"God has given men the role of 'loving' leadership ...

... as written, and as accepted by many Christers

This is what too many people don't want to understand.

The fundies believe that the Bible was almost transcendentally written by God himself, while we rational "Christers" know that the Bible was written by imperfect men, with imperfect intentions.

Furthermore, what is accepted as official scripture has been changed over and over again by those same kinds of imperfect men to fit their agenda at any given time.

I am a Christian, not because I take the Bible literally, but because, whether Christ was real or not, His is a message I can shape my life around and live by.
I really have NO need to have the answers to anything more than that, and you might be surprised to learn that there are many Christians who feel the same way I do. Those are the NON Fundamentalist Christians.

-chef-

...to stir up the outrage of those with broken irony detectors. :)

ordains women as priests as well as gays and lesbians.

we do have our throwbacks -- but by and large in the west, a very progressive church -- we also have one{and maybe soon two} gay bishop.

and, although a majority of them want women bishops too, the way they make rule changes (two thirds majority needed in all 3 'houses' of bishops, clergy and laity) has prevented it, with this Archbishop of Sydney the most prominent bigot.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/femclrg16.htm

The Church of England is in roughly the same position - most people in favour, but some men (who, I think, can't bear the thought of a woman being in charge of a man) doing all they can to resist it, threatening to leave, wanting to take church assets with them, and so on. Some also say "this would make a reunification with the Roman Catholics impossible". See http://www.religioustolerance.org/femclrg18.htm

As always with the C of E, a fudge is possible - they used "flying bishops" to look after parishes who didn't want to be associated with a bishop who ordained women priests (with, therefore, a guarantee they won't end up with a woman vicar themselves). Some box of sand will be found for the die-hard women-haters to stick their heads into, and pretend that the 19th century never actually ended. Some will turn Catholic, deciding that the most important feature of catholicism is not, say, the unity of the church, but institutional discrimination against women.

associated with christianity. I really am not sure I understand why the first poster put that information up there, whether they were trying to be mean or what, but common sense would tell someone that it should make no difference whether it is a male or female holding a position like preaching. I know very well what the bible says, but common sense would ALSO dictate that it's stupid to think that something written (how many thousands of years ago?) would've been unchanged by man from that time until now. People spew off this stuff about the role of women that PAUL, NOT GOD said, first of all, and second of all, I find it amusing that those same people forget about how there were women JUDGES in the bible and not to mention that a WOMAN, MINISTERED to Jesus. Sheesh, Jesus didn't get all crazy about her doing that. What is the big problem with christians who want women to be in the background? I mean seriously, does it threaten you or something? Do you really think (lol) that God only gives knowledge to men? Do ya really think something as big as God would want you putting him "in a box" like that?

The problem we have here is that too many people don't use common sense when it comes to the Bible, or rather their perception is that it is common sense that what the Bible says should be made into the Law of the Land. They would have gays executed, women subject to men, non-Christians banished or executed, etc. They believe that what the Bible says is indelible law (except the parts that they don't want to follow because they are inconvenient for them).

" Some box of sand will be found for the die-hard women-haters to stick their heads into, and pretend that the 19th century never actually ended.

:rofl:

And I assure you some of these will, in for a dime, in for a dollar fashion, "turn Catholic" of the most rigid and awful 19th century sort.

"neither was man created for woman, but woman for man."

Pffft. Yeah, right. First man to tell me this gets an earful.

Fucked-up, ancient, misogynist shit.

:grr:

Is this what you believe, or is it an example of what other people believe that you feel we must oppose?

What are your thoughts on the matter, and what is your point in posting it?

.. hard to do the right thing, although he certainly didn't always succeed.

The poor fellow would have been wiser and happier if he'd had a wife, preferably one who wouldn't stand for his nonsense. Come to think of it, he'd also have been a much better saint, if he'd had a daughter, one whom he dearly loved and who wasn't afraid to argue with him.

As is written in Genesis, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will appoint a helpmate AGAINST him" ...