General Chat

John, I am still reeling from this in your OP. :-0

'Personally, I was against women priests and bishops some years ago. I thought it was only acceptable when no suitable man stepped forward to take on the role.'

You state you are religious, it has been said on this thread that the Bible says men and women are equal, yet you chose to ignore that bit and still set a 'suitable man' as higher in your estimation than any woman. That just confirms what has been said in this thread about people picking the bits that suit and ignoring the bits that don't in the Bible'. It is the same 'oversight' that has been perpetrated by men in religions for centuries, being to their advantage to do so. Women not being allowed to become Bishops.....it's no surprise then is it.

John, The thread has been very interesting and informative but unless you have something further to add yourself without going over old ground then i think those who wanted to contribute have,

There may be more members who may want to comment but only time will tell

Roy

an a bag of pork scratchings Roy - you're in the chair remember!!

Annx This is the problem of taking bits of the Bible that suit. It seems to be the same with Q'ran.

Hence you have extremists in all religions. You have Crusades. You have wars. Both sides claiming they are doing "God's will" or "Allah's will".

In those days (1990's) I was a member of an Evangelical Church of the conservative variety. They had a female Sunday school teacher, but otherwise every office was held by a man. And that is still the case today. And the women uphold this discrimnation just as much as the men. They just feel it is a happier way to organise things.

A lot of Christians have similar views about women not holding office, and some threaten to leave the Church of England if a woman Vicar is placed in charge of their particular church. And all churches who are happy with females in charge are deeply conscious that friends down the road are not so happy about it. And the Roman Catholic Church who we are on very friendly terms with at local level are not likely to be happy about women priests. And the Muslims (who we do a lot of mutual projects with) will be slower still to change, I suspect.

I hope you accept that I have changed my stance about women in charge and am fully in favour :-D But it needs to be a slow and careful process of change imho.

Well, I come back from the Christmas Fair - apparently not having been missed in the slightest - unless, of course, some folk can't bear the thought of we 'religious' folk having fun - and find you all talking about sex and going to the pub :-S :-S I hope I have an invitation to the pub :-D



I see Merlin is wondering about the 'frocks' worn by the clergy. The easy answer is that every item worn by a cleric has some sort of symbolism attached to it and is, naturally, steeped in history, most of it dating back to the first century. (not quite the bronze age then Eldrick).



The clerical (dog) collar evolved from the 17th Century when clergy used to tuck their collars inside their coats, leaving only a white strip showing. The present day collar comes from the starched collars of the 19th Century.


The long black cassock is an everyday item reminiscent of the tunic/long coat worn in ancient Rome. It was the normal everyday garment of the clergy until about the middle of the 20th century. Now they tend just to be used at services.


The white robe (alb) represents the purple robe which was put on Christ in mockery. It is white to symbolize His innocence.


The stole (round the neck) and girdle (round the waist) represent the ropes used to tie Christ to the pillar when he was beaten.



The coloured garment (chasuble) worn at Holy Communion is a large oval garment made of linen or silk. It has no sleeves, simply a hole for the priest's head to go through and it falls straight from the shoulders. This represents the seamless robe put on Christ before he was led away to be crucified and is a sign of God's love for us. Different coloured chasubles are worn according to the time of the church's year).


The list goes on but I won't bore you. ;-)


I doubt John will agree with clergy wearing vestments as he seems to belong to a very 'low' church.


Personally, I love them as they add colour and interest to the services - which are usually a celebration - much as we like wearing special clothes to any celebrations we attend.


Okay, okay.......I'll go now......... :-D

Am I too late for the pub? I will have a G@T ice and lemon please

For what it's worth.......

I have been sat here very quietly, on the front pew....together with Pugh, Pugh, Barney McGrew, Cuthbert, Dribble, Grub and Allan...........

Where are you Allan???

And i found it all very, very interesting.

Amen.

anyone can come to the pub Paula - and you'r right Prickles - where is Allan for that touch of levity :-D :-D

I seem to be typing in invisible ink today.

Hope you can see this AnnC.......just wondered if you are going to church tomorrow. I do love singing that old favourite "Stand up, stand up for Jesus".......don't you?

OK, Cyn, I'll settle for Iron Age then - still 2,000 years ago. I wonder what they would make of it if I turned up for morning service dressed in a wolfskin and moccasinsand put seashells in the collection :-)

John,you have taken bits of the bible several times to bolster your arguments. Cherry picking is endemic in religion, they all do it.

The church is anti gay marriage because of leviticus whatever, but the same stupid book says something about stoning people for minor things and we dont hear that being preached. No, its all massive hypocrisy. AFAIk - and I stand to be corrected, there is no new testament rulings on women, gays or whatever.

I prefer the penguin by far.



:-D :-D :-D

Everyone welcome at the pub Cyn, I'd like to apologise for Ann before you arrive, she has a habit of flashing her drawers when she has had a few creme de menth (with cherry).

