1 Corinthians 14:34 "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

Isn't it true that this prejudiced quote from the Bible affects the role of women in Christianity? In England there has much controversy of women wanting to become vicars priests etc. and only recently has this been allowed. A female bishop has yet to be seen.

Yet the head of the Church of England is a woman - Queen Elizabeth II

Prejudice and Hypocrisy!

It is not like women had much worth in the bible.


"Behold the day of the Lord is coming, when the spoil taken from you will be divided in the midst of you. For I will gather the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city shall be taken and the houses plundered and the women ravished..."
..........Zachariah 14:1

"...I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the light of this sun."
..........2 Samuel 12:11

"Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives..."
..........Romans 7:2

"For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman but woman for man."
..........1 Corinthians, 11:8

"As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church."
..........1 Corinthians 14:34


No, the bible ain´t nice on women.

But the guys over in England are protestants. They seperated themselves from the common christian teachings.

But the guys over in England are protestants. They seperated themselves from the common christian teachings.

Not true, In England there is a good mixture of Protestant (Church of England) and Catholics, along with minor Christian denominations such as Methodist, Presbyterian, etc.

Just curious though, what do you mean by "They seperated themselves from the common christian teachings" ?

:)

Hah!!!

Are you serious?? Have you seen "The Magdalene Sisters"?!

"Women can work towards their salvation by praying and obeying God. In order to save a man, what tempts him must be removed -- the woman."

Hah!!!

Are you serious?? Have you seen "The Magdalene Sisters"?!

"Women can work towards their salvation by praying and obeying God. In order to save a man, what tempts him must be removed -- the woman."

Sexual discrimination is rife in religion eh! :)

Just curious though, what do you mean by "They seperated themselves from the common christian teachings" ?

There is a difference between old catholic belief and protestant belief.
For protestants it is all right to get divorced, for example.
(that was also a reason why the protestant church was created, wasn´t it?)

There is a difference between old catholic belief and protestant belief.
For protestants it is all right to get divorced, for example.
(that was also a reason why the protestant church was created, wasn´t it?)
Yes, that was Henry's argument with Rome, but apart from that - what else?

You said teachings, as in plural?

There is a difference between old catholic belief and protestant belief.
For protestants it is all right to get divorced, for example.
(that was also a reason why the protestant church was created, wasn´t it?)

Thats why the church of england was formed. so that henery could keep trying new woman to find one who would give him a son.

All Praise The Ancient of Days

I suppose you have to ask someone who knows a bit more about protestants and catholics than me. I only learned about it in history lessons and there, the information was kept rather general. (I might also have forgotten some of the things I learned)
I suppose both churches also disagree on matters concerning the social place of women.

"Women can work towards their salvation by praying and obeying God. In order to save a man, what tempts him must be removed -- the woman."
And the Magdalene Sisters was a prime description of what happens when men and women decide to do God's work, that amounts to rejecting what He has already done. Salvation was provided by Christ for humanity, without destinction. It is not for us to separate ourselves from each other to remove sin, because separation is the result of sin. Paul said a man and his wife could separate for a time,but should "... come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of selfcontrol." (1 Cor. 7:5).

The movie told me this: we can't flee from sin - our refuge will become our prison.

Jenyar, What does this tell you?:-

1 Corinthians 14:34 "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

Dreamwalker
... and the city shall be taken and the houses plundered and the women ravished..." (Zachariah 14:1)
Have you seen Troy? Listen to what they say the Greeks would do to the women and children. Whoever weren't soldiers were spoils of war. It was by no means confined to the Bible.
"...I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the light of this sun." (2 Samuel 12:11)
As a sign of disgrace. These things were abhorrent, and that's why the above is such a threat.
"Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives..." (Romans 7:2)
Considering that women had no legal status of their own, being bound to the husband by law actually gave her rights. If it was such a bad thing, why are homosexuals, for instance, fighting for that right today?
"For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman but woman for man." (1 Corinthians, 11:8)
Read a little further: verses 11-12 say "In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God."

So the women is legally bound to the man, and the man is legally bound to God... Think a little - what status does that logically give to women? v.11 and 12 explains that it's not a hierarchy, but a unit. "And they shall become one" (Gen. 2:24).

Consider this commentary on the "submission" passages in Col.3 and Ephesians:
“The section [Ephesians] 5:21–6:9 addresses what we call “household codes.” In Paul's day, many Romans were troubled by the spread of “religions from the East” (e.g., Isis worship, Judaism and Christianity), which they thought would undermine traditional Roman family values. Members of these minority religions often tried to show their support for those values by using a standard form of exhortations developed by philosophers from Aristotle on. These exhortations about how the head of a household should deal with members of his family usually break down into discussions of husband-wife, father-child and master-slave relationships. Paul borrows this form of discussion straight from standard Greco-Roman moral writing. But unlike most ancient writers, Paul undermines the basic premise of these codes: the absolute authority of the male head of the house.” - The Bible Background Commentary-NT. Keener, Craig. S. , IVP, 1993.
See The Rights of Women According to Roman Law (http://www.womenpriests.org/traditio/infe_rom.htm) and Women in History - Roman Law (http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/bl1911_womenc.htm) for a comparison.

"As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church." (1 Corinthians 14:34)
Again, read a little further. The concern is propriety and order. A Jewish synagogues separates men and women, and each had their place. The original churches were founded on this model.

Later on we see women held churches in their houses, as in Colossians 4:15 "Give my greetings to the brothers at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house." and Lydia (Acts 16), who housed Paul after his release from prison (v.40). Not to mention deaconesses like Phoebe at the church in Cenchrea (Rom. 16:1).

In the Bible the emphasis is on submission to God - which I have explained consistently means love. You'll frequently see the term "in Christ", That is what "obedience" means. But Paul has a Pharisaic (orthodox Jewish) background, and contextualizes this "liberation" within the established order. He does not encourage rebelliousness, but love, as demonstrated by Christ.
Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

PS. As a side note: Remember that the gospels indicate that women were the eye-witnesses of the empty grave?

Women could not testify to the truth of something. Their testimonies were inadmissable in courts. But did the gospel writers change the accounts to make it more "believable"? Instead, they report that Jesus scolded the disciples for not believing the women.

I do know that ultimately women are the same as men to god.
But on earth they are not. They were obviously considered inferior to men.

