Women Bishops

Women Bishops

47 posts
14 July 2014
mph
Photographer
mph
EdT

b........ut Jesus was born as a result of Virginal Conception. 


As opposed to Vaginal conception?

Posted 26 July 2014
magpie1
Photographer
magpie1
The term 'Immaculate' in reference to Mary is the theological concept that Mary herself, was born without 'Original Sin' . The Virgin Birth is the theological concept that Mary conceived Christ while she remained a biological virgin.

Posted 26 July 2014
Bill_M
Photographer
Bill_M
magpie1
The term 'Immaculate' in reference to Mary is the theological concept that Mary herself, was born without 'Original Sin' . The Virgin Birth is the theological concept that Mary conceived Christ while she remained a biological virgin.
That's correct.
Posted 26 July 2014
EdT
Photographer
EdT
magpie1
The term 'Immaculate' in reference to Mary is the theological concept that Mary herself, was born without 'Original Sin' . The Virgin Birth is the theological concept that Mary conceived Christ while she remained a biological virgin.
This is what I'm not understanding. How was Mary born without 'Original Sin"? How did she get some sort of dispensation? Did God give her parents some sort of special permission? I just can't understand this.
Posted 27 July 2014
tonycsm
Photographer
tonycsm
EdT

This is what I'm not understanding. How was Mary born without 'Original Sin"? How did she get some sort of dispensation? Did God give her parents some sort of special permission? I just can't understand this.


You're not meant to understand it... you're meant to accept it as truth and not question the teachings!

Posted 27 July 2014
pentax5AC
Photographer
pentax5AC
Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

The New Testament of the Bible; a book inspired by God and presumably the ultimate authoritative guide on the way Christians ought to be living their lives, remains unequivocal as to the role of women within the congregation.
The apostle Paul makes it clear in his letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor 14: 33-35) that there is no role for women to lead in worship, something that would be fundamental to the role of a bishop.

Saint Paul is not some lightweight, minor biblical figure. His writings, letters and guidelines are at the heart of Christian doctrine and form the basis of the rules regarded as essential towards attaining salvation.
If you are not a Christian, you are free to ignore what is written, but to hold a book up as sacred and then scrap sections that don’t sit comfortably with the liberal values of a secular society is surely a betrayal of that faith.


Posted 28 July 2014
EdT
Photographer
EdT
pentax5AC
Meanwhile, back at the ranch... The New Testament of the Bible; a book inspired by God and presumably the ultimate authoritative guide on the way Christians ought to be living their lives, remains unequivocal as to the role of women within the congregation. The apostle Paul makes it clear in his letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor 14: 33-35) that there is no role for women to lead in worship, something that would be fundamental to the role of a bishop. Saint Paul is not some lightweight, minor biblical figure. His writings, letters and guidelines are at the heart of Christian doctrine and form the basis of the rules regarded as essential towards attaining salvation. If you are not a Christian, you are free to ignore what is written, but to hold a book up as sacred and then scrap sections that don’t sit comfortably with the liberal values of a secular society is surely a betrayal of that faith.
But haven't they boing doing it for a long time, it's nothing new. Doesn't it say in Exodus that you can sell your daughter into slavery, but not to a foreigner? I seem to remember that working, or even lighting a fire on the sabbath was to be punished by death. This cherry picking the bits to suit your ends has been going on since the establishment of the church.
Posted 28 July 2014
Hugh
Photographer
Hugh
pentax5AC
The apostle Paul makes it clear in his letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor 14: 33-35) that there is no role for women to lead in worship, something that would be fundamental to the role of a bishop.
Wasn't he gay? Not exactly unbiased. http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/2004/04/Was-The-Apostle-Paul-Gay.aspx
Posted 29 July 2014
Crippen
Photographer
Crippen
Hang on Hugh, just because someone is gay, that doesn't necessary make them misogynistic. As all the boys in the Aberystwyth Molly House, assure me you already know.

Although as we are talking about a fictional character, rather than an historical one, why should we give a monkey's chuff, if he was a bit of a whoopsie? All loving's good loving, right?

Dave
Posted 29 July 2014
Edited by Crippen 29 July 2014
pentax5AC
Photographer
pentax5AC
I think we need to distinguish speculative trash trawled from the internet from the documented evidence already corroborated by leading archaeologists and historians. Paul, whether you reject his authority as divine or not, remains a recognised historical figure. The places he visited were real, and as a Roman citizen, there is nothing fairytale about his role in the development of the early Christian Church or the governors, rulers and emperors documented in his account. As for his sexuality, it would be difficult to think of anyone more vehemently opposed to homosexuality or adultery, being steeped in the traditions of Mosaic Law as Paul undoubtedly was. This is why so many of the modern, liberal thinkers dismiss him as homophobic; a typically modern concept that would have meant absolutely nothing to the patriarchal society he was part of back in the first century. Labelling the apostle Paul as gay is a bit like calling Hitler a Zionist... or if you prefer an IMMACULATE MISCONCEPTION!
Posted 29 July 2014
Allinthemind
Photographer
Allinthemind
This is an interesting read....

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cogs.12138/abstract

Posted 29 July 2014
Allinthemind
Photographer
Allinthemind
Out of interest, what corroborated and documented evidence is there for the existence of Paul or any apostle that wasn't written decades after their deaths?

Posted 29 July 2014
Jackass
Photographer
Jackass
There are occasional snippets in HISTORICAL documents about Jesus et al, but nothing to justify the story that was built of some 30-70 after his disappearance. Had the Christ story been fact it would have been well documented one would think. Jesus was just one of a plethora of self professed Messiahs of the time, and was quite possibly chosen at random to become The Christ. The crucifixion story was unheard of by the early Christians, their symbol being the fish or anchor, not the cross. Emperor Constantine played the biggest part in establishing Christianity as the faith of The Roman Empire as he needed something to unify the Empire. He got all the different Christian sects together somewhere around 300 AD and established a set date for Easter, he also displaced the Pagan celebration of Saturnalia with Christmas - his very own invention! That's what history records. If Jesus Christ did exist I can only imagine what his view would be of a gold loving Catholic Church and an institution that demanded that a Pope be worshipped in his place! Those who believe will believe - regardless of evidence or lack of - just as some are left handed and others are right. That's the only explanation I can find why educated and otherwise sensible people believe. When believers talk openly about their beliefs as it were fact then I feel I have the same right t talk openly about my beliefs in the same way
Posted 29 July 2014
Hugh
Photographer
Hugh
History is written by the winners. If the Nazis had won, there would not be much written about the Holocaust. The history taught in Irish schools is slightly different from that taught in UK schools. Not much taught about British troops shooting unarmed civilians during the Croke Park Massacre in the UK: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1374567/Queen-visit-Croke-Park-massacre-scene-tour-Ireland.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1920) In the same way, there's a lot conveniently forgotten about in Irish history books. Most Americans think they won the Vietnam war For all we know, God did things like a frog. Dump several thousand fertilized eggs on earth, and leave it to chance which of the messiahs would survive. As long as the general message gets through, the details don't matter too much. After all, he/she probably has millions of planets with sentient races in need of a religion.
Posted 30 July 2014
LaurenceJPower
Photographer
LaurenceJPower
Now to throw my towel in the ring, I think that marriage should only occur in a church as a religious ceremony and that any other ceremony whether it be heterosexual or homosexual is a civil partnership, thus one is not discriminating against homosexuals or transgender people.

Posted 31 July 2014
To reply to this thread you must be a member. Click here to join