Any muslims wishing to attend, we have soft drinks :-D and we'll hide the pork scratchings from our Jewish members ;-) Hari Krishnas are welcome but keep the chanting to just one minute every hour :-) JWs are ONLY welcome if the leave their weapons at the door (Watchtower and sundry booklets for every posible human condition). Those that worship standing stones we'll send someone with a tray of booze. The followers of Pikiwiki will have their coconut drinks served with a multi-colour brolly cos we are in the UK. :-D :-D

I missed you Cynthia :-) :-) :-)

and I do like the costumes, in fact I do enjoy the theatricality of high mass. The choreography is rather neat at the church I have been to in the past.
I jest not. :-D

Being a non believer of any sort of religion, can I as how many gods are there that Christians, Jews, Muslims and so on believe in.?

Foggy My answer would be that we all worship the same God. The original church that we all stem from was Jewish, and I think the earliest of the books was Job. There was a debate in that book of Job (Chapter 38, I think) about creation and that formed a lot of thinking for all 3 of the major religions in the world today.

What we now call Christians and Muslims became separate from Judaism in first century. That was over the Cross, a stumbling block for the Jews and foolishness to Greeks (which has also been translated as Gentiles)

And I think (though this is a very contentious point, I admit) that Muslims and Christians separated over the deity of Jesus in the fourth century. Jesus was either a prophet to some early Christians or a prophet and a deity to others.

This was thrashed at at the Council of Nicea in 365AD (I think). It was agreed by the majority that the Lord Jesus Christ was one personality of God - hence God the Father, God the Son and God tehy Holy Spirit. A minority of Bishops (led by Bishop Arianus) denied His deity. And it is from the Arian branch of the Christian church that the Prophet Mohammed sprang from. The Araian branch denied the power of the Cross, and we know from the later Crusades that the Cross became a stumbling block for them too.

Cynthia For me, all of that was brilliant and extremely interesting. Yes, I am fairly low church and we are more open-knecked with trainers. I do have several friends in the Church of England and one or two Catholics. I was aware it was a deep tradition. Someone I know slightly is now a Bishop and he absolutely loves dressing up. He is a great and sincere Christian, and I have no problem with his hat and fabulous coat. All I require of anybody is that they preach Jesus, and Him crucified and risen.

And, Eldrick, you would be very welcome in my church however you looked and whatever you wore. You would even be allowed to heckle. It all helps!! Oh, how I wish there was a bit of vocal opposition sometimes to liven things :-D :-D

I can see Eldrick donning his deerstalker, Barbour and green wellies for church ;-)

I can't go to church tomorrow Cyn as I am suffering from a hacking cough and stinking cold which has plagued me now for a week - I was going to put up a sympathy thread for myself, but after the saga of my toenail decided to give it a miss

Thank you John.
I ask because in your bible Genisis 1-26 one of your gods said "let US make humankind in OUR likeness" implying more than I of your gods.

Foggy We Christians see that as being the first evidence of 3 personalities in one God. It is Elohim (plural) not Eloi in original manuscripts.

It does not mention "three" in Geneis, but as OT develops it becomes more and more clear that it is 3 in one. And NT of course confirms that.

And when you become what is known as a "born again Christian" you become aware of the interaction of these 3 personalities in your own soul.

Very difficult concept, but that is one reason why we like Genesis so much. :-D :-D

Foggy, Only religion could have a God talking/debating to his creation before he has created it and for the reason quoted eg so that mankind could rule over the rest of his creation's

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground



Roy

Yes, I may accept that you have changed your stance about women in charge John, just disappointed that it took you so long. Personally, I have seen enough of those attitudes in the workplace.

Contrary to you, I think it should be a quick (not slow) and careful process, because while the situation exists it is setting an example of ineqality and I don't see a reason to be tolerant of that or to be slow in changing it.

The counter argument to that, Annx, is that women and men are equal in the eyes of God but they can have different and complementary roles. So women in service were cooks, men were butlers. I cannot conceive of a man being a lady's maid or a woman being a valet

I remember attending a lecture by Lady Catherwood about "Puritan Women". It is a common myth that they were downtrodden and homebound. Nothing could be further from the truth and it opened my eyes to how effective Puritan women had been.

There has been an amazing change in attitudes to women in my working life. Still inequalities of course, but you would not believe how very different things were only a few years ago.

Women not allowed to serve on a bank till (except Barclays)
Virtually no women in Parliament
No women supermarket managers
Hardly any women in any management position
Touching women's bottoms and mammary tissue commonplace with no grievance procedure. And it happened to men as well - blackballing (physical abuse with shoe polish and a brush) was an initiation ceremony for young men in some retail establishments.

I could go on. It was 50 years ago. We have had pretty quick change since then imho.

And the idea that a woman could conduct a marriage or hand out the bread and wine was never spoken of. Their job was to do the flowers and sit sweetly with a hat on and smile at the Vicar and invite him for tea.