And I know that women were raped by the vikings, the greeks, soldiers in general. But the vikings did not have a bible, did they?
You have to agree that some sections in the bible shed a bad light on the religoin.

And I know that women were raped by the vikings, the greeks, soldiers in general. But the vikings did not have a bible, did they?
Remember, while the things that are written in the Bible were happening, those people didn't have the "Bible" as we know it, either. The important thing is that they eventually came to realize they were on the wrong side of the justice they thought they were dealing, as everybody will.

You have to agree that some sections in the bible shed a bad light on the religoin.
I agree that some sections (if not most of it) shed a bad light on humanity. And I think it's something people should take note of, not reject because it's "religious".

I am aware that such things are a fault of humanity. But when they are written in the holy scriptures of a supposedly peaceful and loving religion, it makes you think twice.

the Hebrews weren't so peaceful and loving - they were as harsh in dealing with their enemies as any of the ancient nation, although they were a minority and were otherwise insignificant. But they had prophets and people who knew God, and God chose them from among all nations to represent Him on earth. That does not automatically make them much better than they really were.

The prophets told them what God's will was, and where they were lacking. Their laws and prophecies were more a learning school than a great advancement in morality. But it slowly revealed God's nature to them. They got to know the God of creation, and through them, we got to know Him as well. Jesus' saying "nobody is good except God" is true. To imagine Judaism or Christianity as above the trappings of sin, cruelty and corruption undermines this truth, but it doesn't change the fact that God revealed it, so that we could see ourselves in the mirror, so to speak.

The major religions; Christianity, Islam, Judaism, are simply patriarcal obscentities. They were invented by men for men at times when women were treated as little more than their slaves.

Kat

That´s true Kat, according to the bible women had only slightly more rights than slaves. Alas, the bible is hard on both. Only the god-believing/fearing men had real rights.


It somehow looks like the present christians get rather one dimensional in their thinking about god. They seem to ignore the bad sides.

There was nothing to invent. People don't invent religions now to justify oppression, and they didn't need it then. Why don't you blame evolution for making men stronger? Men took on a role nature gave them, and now out of your emancipated 21st century couch you condemn them for it.

Besides, Ether and Ruth were heroes of the faith, and they were women.

That´s true Kat, according to the bible women had only slightly more rights than slaves. Alas, the bible is hard on both. Only the god-believing/fearing men had real rights.
See "Women were non-persons back then in the OT--they had NO legal rights in the system at all!" (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/wnolegal.html) and "Sure, women could be prophets, but they couldn't participate in government." (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/wnoking.html)


Deborah was actually a national 'judge' (like Samuel)
One woman built three cities (and named one after herself)
The Sage-women were local city elder-types.
Each king had a dominant queen--for good or ill! (cf. Jezebel)
Queen mothers functioned as vice-Kings, to the point that one could rule the land for 7 years without a king on the throne--and no one had a problem with it...
Even some of the prophetesses were attached to the court--Huldah was probably a court-prophet (and was married to a court official).
There were female scribes (originally a court position) that returned under Ezra.
They had access to the king and to legal courts.
There were female singers (and male singers) that had court assignments.
They assisted in rebuilding the Walls of Jerusalem.

Perhaps, but there were male slaves. And the bible advocated slavery.
If the slave was no christian it was all right to own him.
Did nature make christians stronger in order to enable them to have slaves?

jen,

And was this pervasive or the exception?

Perhaps, but there were male slaves. And the bible advocated slavery.
If the slave was no christian it was all right to own him.
Did nature make christians stronger in order to enable them to have slaves?
I don't want to turn this thread into one about slavery - I've posted at length about that elsewhere. But are you aware the the whole epistle to Philemon is Paul asking him to free his runaway slave Onesimus and welcome him as an equal, even a brother. This was while Roman law permitted you to kill a slave that ran away.
Phil.1:15 Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back for good -- no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a man and as a brother in the Lord.
Anyway, can you name one - just one - passage where the Bible encourages slavery? What about Abraham's slave Hagar, whose child Ishmael God makes into a great nation? The most we hear of slavery, is that Israel themselves will be given over to slavery. Slavery is seen as a sign of oppression and power, and God has the power to deliver us from it. God encourages us to be free, from human slavery if possible, but from slavery to sin above all.
1 Corinthians 7:21 Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you–although if you can gain your freedom, do so.
And was this pervasive or the exception?
I assume you mean "women in prominent positions"? It seems to be neither the rule nor the exception. We never hear about the "King of Sheba", it's the Queen of Sheba who comes to see Solomon. But I hardly expect to see an equal amount of men and women in power simply because women aren't inferior. One has to account for tradition, culture and many things that don't simply change because of principles.

Yeah, you are right. Sorry about the change of direction.

Jenyar,

There have indeed been a number of powerful women in history but these do tend to be the exceptions. I have immense respect for them since they certainly would have had to have overcome enormous resistance to achieve what they did.

But in religion they have not done so well.

In Judaism women rabbis have only been begrudgingly permitted since 1970 and still there is fierce opposition.

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Judaism/women_rabbis.html

And in Catholicism – oh no - http://sycophants.info/women-priests.html that is still a bastion of male bigotry.

And Islam – women mullahs – what a joke.

Kat

Let's not forget that abominable woman in Revelations... :D

Kat,

That's true. Let me speak from personal experience. I've listened to a few female proponents in different churches, and for one: their voices simply didn't carry that well. Of course, I grew up with a father authority-figure. Maybe I'm old school, but still - the message should be for me as much as anyone, right?

And those who did make a powerful impression... well, let's just say it felt like it was my mother talking to me - but saying something I expected to hear from my father. Before you become agitated about that, let me explain - and I think many people have a similar feeling: when you think of warmth, comfort, personal attention and a soft touch - is it your father that automatically comes to mind? On the other hand, when people who have had a hard time, setbacks or suffering in their lives, and they're looking for someone that isn't "threatening", for prayer or counselling or just conversation - they're more open towards the women. Men automatically tend to try to solve the problem, women have a natural empathy that's comforting. One is not more important than the other.

The qualities that convey strength and authority, or beauty and empathy, does not lie in ability alone.

