observed the Sabbath, since they were virtually all Jewish In fact, observing the Sabbath is still a *very* good idea, it's just not required of Xians.

And there is also no requirement for having "church" on Sunday. In fact, our congregation has two services on Sunday morning and one on Thursday evening. There is nothing wrong with that, at all, and I would argue it is crazy to limit worship services to Sunday alone when there are people who work on Sunday morning or whose schedules make it very difficult to attend that day. Even Christ Himself said that the Sabbath was made for man and *not* the other way round.

Thanks for that insight, Bugimus. I guess where my issue comes in is the disparity between her views on women within the church and what I imagine is a woman who would fight tooth and nail for women's rights in the social and political world. How can women who want equality be so blind to the, dare I say 'oppressive', views of the church?

It's like women who move here with their families from the Middle East to escape the opression of that life and start a new one here and yet they accept the opression of their husbands and continue to wear the traditional clothes and give up other freedoms that they fought so hard to get for their families. Like the ability to vote. I've heard that these women are only allowed to vote by their husbands if they vote the way their husband votes. They are being used to further their husband's wants, not their own. I just don't understand. It frustrates me because I don't understand. That why it drives me to the edge of anger when I can't get 'real' answers out of someone.

*Shakes head* I just don't UNDERSTAND how people who believe so strongly can do so in such a blind fashion. Gabriel, our newest *ahem*, how am I ever going to learn anything from him if he won't talk to me just because I believe something different? What a shameful state of events. No wonder the world is so screwed up. People won't F*ing TALK to each other. Screw agreement, just F*ing TALK.

Gee, Gabriel, thanks for that compelling insight.



Bugimus - that's exactly the type of thing I have a problem with.
You beleived one thing, because you thought that's what the bible said. Then you found something that contradicted that thought, and so your beleifs change.

I don't understand that.

Not to say beleifs can't change, or that anyone is wrong for changing their view of something. I just can't fathom the idea of changing your stance based on such things...

GD, I think I can understand why some women are content to remain oppressed but I cannot appreciate that decision. But I can think of some situations where a woman is raised from childhood to remain in her place and constantly beaten down at any hint of individuality

DL-44, you stated what happened perfectly and it is so perfectly clear what is there not to understand about it? I read through the NT and got a certain understanding from what I had to work with at the time. As I learned more and read more carefully I got a more accurate understanding of what was written. What am I missing in that process? It seems to me to be quite appropriate and proper.

Let me give you some more detail to see if it helps. I attend a church that comes from a particular movement begun early in this nation's history. The movement intended to shed as many "man made" doctrines and "religiosity" in an attempt to get back to modeling the implementation of the Xian faith more after the early church. It is assumed, of course, that the early church was more correct than what it became shortly after the death of the apostles and the few hundred eye witnesses of the resurrection.

So my church taught that women were allowed to teach children and other women in bible studies and such but were not to teach men. That was based on primarily, but not limited to, this verse by Paul:

quote:

---

I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

---

That sounds pretty clear and if you assume that Paul meant ALL women for ALL time are subject to that rule, then your path is clear. That verse really sticks out and is so direct that it tends to be retained more readily compared with this verse by the same guy:

quote:

---

And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head?it is just as though her head were shaved.

---

Did he berate the church that allowed women to pray and preach? Nope, he simply gave instructions on the proper way to do it.

So you can draw a few different conclusions from this. You could say that it is all just a bunch of crap and this is just an excellent example of how screwed up the entire thing is and it should be thrown onto the trash heap of history along with all the rest of man's asenine mythological concoctions of ignorance. (sorry got a little carried away there) Or you could say that Paul changed his mind from city to city as he traveled. Or you could say that every church had its own set of problems and needed different solutions. The third makes the most sense to me at this point in my studies.

There are several other things that you will find in the NT that should illustrate that women were intended to be lifted out of the cultural oppression that had existed for literally centuries prior. The entire gospel of Luke is very powerful in this regard. The way he wrote was unheard of in his day. Every time he includes a parable of Jesus' about a man he mirrors it with that concerning a woman. It seems quite clear upon a close study of that book that Luke did this intentionally to elevate the status of women in the newly born kingdom that Christ had established.

I don't know if that helped. If not, then I need to better understand what part of my changing my mind based on more information is problematic to you.

Yes, the process is very clear.

The reasoning is what I do not understand. Because there are a couple of verses in the bible that allude to one person claiming that a woman should act the way he thinks she should act, you'll base your way of life around it?

And because you read a little more that alludes to somehting a bit different, you'll change the way you live your life based on it?

That is what I don't understand.

