the_cave

Problematic, I'll grant you...but I've yet to meet a treatment of the human condition that isn't problematic.

Taken by themselves, I agree the scriptures are certainly an insufficient guide. Which is why, for example, the Catholic church has always taught that you need a human community to apply, judge, and interpret them (which Protestants do, too, but many don't admit it!) I'm not arguing that the Catholic church is necessarily the best community for that, I'm just saying Christians by and large have always done so...

All but the most liberal? Believe me, there are many women "speaking in church" in all denominations. It's not really true about the teachings of the Old Testament--vaguely following them is indeed a pious practice among many conservative Christians, but there's no doctrine that states they must. I will admit Catholics do still suggest that women have some sort of subordinate role to men [sigh...] for which I must sincerely apologize. But Catholics by and large certainly don't preach that women should be chattel! But I will agree there are some fearsome teachings in the Bible about the sexes--and sexuality, for that matter. I believe these are becoming more and more moderated.

christ-on-a-stick

cave,

I meant more specifically the issue of not allowing women to *teach men* (i.e. give the sermon to mixed company), not the part about literally speaking whilst in church.

I *thought* most denominations except for very liberal ones still keep to this tenet, although I may well be wrong...

But I'm PRETTY SURE the majority of denominations follow (or at least pay lip service) to the man-as-the-head thing. Bleh.

Amos

It is part of a long story, really, but here is some details. By definition a Christian is set free from the bondage of slavery and sin (Ga.1:5). The Galatians were, and hence verse 4: "any of you who seek your justification in the law have severed yourself from Christ and fallen from God favor!" (exclamation not mine). Also "he who is in Christ cannot sin" (1Jn.3:9) because freedom from the law is freedom from the conviction of sin (circumsized by natural law) . . . and many more that I can not remember.

The idea that Christians can be sinners comes from the spiritual awakening after a religous experience (they call it rebirth) when their sinful nature becomes shown to them: Gal.2:17 "in seeking to be justified you were convicted as sinner."

The problem here is that in this awakening they became like Jesuits (followers of Jesus) and must carry their own sinful nature to their own Calvary and walk away from it a in this fashion become a Christian. This sinfull nature is later recalled into the upper room but not untill the senses have been pierced (upper room is subconscious mind).

Just as Jesus was never called Christ in the gospels which is equal to our purgatory, so should believers never be called Christians until their own ascention (end of the purgation period).

If you think sinners can be Christians both believers and doubters are Christians for the simple reason that just as faith cannot be conceived to exist without doubt so can doubt not be conceived to exist without faith. If this is true atheist in the Abrahamic tradition are also Christians wherefore I call them impoverished believers and not Christians.

Amos

"Man-as-the-head" thing is symbolic for "reason prevails" and only needs lip service. As females become more rational they become less non-rational and as they become less non-rational they become less woman. "Less woman" means "more human," if you like that better, and there is nothing wrong with that except that in many cases their breasts get smaller.

markstake

Amos, you have once again given me my best laugh of the day, and I thank you.

Stephen T-B

Strange what tickles us...often someone remarks that a post he's read made him laugh out loud, and I've thought "Why?"
So not everyone will have been reduced as I was by that last post from Amos, but I have to say, it really perked up my day.

Godless Dave

But if your kids decided they didn't enjoy "Just Shoot Me", would you make them watch it anyway? Would you try to make your adult children feel guilty for not watching? Do you believe the producers of "Just Shoot Me" shouldn't have to pay taxes on the profits they make from it? Do you applaud when the US President declares a National Day of Watching Just Shoot Me? That's the difference.

abe smith

" when I became a man, I put away childish things." HEY, that's scripture!

christ-on-a-stick

Hi the_cave,

To respond to some of your other points - in response to my post about "abusing" the confessional, you wrote: Sorry if I wasn't more clear - I understand that obviously someone who was doing this pre-meditatedly would not actually be sincere and that most people would say sincerity is a prerequisite for the confession to be useful (God knows the heart etc.) However, I think it could be argued that on a subconscious level the availability of a "clean slate" through confession may influence a person's decision making process... I think it's natural for people to be more susceptible to doing wrong/making mistakes if they know on some level that there is recourse or that it can be "fixed" later.

Also, you wrote: Actually I should have said "invisible friend" and not "imaginary friend" to be more clear, and in a literal sense I don't see any difference. Most Xians think of Jesus as a "friend" (oh no here come the songs... What a friend we have in Jesus, all our sin and grief to bear... argh!) - and surely you will agree that God, Jesus, et al are "invisible". Unless you have some snapshots

Magus55

Amos, you are quite the question mark.

Aren't you supposedly Catholic? Yet even Catholics denounce your views and call them heretical, and you make atheistic remarks. What are you?