It's a sensitive subject. I think that, everybody has their gifts and talents - some natural, some acquired. Your examples above are from groups that hold very othodox views - they rely heavily on tradition to define themselves - and change will come with much effort. But I'm not so sure that being rabbi's, priests or mullah's is what women are really fighting for in those groups; those are secondary objectives. I think it's for freedom, individuality and recognition, and that's an inalienable right no matter from what angle you look at it. But women should not want to become men, that just plays into the hands of bigotry.

Religion is very much linked to culture, and where people have preferences, their culture is where they express it. There are two ways to approach change: to fight it - for or against - or to proceed into it with love and sensitivity. I'm for the latter.

Religion is very much linked to culture, and where people have preferences, their culture is where they express it.

I was always under the impression that religion is very much linked to God, and books of which are supposed to preach love and peace. The Bible and the Quran has a lot to answer to.

I still can't grasp that if God is peace and love why is prejudism scattered throughout the book.

Also, why is sexual discrimination rife in religion, I know it exists in other roles of life but I am amazed that Christian ideals are somewhat retarded in this area.

I was always under the impression that religion is very much linked to God, and books of which are supposed to preach love and peace. The Bible and the Quran has a lot to answer to.


What specifically does the Bible have to answer to?

I still can't grasp that if God is peace and love why is prejudism scattered throughout the book.

Humans (as individuals) don't want "peace", they want superiority over their fellow man. If God had changed it you would be screaming "free will" to better one self...

Anyhow we aren't to question God's will.

Also, why is sexual discrimination rife in religion, I know it exists in other roles of life but I am amazed that Christian ideals are somewhat retarded in this area.

Is that generalization?

hmmmm thats interesting because if you look at the world today OBJECTIVELY who is trying to impose their will on whom ...........Islam or Christian west?

hmmmm thats interesting because if you look at the world today OBJECTIVELY who is trying to impose their will on whom ...........Islam or Christian west?

You will find that the Christian west is not as Christian as you would think. The west is largely secular.

The Christian population is worldwide, it does not have boundaries as you suggest.

I was always under the impression that religion is very much linked to God, and books of which are supposed to preach love and peace. The Bible and the Quran has a lot to answer to.

I still can't grasp that if God is peace and love why is prejudism scattered throughout the book.
The Bible is a book that describes what people did, preached and believed. So it reflects their culture and worldview. Therefore it also reflects people's attitudes and behaviour - whether positive or negative: including hate, sins and inequities. God's involvement is like a golden thread that provides the counter-balance to these sins.

Also, why is sexual discrimination rife in religion, I know it exists in other roles of life but I am amazed that Christian ideals are somewhat retarded in this area.
That's because Christians are people, too (surprised?). Their ideals are not more retarded than any conservative group, some are just more cautious about making changes that affects the natural order. Take note, I said "natural order" not "status quo". The battle of the sexes is a war that is being waged among Christians just as in other circles. Wherever it is being resolved with love and senstivity, that is the Christian ieal - not prejudice. Prejudice is ingrained in people first, their ideologies second. The same with racism.

When people use Christianity as a crutch to rest their prejudices on, they can be certain it will be pulled out beneath them, and they will stand exposed for their hatred.

The Bible is a book that describes what people did, preached and believed. So it reflects their culture and worldview. Therefore it also reflects people's attitudes and behaviour - whether positive or negative: including hate, sins and inequities. God's involvement is like a golden thread that provides the counter-balance to these sins.

So when Christians reach for the Bible for guidance they are seeking advice from the positive and negative attitudes of people of over a thousand years ago. Talk about going round in circles...phew!

Way to go Jenyar, thats what I call progress. ;)

That's because Christians are people, too (surprised?). Their ideals are not more retarded than any conservative group, some are just more cautious about making changes that affects the natural order. Take note, I said "natural order" not "status quo". The battle of the sexes is a war that is being waged among Christians just as in other circles. Wherever it is being resolved with love and senstivity, that is the Christian ieal - not prejudice. Prejudice is ingrained in people first, their ideologies second. The same with racism.

Secularism is way ahead of Christianity with reference to sexual equality, (surprised?).

When people use Christianity as a crutch to rest their prejudices on, they can be certain it will be pulled out beneath them, and they will stand exposed for their hatred.

Look out Bush, Jenyars gonna get you.... :D

So when Christians reach for the Bible for guidance they are seeking advice from the positive and negative attitudes of people of over a thousand years ago. Talk about going round in circles...phew!
The message is clear enough. It does provide a context for everything it describes. A Context that knows the heart, justifies only faith, condemns sin, gives hope, and loves those who love.
Secularism is way ahead of Christianity with reference to sexual equality, (surprised?).
Way to go, secularism!
Look out Bush, Jenyars gonna get you....
Those soldiers who abused their prisoners have more to worry about...

Prejudice is ingrained in people first, their ideologies second.

Where does prejudice come from?

hmmmm thats interesting because if you look at the world today OBJECTIVELY who is trying to impose their will on whom ...........Islam or Christian west?

Christian west ??? Oh i wish :D But no sorry Christians are a small minority in the western world, There are just as many Christians in the middle east as there are in europe, I would even go so far as to say there are more christians in the middle east them in europe. Calling the west Christian is like calling the arab world buddist.

:D

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Where does prejudice come from?
From ingorance or dishonesty about who you are yourself. Prejudice is nothing but egotism and elitism. True, culture and traditions are vehicles for it, and ideologies may give it definition, but its heart is fear. Love has no place for fear.

Jenyar

Talking of fear...

Muslims fear Christianity so much that they use Christian sounding URL's to promote Islam, have a look at this one..............

http://www.answering-christianity.com

Bloody leeches

I have made this point on here before - but it vanished, hmmm!

Christian west ??? Oh i wish :D But no sorry Christians are a small minority in the western world, There are just as many Christians in the middle east as there are in europe, I would even go so far as to say there are more christians in the middle east them in europe. Calling the west Christian is like calling the arab world buddist.

Well, apparently this is the core of the problem with Christians: Some are 'true Christians' (very few), and some are 'Christians' (many many) -- but both call themselves by the same name.


How are non-believers to distinguish them?

Am I to call my neighbours, who do go to church and are baptized and everything -- but neglect their cats, and thier son goes and shoots birds for fun -- am I to call these people something else than Christians?