I am also somehwat confused at how someone like yourslef who is so vehemently against racism could be swayed to rather blatantly sexist simply because Paul says so (I know, it's not *just* based on that...).

I can (to an extent) understand the faith, and the following of Jesus' word devoutly. But, we're talking about Paul. I know Paul is an important figure, but....we're moving from following Jesus to following Paul....

And it seems that it should take far mroe than a couple of verses in the bible that that quote one person to base a life-view on.

I do have respect for the fact that your church has moved in the direction that it has. I think it's important to at least go back before the coruption of Rome if you're going to be a christian.

But we're still talking about what seems to me as rather arbitrary verses, and more social in nature than religious.

DL,

Sometimes I wonder if your a protestant christian in disguise with all this resentment against Rome. You sure stay in religious debates like a devil's advocate, trying to bring up all these views against christianity. More like you are trying to get topics discussed to shoot them down or reveal hypocrisy.

Who really are you?

You are interesting. I try to read thru your post to get a revelation of who your hiding in your skin.



[This message has been edited by jade (edited 08-20-2003).]

Bugs-I was raised catholic

DL - You save me so much posting time, it's scary. Your willingness to question and question with reason and logic to get to the truth (or at least the point, in case the truth is too relative) kinda reminds me of that "Scrubbing Bubbles" tub cleaner commercial: "New DL-44 with his scrubbing bubbles (er, questions). DL-44 posts... so you don't have to!"

In case the preceeding made no sense, please feel free to ignore it.

Now then... game on!

Haha! I like that =)

Jade - It really isn't all that complicated. A lot of people tend to really overcomplicate their view of my view (if that makes sense....).

I summed it up earlier - I question. When things don't make sense, I ask. If the explanation still doesn't make sense, I try to explain why it doesn't make sense to me.

I'm not out to debunk anything. I'm not out to shoot anything down.

Reveal hypocrisy? Sure, why not. Is that wrong? Are we susposed to bury our heads in the sand and pretend we don't notice the contradictions in religious doctrine? That seems rather counterproductive...

I am not anti-Rome either. But regardless of your religion, you can't deny that Rome was an extremely corrupt empire - and bringing in christianity did not change that, especially seeing as they cahnged christianity around to suit their own purposes.

You look at it from the singular and biased view of your religion. I look at it from an objective historical view - the religion means nothing to me, so I have no reason to hold any bias for any particular sect of it...

I am not hiding anything under my skin. In fact, I do everything possible to lay it all out as plainly as possible. But most people tend to focus so much on seeing what's "under" it, that they don't see what's right there...




[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 08-20-2003).]

Bugimus-
If you could please point me to the verses that you quoted, I would appreciate it. I would like to read the whole passages to get the context.
Thanks!

Well, I don't buy it all. You harbor some bias and you are searching too. Or else you wouldn't be posting. Don't depend on the faithful to fully explain the answers if you are not receptive to it. Some thoughts just can't be answered because maybe you refused to be open to them too. Not all can be explained.

MD, first verse is 2 Timothy 2:9, the other is 1 Cor 11:5.

chris


KAIROSinteractive

Thank you, Fig.

quote:

---

But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God. 1 Corinthians 11:16

---

Now, I am understanding this to mean that the previous verses of instructions are recommendations regarding how women should worship. If the peoples of the region find it offensive for a woman to cover her head, ( I am reading this to be both literal and figurative - there is someother meaning that I think is being alluded to) then they should not let this instruction bar their way to the path of Christ.

And as I was reading this passage, I just had one observation to make...

quote:

---

Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? 1 Corinthians 11:14

---

Don't the majority of representations of Christ portray him with long hair? (Tangent - I know... )

Jade - you take yourself far too seriously.

I am biased - against people who can only spit out pre-fab answers that usually mean very little.

Am I searching? In a way. I'm not looking for "the truth" or "the light" or any other such nonsense. I look for what makes people think the way they do. That's what drives me to learn most of what I learn. I like understanding the way the human mind works.

I am not relying on anyone to explain the mystical or divine to me. I am not searching for a savior I ask questions that anyone who truly believes what they preach and have truly questioned those beliefs can answer. People who regurgitate or blindly accept what they've been fed tend to react negatively...

I feel I have answered others in keeping with that.

I post because I love to learn, and I hope that I can share something. But of course, you take everything I say in regard to religion negatively, and outright omit the possibility that there might be something in what I say.

That's your perogative...


{edit -

as I reread your post, it's quite funny - Yes, you caught me! I'm a protestant in disguise out to bring down catholicism under the veil of atheism so we can take our rightful place in the world!

lmao

}

[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 08-21-2003).]