They may not be the 'true Christians' -- but what other way do I have to call them, than the way they say they want to be called?

From ingorance or dishonesty about who you are yourself. Prejudice is nothing but egotism and elitism. True, culture and traditions are vehicles for it, and ideologies may give it definition, but its heart is fear. Love has no place for fear.

How does one learn prejudice? How do you explain that little children have prejudices? -- They do have them.

Goleman, in his book "Emotional Intelligence" says that prejudices are emotional reponses that we have learned early in our childhood -- from the environment.

A child does not learn prejudices because it would have fear. Children are not able to separate between Jews and Christians -- their parents are, and they teach them to do so.

And Goleman remarks that these early resonses stay with us, no matter what we do. We can learn to see that we have prejudices -- but because of the early stage at which they were implanted into our minds, they have a firm and special place, forever. We can learn new behaviours and new values -- but the "first sight" effect will be ruined by that prejudice, no matter how hard we try not to have that prejudice, no matter how well we know that is is just prejudice.

How are non-believers to distinguish them?

Am I to call my neighbours, who do go to church and are baptized and everything -- but neglect their cats, and thier son goes and shoots birds for fun -- am I to call these people something else than Christians?

They may not be the 'true Christians' -- but what other way do I have to call them, than the way they say they want to be called?
I guess that's the problem with labels. Categories are rarely representative. I think you asked the same question somewhere else... I remember answering the one about the animals.

It's only semi-relevant to the thread, but John provided some handy tips for Christian-watching that I'll post here ;): (I left out one on how to recognize non-Christians - those who don't accept His message)

We know that we have come to know him [Christ] if we obey his commands. The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar... (1 John 2:3)
This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did. (1 John 2:5)
This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother. (1 John 3:10)
This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers. (1 John 3:16)
Let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth. This then is how we know that we belong to the truth (1 John 3:18)
And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us. (1 John 3:24)
This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God (1 John 4:2)
This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. This is love for God: to obey his commands. (1 John 5:2)
We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin (1 John 5:18)

How does one learn prejudice? How do you explain that little children have prejudices? -- They do have them.

Goleman, in his book "Emotional Intelligence" says that prejudices are emotional reponses that we have learned early in our childhood -- from the environment.
(I remember how disappointed I was when I learned there was a book on Emotional Intelligence - I thought it was something I invented!) I have yet to read it, though :(

I think it's because we learn who we are by relating to our environment. I child growing up in an unprejudiced household is probably exposed to a more diverse range of "acceptance", and less "unknowns" that may give rise to fears - rational or irrational.

A child does not learn prejudices because it would have fear. Children are not able to separate between Jews and Christians -- their parents are, and they teach them to do so.
True, the labels aren't there yet, but actions speak louder than words. If the parents/community are consistently seen hating...dogs, for instance, that child will grow up with an acquired hatred, and therefore prejudice, against dogs.

How parents and people relate to unknowns might have a similar (even greater) effect. If the parents are consistenly fearful/superstitious/distrustful of new or unknown things, children will develop the same attitude towards this "nebulous nothingness". It might even give a name to it - a label that identifies this fear, in order to get some grip on it. Fear of the unknown is a breeding ground for prejudice, if you ask me.

And Goleman remarks that these early resonses stay with us, no matter what we do. We can learn to see that we have prejudices -- but because of the early stage at which they were implanted into our minds, they have a firm and special place, forever. We can learn new behaviours and new values -- but the "first sight" effect will be ruined by that prejudice, no matter how hard we try not to have that prejudice, no matter how well we know that is is just prejudice.
Yes, and it's really sad that people grow up in environments that encourage such reactions. But I grew up in apartheid South Africa without developing the active prejudice that was prevalent in the society of my parents and grandparents. I grew up with the Bible, in a Christian family, and it never once occurred to me to develop a prejudice against anyone. But so did many other Christians, and they were convinced blacks were "naturally inferior" (although I think the evolutionary debate provided more ammunition for it than the Bible ever could).

So the I'm very certain Christianity wasn't the determining factor, although it was used as a crutch. But my parents and grandparents were too involved in addressing the real issues that affected people: healthcare (one grandfather was a missionary doctor) and education (the other was a professor at the only black university in SA, even though he studied under Karl Barth in Switzerland) to have time for egotism. It did creep in sometimes, in the form of politics, but it never overrode their callings.

Fortunately, children have a smaller probability of causing lasting damage with their misconceptions. They feel a greater natural affinity towards love than hatred, and they can be shaped or abused by either until well into their teens; that's why loving authority, healthy families and good friends are so important. It's adults who persist in willful hatred who do the most damage, and to more than just the immediate generation. You can see the hardness in the eyes of someone who's prejudiced - almost as if it's greater than them - and it affects their children.

My point is, people do grow up in paradigms that shape them - and children are under the mercy of many influences. But a change in paradigm can free them and is possible. Maybe I do have subconscious racism ingrained in me somewhere, but it doesn't rule my thoughts. I can deal with it when it sticks out its ugly head. Addressing the roots of prejudice - lack of love, fear, anger, and egotism - makes prejudice itself seem a distant enemy. I got my sense morality not from society, or even my parents, but ultimately from Christ. But if it wasn't for a personal relationship, I would have been a product, not a child.

Well, apparently this is the core of the problem with Christians: Some are 'true Christians' (very few), and some are 'Christians' (many many) -- but both call themselves by the same name.


How are non-believers to distinguish them?

Am I to call my neighbours, who do go to church and are baptized and everything -- but neglect their cats, and thier son goes and shoots birds for fun -- am I to call these people something else than Christians?

They may not be the 'true Christians' -- but what other way do I have to call them, than the way they say they want to be called?

OK then RosaMagika - Define a Christian.

Jenyar

You emphasise on the fact that children are prejudiced towards things because of their parents influence.

Not wholly true - ever heard children in the playground teasing the "fat" kid, or name calling the one who wears glasses, or ridiculing any disability some other kid may have.

Believe it or not Jenyar, kids are able to be prejudiced all by themselves.

not so. babies are sponges. they are learning from the time they blink and see the world for the first time. even before then. children soak up information from their parents like polyacrylate.

LOL.... you're saying that kids are brainwashed and can't think for themselves - I can tell you they can.

Christian west ??? Oh i wish :D But no sorry Christians are a small minority in the western world, There are just as many Christians in the middle east as there are in europe, I would even go so far as to say there are more christians in the middle east them in europe. Calling the west Christian is like calling the arab world buddist.

:D

All Praise The Ancient Of Days
Ads, I think it is referred to as a 'Christian West' because so much of the West's political background and belief structure is so entrenched in Christianity. As an example, we must consider that in so many States of the West the Lords Prayer is recited before each sitting of houses of Parliament, Higher Courts, some Government Schools, etc. We are given a bible to swear on when giving an oath. The President of the United States is sworn in a bible, etc. Such images and practices will naturally result in the West been deemed to be the 'Christian West'.

Christians may be in a minority in the West, but its system of politics and law and social/cultural norms are deeply rooted in early Christian beliefs.

The States and Nations in the West were foundered by Christians and it has created a stain on the future generations which have followed.

There may be more Christians in the Middle East, but it doesn't change the fact that the West, unlike the States in the Middle East, were foundered on Christian values and beliefs which have come through to today's generation. The constitutions of many Western States have a Christian value base.
__________________________________________________ _______


As to the topic of this thread, women in Christianity, as in most religions that exist, are given a lower status rating. Women in Christianity (and in other religions) aren't valued the same as a man. As much as people can say no, women and men are seen to be the same in the eyes of a Christian God, the practices of the Christian Churches fail to provide any backing to such claims. The fact that women have had to struggle so much to just make it to the priesthood in the Church of England sort of reiterates my point. And the fact that they are still refused the position of Bishop further proves my point. There are still people within the Church who are fighting the fact that women have been allowed to become priests. The Catholic Church is still refusing to budge on the issue of women priests.

Women will continue to be viewed as secondary in religion because the forefathers of these religions were just that... forefathers.. as in male. And lets face it, when religions such as Catholicism and other Christian religions, as well as Islam and Judaism began their existence, women were only good for giving birth, cooking, cleaning and lying still and thinking of England while the husband's breath steamed up her cheeks while he tried for more heirs. Shame that Christianity and other religions still view women in that role.

"Shame that Christianity and other religions still view women in that role."

Well said Bells - Good post!

Vienna,

Define a Christian.

How am I supposed to know?!
We call people the way they want to be called. If they say that they want to be called "Jews", we'll call them "Jews", if they want to be called "Christians", we'll call them "Christians".

I don't feel summoned to decide who fits a certain category or not. I go by what the people say they want to be called.

Vienna,



How am I supposed to know?!
We call people the way they want to be called. If they say that they want to be called "Jews", we'll call them "Jews", if they want to be called "Christians", we'll call them "Christians".

I don't feel summoned to decide who fits a certain category or not. I go by what the people say they want to be called.

LOL... earlier you seemed to have a problem with who to call true Christians and Christians. Do you know what a Christian is?

Vienna,



How am I supposed to know?!
We call people the way they want to be called. If they say that they want to be called "Jews", we'll call them "Jews", if they want to be called "Christians", we'll call them "Christians".

I don't feel summoned to decide who fits a certain category or not. I go by what the people say they want to be called.

May I call you RM?

Well, apparently this is the core of the problem with Christians: Some are 'true Christians' (very few), and some are 'Christians' (many many) -- but both call themselves by the same name.


How are non-believers to distinguish them?

Am I to call my neighbours, who do go to church and are baptized and everything -- but neglect their cats, and thier son goes and shoots birds for fun -- am I to call these people something else than Christians?

They may not be the 'true Christians' -- but what other way do I have to call them, than the way they say they want to be called?

Yes i see your problem Rosa, the word Christian is problematic isn't it. Well you can start using another term, its longer but it is more definitive. When you see a true Christian don't call them a Christian anymore call them a "Follower of the Messiah" In that way you can get away from the name "Christian" that has been taken over by people who are not followers of The Messiah Immanueal.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

G'Day Bells


Ads, I think it is referred to as a 'Christian West' because so much of the West's political background and belief structure is so entrenched in Christianity. As an example, we must consider that in so many States of the West the Lords Prayer is recited before each sitting of houses of Parliament, Higher Courts, some Government Schools, etc. We are given a bible to swear on when giving an oath. The President of the United States is sworn in a bible, etc. Such images and practices will naturally result in the West been deemed to be the 'Christian West'.


A lot of that is just echos of tradition. I know that the politicians recite the Lords prayer and they all swear an oath on the bible before they enter office and yes the USA president does swear an oath to enter office. But in swearing an oath on the bible they clearly show that they are not Christians opps :( ... Ummm Followers of The Messiah Immanueal :D because the Messiah told His followers not to swear oaths. It is written in the bible itself read this:

The Messiah Said:

Mathew: 5: 33-37

“Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the lord, but I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for that is Gods throne; nor by the earth, for that is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your Yes be your Yes and your No be your No. For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.”


Followers of the Messiah will never swear oaths for anything. That includes a oath take in court, one taken by the president, one taken by army recruits and many other oaths of office. i am so happy you braught up the example of the oaths of office, people who swaer oaths on the bible may as well be spitting on the bible, for not only does it show that they are not followers of the Messiah it shows who they are actually swearing their oaths two.

But let your Yes be your Yes and your No be your No. For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.”

The evil one is satan and we know who is in control of the kingdoms of this world ;)



Christians may be in a minority in the West, but its system of politics and law and social/cultural norms are deeply rooted in early Christian beliefs.

The States and Nations in the West were foundered by Christians and it has created a stain on the future generations which have followed.

There may be more Christians in the Middle East, but it doesn't change the fact that the West, unlike the States in the Middle East, were foundered on Christian values and beliefs which have come through to today's generation. The constitutions of many Western States have a Christian value base.

I understand why you have this misconception. "christians" first became intertwined with the empire of Rome when constantine sought to become emperor. He made a sales pitch to "christians" to join with Him and kill his rivals. In return constantine agreed to promote "christianity" as the religion of state. Before constantine Christians... opps... Followers of the Messiah where killed when found, the state saw them as a threat to the empire.

So yes "christians" did influence the states of europe but it was a religion that was not true to the teachings of Immanuel. the very fact that they took up arms to fight for constantine automatically removed them from their claim as being followers of The Messiah.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

LOL... earlier you seemed to have a problem with who to call true Christians and Christians. Do you know what a Christian is?