For sure DL, Didn't you know I meant to be funny?

I wasn't serious. I don't take your words to heart like you don't take mine to heart. But your heart does beat like mine so we are the same, but then, not the same.

But you are searching. That I can read. All mankind is searching for something out there. You are not immune. And I don't think of my views in my post as a regurgitating, like vomit. Vomit stinks. I don't think my words of Jesus have a foul odor. They are like vomit to you because you have alientated yourself from believing that a certain human man could be worshipped as a Godman. To you, it so ignorant for believers to think that way, like the blind leading the blind. For you to believe that way would be stepping out of your human intellect. I know to spiritually make a connection outside of youself like a "ET phone home", would be so beneath your character and would show a weakness in intellect.

MD

I will answers you questions regarding in reference to women in the priesthood and sunday worship. I would have to make a little long post of it as I want to give you more of an explanation. I will get to my computer at home without disruptions and send. Sorry.

You aren't understanding what he meant, Jade. He isn't saying that he doesn't like what your saying (at least not as you mean). he's saying that you aren't saying things from you own distinct point of view. You are plopping scripture and other people's words in your posts and giving us none of your own. You are taking yourself out of the arguement and letting other people argue for you basically. We want to know YOUR flaver of Faith. It should be different from everyone elses. Right now it's the same as everyone elses because it's using everyone elses answers. Where are YOUR answers?

quote:

---

NO EXCESSIVE QUOTING - Open minded discussion requires statements of belief and an understanding of other beliefs. There can be no understanding if someone elses words are used. It gives no real information about the person speaking.

---

I stand by this. Until things are explained in words that are only your own I have a hard time seeing YOU in your responses. I don't trust words. I do trust people. Put yourself in your words so I can know YOU. Then I can trust what you say.

GD

But your not understanding me. I believe in those words I speak. I am those words. Do I seem like a person who doesn't know their own mind or feelings because I choose to follow Jesus like a blind person. Why is it so impossible to believe from the outside looking in I know my real self because I choose to be RC. You think I believe because I am dictated to believe, but I believe because I feel a deepness & richness in it. Do I seem like I repeat myself over and over again and say the same words. Can you not tell what kind of person I am thru my words? I too have been on the outside looking in because of a hardend heart thru despair, hopelessness, sickness, opression and neglect so I know whats out there. I have seen darkness and know that being faithful requires much strength. I like many others fight evil every day. So I beliveve that qualifies me on being able to think for myself on what I choose or choose not to believe.



[This message has been edited by jade (edited 08-21-2003).]

And that would be the first time I've read a post of your that was all from you. You didn't quote anything, you didn't just say things again and again. You wrote with FEELING. I could FEEL your hurt and anger at being questioned like this. That is what I've been after. Explainations and discussions that carry the feelings behind your faith. I can't see and/or feel the wonderment you do if you don't show it. Your posts, up to that last one have seemed very automated, mechanical almost. Hopefully you understand what I'm saying. And hopefully you'll continue to open yourself in more ways then hurt and anger. I do apologize for insighting those feelings in you, but... I think I achieved my intent.

no sorrys accepted. no apology neccessary.

I must admit I feel better connected to you if that makes any sense after reading your post.

Jade- you are so funny.

Then again "God" can mean different things to different people. Some may think its ghostly figure who looks like a man as described in bible, others might think its energy, others say its "love" and whatever else they might have in mind individualy is different oppinion ...so like since we dont have an explanation of what the hell "god" is, how can we believe in something like that?


Yeah sure bible says he is alpha and omega and blah blah, so like duh it prevents us from questioning the truth...
basicly teaching us,[ yeah stay stupid, dont question shit, just believe in me or else you gonna burn in hell...sorry dude, I am loving and forgiving but you gonna have to go to hell because I didnt provide no shit of evidence of me and since you dont understand bible or it sounds too supernatural for you to believe in it, then you gonna have to go to hell .]

then comes Jesus...Yeah I know he existed, but in history book I see no evidence of him resurected or performing miracles...and the way he speaks sounds really hyporcritic...


He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. (Matt. 12:30)

sounds like I really really must chose either him or hell...interesting, but it seems I have other options in life


You are my friends if you do what I command you. (John 15:14)


so like yeah I have to become his bitch huh? or else (once again) I am going to hell.




He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:16)


so it seems most of my freinds are going to hell...how sad...ohh it seems ghandi is also in hell.


well what can I say there are millions of bible sentences that are pretty close minded and stuff...

ohh jeez I am not gonna bother arguing anymore, I did better enjoy reading the whole post *grabs popcorn*

quote:

---

I know to spiritually make a connection outside of youself like a "ET phone home", would be so beneath your character and would show a weakness in intellect.