Nah, I am not so *presumptous* to think I could know that ...

Yes i see your problem Rosa, the word Christian is problematic isn't it. Well you can start using another term, its longer but it is more definitive. When you see a true Christian don't call them a Christian anymore call them a "Follower of the Messiah" In that way you can get away from the name "Christian" that has been taken over by people who are not followers of The Messiah Immanueal.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

I will call people whatever *they* want me to call them. Like I said: I don't feel summoned to judge who "fits" the description of a "true Christian" and who doesn't.

May I call you RM?

What is wrong with my name? Is it too rosy for you?
You may call me RM -- but only if this stands for "RosaMagika" in your mind.

I'll know (and God will know too!) if, by this abbreviation, you actually had something else in mind.

Not wholly true - ever heard children in the playground teasing the "fat" kid, or name calling the one who wears glasses, or ridiculing any disability some other kid may have.

Believe it or not Jenyar, kids are able to be prejudiced all by themselves.
That's true. Maybe I'm using a too narrow definition of prejudice, or maybe a too theoretical one. But how do those kids know that someone is "fat", or that wearing glasses is "funny"? I think it's because they're trying to establish and come to terms with their own identity, and things that make other children obviously different can't be identified with - so it gets rejected.

It's a continuous dialogue between the self and the other, a natural process of cognition and understanding, but I think parents need to teach children that language. The seed of love and tolerance is there, but it has to be watered.

Not wholly true - ever heard children in the playground teasing the "fat" kid, or name calling the one who wears glasses, or ridiculing any disability some other kid may have.

This is normal. Physical disabilities are simply not to be liked or prefered.

G'Day Bells

The Messiah Said:

Mathew: 5: 33-37

“Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the lord, but I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for that is Gods throne; nor by the earth, for that is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your Yes be your Yes and your No be your No. For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.”

Followers of the Messiah will never swear oaths for anything. That includes a oath take in court, one taken by the president, one taken by army recruits and many other oaths of office.

Well then, what do you make of this passage:

(Exodus 13:19) Moses took the bones of Joseph with him because Joseph had made the sons of Israel swear an oath. He had said, "God will surely come to your aid, and then you must carry my bones up with you from this place."

Or, how about Psalms 119?
I have taken an oath and confirmed it, that I will follow your righteous laws.


Also, you say "Followers of The Messiah will never swear oaths for anything, etc...".
First of all, I'm assuming that "Followers of The Messiah" is just a fancy word for Christians. If my assumption is correct, then I would assert that your saying
"If someone takes an oath, they are not a Christian" by saying "Followers of the messiah will never swear oaths for anything".

Am I to believe that I'm excluded from the kingdom of heaven since I took an oath during jury duty?

Please people, let's not stray off topic. Frisbinator, maybe you should start a new thread for that question.

Ok Jenyar your right :)

Frisbinator. I will be glad to reply to your post if you start another thread. Sorry for getting this one off track peoples.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

PS: pity there isn't a Private Message system attached to this forum. :(

PS: pity there isn't a Private Message system attached to this forum.
:confused: Why not use the PM system which you can access at the right top of the site?

Gee, I sure was looking forward to getting an answer to that question.

That's true. Maybe I'm using a too narrow definition of prejudice, or maybe a too theoretical one. But how do those kids know that someone is "fat", or that wearing glasses is "funny"? I think it's because they're trying to establish and come to terms with their own identity, and things that make other children obviously different can't be identified with - so it gets rejected.

It's a continuous dialogue between the self and the other, a natural process of cognition and understanding, but I think parents need to teach children that language. The seed of love and tolerance is there, but it has to be watered.

And how would you (as a parent) teach your child about Christianity with regard to coming to terms with their own identity.

Your child might be attracted to Islam for example, heaven knows (pun intended) there is enough of its propaganda around.

Hypothetically, Would you encourage your child to follow their interest in Islam?

1 Corinthians 14:34 "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

Isn't it true that this prejudiced quote from the Bible affects the role of women in Christianity? In England there has much controversy of women wanting to become vicars priests etc. and only recently has this been allowed. A female bishop has yet to be seen.

Yet the head of the Church of England is a woman - Queen Elizabeth II

Prejudice and Hypocrisy!Men and woman have different roles, just like children and adults (though the roles of man and woman are a bit less clear than that). I don't know why woman shouldn't preach in churches, there is a view in the Bible that woman are evil because the first woman ate of the apple of knowledge.

Sure I don't want woman to be seen with any less respect than a man, though I can't say that woman and man are totally equal. We have evolved with different characteristics, and if some of the womans characteristics have any consequence that makes them unfit to preach in churches, then that's it. Though if a woman feel that their purpouse is to preach in a church then I think that they should be allowed to - cause still we are all different, a woman can have more of a man's characteristics and a man can have more of a woman's characteristics.

Though it also says in the Bible that both man and woman will become one in Jesus.

And don't take me wrong, a woman isn't any less than a man, though they have different roles, and are a bit different - but that's only to our view, we are all equal in God.

I was kind of afraid to say what he did due to Feminazis out there... But yeah you know women have evolved to be passive thats how it goes. In my church it's perfectly fine for women to speak out, it's a shame NOT to let them talk. But in a time where women were even more passive i think that's why they wrote that. Some things in the Law, like not eating pork, are no longer an issue to us. I think sexism is one of those things.

Of course women were passive in those days - they were nothing but slaves to men.

Gee, I sure was looking forward to getting an answer to that question.Am I to believe that I'm excluded from the kingdom of heaven since I took an oath during jury duty?
OK, a quick answer. People have sworn oaths since time began - as a sort of "bond to honour". Even God is said to have "sworn by himself" (for lack of a higher authority to swear by!) But swearing supposes disbelief and distrust - it means that the people you are talking to might have reason to doubt you, and you wish to defer them to someone/something who can vouch for you. But Jesus became our certainty - He vouches for truth. What Matthew says is that if we are in Christ, and we live and speak accordingly, we need no more than that. To say anything more than "yes" or "no" seeks to justify ourselves - and God has already done that. Unless, of course you are lying - in which case that comes "from the evil one", and it distances you from God.