---

I know you like to think that, because it makes you feel better to think that atheists have no spirituality...that not beleiveing in your "godman" means that they are empty shells only capable of self interest and cold logic.

But you are very very wrong, Jade, and you show your arrogance vastly by such statements. You speak of alienating....you have wrapped yourself so thick in your doctrine that you alienate any other possibilities.

I, on the other hand, am open to all possibilities...though I may have strong opinions on which ones are "right".

And yes, of course, like any other being, I search. But not in the way that you see it.
You look at anyone who doesn't believe as you do to simply have not "found" it yet.

I'm not looking for what you have =)
Quite frankly, I don't think you have found what you preach about. You seem to try too hard to convince yourself that it is so.....

And yes, I am sure that you believe the words and thoughts that you regurgitate. Whether you believe them was never in question...

But of course, we're simply rounding that circle one more time here...




[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 08-22-2003).]

ruski, all i'll say about your bible comments is to
a. read things in context
b. actually read them

nowhere in the bible does it say not to question, that may be a church position in some denominations but its not biblical. if you have a question about something related to christianity then actually READ and do some research on it, don't take a simple denial from a teacher or parent for an answer. if you end there and just give up i can't say you're much better off than those ignorant christians you seem so quick to condemn.

chris


KAIROSinteractive

DL-44, I've been thinking a lot about your earlier post. If nothing else, please know that I always consider your opinions and questions and I appreciate your honesty.

You said:

quote:

---

I can (to an extent) understand the faith, and the following of Jesus' word devoutly. But, we're talking about Paul. I know Paul is an important figure, but....we're moving from following Jesus to following Paul....

---

I'm pretty sure that I have never had anyone put it to me quite like that before. Basically my faith hinges on the Resurrection. You know I believe that really happened and that is why I put my faith and trust in Him for *everything*.

When I say everything, I mean it in the sense that I am bought and payed for. Christ *owns* me. Starting from there, you have to understand that the same scriptures that convince me of Christ, convince me that Christ gave His authority to the apostles to carry on th work he began. In Acts we see how the Holy Spirit filled the apostles with the power to do miracles just like Jesus had done. The early church followed their leadership. It is no leap for me, who beleives the early church had it right, to trust in the apostles teachings as the early church did. Keep in mind that virtually all we know about Christ was written by these guys.

Now we come to Paul. A man that had never been a follower of Christ before and even after his crucifixion. I believe that Paul really was confronted by Christ himself on the road to Damascus. I believe Christ gave Paul the authority to be an apostle and when Paul spoke about matters concerning theology, I believe it is about as close to hearing Christ's voice as it gets. *That* is why I can make a live-view change based on my understanding of his teaching.

If I believe God is asking me to do something, I'm going to be extremely inclined to oblige. If I really believed that God wanted me to be a sexist, I would be one. That goes for any other "wrong" thing as well. Happily, that is not the case and I have every confidence that the urgings of the Holy Spirit will guide me to being a better human being and not a worse one. It is possible to misunderstand what God wants and that is why it is so vital to study the scriptures and pray to be able to clearly hear what He's asking one to do.

The way I view the authority of Paul in these matters is very similar, if not identical, to how jade views the authority of the holy father in Rome. She and I part in that I don't believe the authority that Paul and the other apostles had could be passed on indefinitely. I believe the powers that the apostles had could be passed on to other followers *but* those followers could not pass it on to others. I believe God structured it that way in order to ensure His church would survive its infancy. Once the apostle's teachings were canonized we are now able to continue in those teachings with the written word.

I suppose I could go on and on about this but I think I've addressed your main question which was about Paul.


[edit]
Moon Dancer:

quote:

---

Now, I am understanding this to mean that the previous verses of instructions are recommendations regarding how women should worship. If the peoples of the region find it offensive for a woman to cover her head, ( I am reading this to be both literal and figurative - there is someother meaning that I think is being alluded to) then they should not let this instruction bar their way to the path of Christ.

---

That's right. Those were instructions on how women in that area were to behave in the worship gatherings. I can tell you that we don't insist on women covering their heads in our church. But it may interest you to know that many churches have stressed that rule for the women based on that verse.

. . : slicePuzzle

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 08-25-2003).]

Intersting.

It still seems to me though, that what Paul was saying in that and other verses was of a social nature, in keeping with society's views of men/women at the time, and not a 'religious rule' of any kind.

Is there no differentiation of such things? Do you accept the total package of the society in which the religion was started, or are you only interested in the religion? Where is the line drawn between absolute word for word following, and educated interpretation?