(I didn't check if you started a new thread, but if you're not satisfied with this short answer, feel free to PM me)

And how would you (as a parent) teach your child about Christianity with regard to coming to terms with their own identity.

Your child might be attracted to Islam for example, heaven knows (pun intended) there is enough of its propaganda around.

Hypothetically, Would you encourage your child to follow their interest in Islam?
What is external to Christianity - the "doctrines", for lack of a better word - they are free to question and probe for themselves. I would encourage such enquiry. But what Christianity stands for: a restored relationship with the living God, one that requires unselfish love, a moral lifestyle and knowing Christ's identity, I will live and practice as I would wish them to know it, as I have come to know it, and as it had been known by the apostles. They can deal with that knowledge and certainty how they wish to - just like any child could accept or reject their parents' love. I will always be there for them whatever they decide; I don't think they could expect much more.

Of course women were passive in those days - they were nothing but slaves to men.
Are you content with a generalization like that?

Of course women were passive in those days - they were nothing but slaves to men.

Well, once someone beats you up, you start to think very differently of power. And if it is a man who beats up a woman -- it would be suicidal to go against someone who is physically stronger than you and who does not shy back from using this power.

This is why some things look like passiveness. While in reality to the one who is passive, this passiveness is an act of despair and helplesness.

Well, once someone beats you up, you start to think very differently of power. And if it is a man who beats up a woman -- it would be suicidal to go against someone who is physically stronger than you and who does not shy back from using this power.

This is why some things look like passiveness. While in reality to the one who is passive, this passiveness is an act of despair and helplesness.

I mean sexually. In other words, dominatrix is not natural. The man is meant to kind of be a little bit more well ehrm ... :o ... powerful ... and since most things in life are based around reproduction i think it tends to carry off into life. Now, we are equal with women in Christ, and in freedom, and I don't personally believe that women cannot speak in Church, because on my worship team some leaders are women. I also believe that they have the right to speak out because they are people too. But the human female's natural role is well ... submission.

What is external to Christianity - the "doctrines", for lack of a better word - they are free to question and probe for themselves. I would encourage such enquiry.

So you would encourage your child to persue Islam if they were interested in becoming a muslim.

Fair enough, but y'know it doesn't work the other way round - No muslim father would encourage their siblings into Christianity if it their interest was in it - things would be quite the opposite. Doing things like that can get you kicked out of a Muslim family... sheeesh!

No wonder Islam is gaining ground over Christianity...

Are you content with a generalization like that?

No, but it's a fact.

No, but it's a fact.
No, it's a generalization - and just as vague as "in those days". It might have been the popular notion, a kind of "natural order" for most of hstory, but it's not the only one. You might as well say "all men are rapists" if you insist all women were treated like slaves. The ideas of social status and human rights didn't evolve overnight.

And speaking of evolution, today we have the notion that the humanity's superiority has been determined by natural evolution. In essence it means we are "better than" other life on earth since we evolved that way by the totally objective process of natural selection (it seems to be the only truly objective decision-maker ever known, since it provides a true reflection of circumstances and is an infallible judge on choices in lifestyle).

Will future humans one day say things like: "Of course animals were passive in those days - they were nothing but slaves to men," or "of course men were passive those days - they were nothing but slaves to nature"? Or will we let more than nature determine who gets our respect?

Nature shows us what's natural, but love and tolerance is something we impose on it, not vice versa.

So you would encourage your child to persue Islam if they were interested in becoming a muslim.
Not everything that invites enquiry should be persued. But those should's and should not's are a matter of discernment and self-knowledge.

Oh my God!

I just love this...

Men and woman have different roles, just like children and adults (though the roles of man and woman are a bit less clear than that).
How about you give us an example of what YOU think the role of a man and women are or should be? Hmmm?

But this one was, I admit, priceless...
Sure I don't want woman to be seen with any less respect than a man, though I can't say that woman and man are totally equal. We have evolved with different characteristics, and if some of the womans characteristics have any consequence that makes them unfit to preach in churches, then that's it.

Man and a woman aren't totally equal? How so? What characteristics could a woman possibly have that makes her unfit to preach in a church? I'm sure that whatever they may be, they couldn't be as bad as allowing a priest who is known to have abused children preach in a church, protecting that priest, shifting him to another parish to try and hide it all, the Bishops saying nothing except to deny it all when they know they are lying and keeping it all behind closed doors... all while saying NO to a woman who may wish to preach because she's a woman and women just can't preach because she's got some characteristics that don't make her fit to do so. Give me a break.

And so, like any weak person who realises that he may have made a booboo, you try to rectify it with this comment...

Though if a woman feel that their purpouse is to preach in a church then I think that they should be allowed to - cause still we are all different, a woman can have more of a man's characteristics and a man can have more of a woman's characteristics.

Are you serious? LMFAO!!.... ROTFLMFAO!!!... Ah.. that's just precious.. LMAO! That's the funniest thing I've seen in a while... LOL!

And now onto Truth51...

I was kind of afraid to say what he did due to Feminazis out there... But yeah you know women have evolved to be passive thats how it goes. In my church it's perfectly fine for women to speak out, it's a shame NOT to let them talk. But in a time where women were even more passive i think that's why they wrote that. Some things in the Law, like not eating pork, are no longer an issue to us. I think sexism is one of those things.
How lucky for those women that your kind and loving church has now given them the right to speak. :rolleyes: I just love that 'even more passive' line. Really.

In the past, women, if they spoke out, had an opinion, did not remain in her place were either beaten by their husbands and/or fathers... or they'd be shunned by society and seen as an outcast because she dared enter into the male domain. Women were seen as property Truth. They were owned. They had no rights. They had no say. And it is still the same for many women even today.

And you even go so far as to admit that women are passive. Lovely. Women haven't evolved to be passive Truth. It was beaten into them that if they weren't passive, or they'd be shunned by society. In effect, they'd be punished repeatedly. Women haven't evolved that way Truth. It's more a social conditioning that begins right from the moment when the baby girl is born. And in today's society, if a woman is not passive, she's seen to be a ball breaker. If a woman is not passive, she's seen to be masculine. That is the current situation Truth.

Bells, just as a matter of interest, can you argue the equality of the sexes from an evolutionary perspective?

Jenyar - Was it the generalisation or the fact which you disagree with?

Bells, just as a matter of interest, can you argue the equality of the sexes from an evolutionary perspective?
Good question Jenyar. From an evolutionary perspective, I see the females early hominids as being more equal to the males than the females are to males in today's society. We look at the relationship of early humans through eyes that have been tainted by the inequality of the sexes that exists today. The way I see it, both had to hunt and gather foods to survive when they were still in the trees and also when they first left the trees and began to walk upright. While in the ancient past I'm sure some form of ranking order did exist, I don't think that the females were seen to be of lesser value to the male. Because equal co-operation would probably have been the only way for them to survive.

I guess the development of specialised tools for specialised tasks could have had something to do with it. The males strength may have resulted in the women being designated the duties of gathering foods, etc, while the males used the larger tools to hunt large game. And with the advent of food production and cultivation, I guess we started to clearly see the break down in the notion of equality as the gender roles were becoming more defined. The men worked outside while the women tended closer to home.

I am probably wrong, but that's the way I see it anyway.

Hypothetically, Would you encourage your child to follow their interest in Islam?

they are free to question and probe for themselves. I would encourage such enquiry.

So you would encourage your child to persue Islam if they were interested in becoming a muslim.

Not everything that invites enquiry should be persued.


LOL... Jenyar - You are as contradictory as your Bible.

You don't seem to appreciate the difference between facts and generalized facts, or between questioning something - finding out more about it - and accepting it ("persuing" it).

For example: "All women want sex". Fact or generalization? What about "all women are interested in sex" vs. "all women actively persue sex"?

Do you also read the Bible this superficially?

No.

So you wouldn't encourage your child to become a muslim, even if thats what your child wanted?

Anyhow we aren't to question God's will.






And there you have it....... 2000 years later, still butchering one another over a myth........ never gonna end ..... until WW4 is fought with sticks and stones....... and it all starts over. Again.

Silly man to presume to know our Creators will. Youd think after 2000 years that the zeolots would come to realize he's not coming. He was supposed to come when Paul was preaching to the Corithians for christs sake. He's not coming in your lifetime, nor you childrens, or their childrens. The only thing that is gonna end our way of life is us. Nobody is gonna come out of the clouds and come down to take the fundies with them and let a few billion or so to burn. If something does come from the clouds.. God help us all, cause it gonna be no Jesus... its gonna be some Aliens looking for some food.


"Anyhow we aren't to question God's will."

If only man would have left it at that. But nooooooooo :bugeye:

So you wouldn't encourage your child to become a muslim, even if thats what your child wanted?
This is getting tiresome. I wouldn't encourage or discourage "becoming a muslim". I will encourage enquiry and undestanding by providing a condusive environment and open communication. People don't always become Muslims, Christians, democrats or bullies for rational reasons or without personal reasons. What they need is love, and that I will give them. What they want after that is entirely up to them, but they'll have my support.

Besides, how I'll raise my children depends entirely on whether I find a wife first, and she will have something to say about the matter as well. Let's just say I will encourage my children to live, and to be responsible for their choices, and let's leave it at that, shall we?

And there you have it....... 2000 years later, still butchering one another over a myth........ never gonna end ..... until WW4 is fought with sticks and stones....... and it all starts over. Again.

Silly man to presume to know our Creators will. Youd think after 2000 years that the zeolots would come to realize he's not coming. He was supposed to come when Paul was preaching to the Corithians for christs sake. He's not coming in your lifetime, nor you childrens, or their childrens. The only thing that is gonna end our way of life is us. Nobody is gonna come out of the clouds and come down to take the fundies with them and let a few billion or so to burn. If something does come from the clouds.. God help us all, cause it gonna be no Jesus... its gonna be some Aliens looking for some food.


"Anyhow we aren't to question God's will."

If only man would have left it at that. But nooooooooo :bugeye:

Sheer poetry Oliver - Great post!

There is more truth in what you have said than all the worlds religious books put together.

Let's just say I will encourage my children to live, and to be responsible for their choices, and let's leave it at that, shall we?

Thank you Jenyar - yes I can be irritating, but its my way of finding answers.

You Are Fake English..........................I Know!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1 Corinthians 14:34 "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

Isn't it true that this prejudiced quote from the Bible affects the role of women in Christianity? In England there has much controversy of women wanting to become vicars priests etc. and only recently has this been allowed. A female bishop has yet to be seen.

Yet the head of the Church of England is a woman - Queen Elizabeth II

Prejudice and Hypocrisy!

And I have Chosen you.







































For IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1 Corinthians 14:34 "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

Isn't it true that this prejudiced quote from the Bible affects the role of women in Christianity? In England there has much controversy of women wanting to become vicars priests etc. and only recently has this been allowed. A female bishop has yet to be seen.

Yet the head of the Church of England is a woman - Queen Elizabeth II

Prejudice and Hypocrisy!

See YOu Soonnnnnnnnnnnnnn

1 Corinthians 14:34 "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

Isn't it true that this prejudiced quote from the Bible affects the role of women in Christianity? In England there has much controversy of women wanting to become vicars priests etc. and only recently has this been allowed. A female bishop has yet to be seen.

Yet the head of the Church of England is a woman - Queen Elizabeth II

Prejudice and Hypocrisy!

"...I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the light of this sun."
-2 Samuel 12:11
Thats God talking btw...threatening King David with the rape of his wives.

You Chose your Fate ................. YOu Talkk TOOOOO much Crappp

1 Corinthians 14:34 "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

Isn't it true that this prejudiced quote from the Bible affects the role of women in Christianity? In England there has much controversy of women wanting to become vicars priests etc. and only recently has this been allowed. A female bishop has yet to be seen.

Yet the head of the Church of England is a woman - Queen Elizabeth II

Prejudice and Hypocrisy!

Sheer poetry Oliver - Great post!

There is more truth in what you have said than all the worlds religious books put together.

[
Oh yeah YOu can really find me ass hole!!!!!!!!!!!QUOTE=IamDeth;1494403]You Chose your Fate ................. YOu Talkk TOOOOO much Crappp[/QUOTE]

ndrs RULES Go NDRS

You are Faek Englsh!!!!!!!!!

You are LIE Vienna...

You are npt real English Like I..........ch

deine Schwester mushy schmeckt mir gut