Judy: On women past...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Judy: On women pastors

Page 1 / 3

Anonymous
Posts: 0
 Anonymous
Guest
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago

[link= http://www.carm.org/questions/womenpastors.htm]http://www.carm.org/questions/womenpastors.htm[/link]

Here is basically an explanation for my opinion that only men should be pastors or elders in a church. It doesn't have to do with skill level but rather, how God set things up in the beginning. I believe the Galatians 3:28 passage is being taken out of context that you quoted. Again, I am not suggesting women pastors or those who go to churches with them are bad people and not Christians, or anything of the sort. However, it is my feeling that this is more culturally based and not theologically based, and in my mind, theologically wrong. Now the board is really going to let me have it because this is not politically correct to say!

81 Replies
Venetian
Posts: 10419
(@venetian)
Illustrious Member
Joined: 18 years ago

RE: Judy: On women pastors

I agree with you.

I mean, I agree when you write "it is my feeling that this is more culturally based". But looking at the unbalanced culture of then, not now. It was an enormously patriarchal society 2,000 years ago, and those who wrote the NT, and the OT,either went along with that overbearing patriarchy (right word?) since they were so used to it that they knew no better, or it was just impossible in that time and place to speak out too publicly on equality.

I've travelled through many lands, and in quite a lot I've noticed that the men do absolutely no visible work: all day long in some cultures they sit outside in the sun nattering, or smoke and drink tea in cafes. Meanwhile their wives work 14-hour days in doing actual paid or agricultural work along with cleaning and looking after the children, cooking. This obviously comes about since males are stronger physically and had been able to create cultures here and there where they were domineering. As in the times the Bible derives from.

All-Truth didn't end with the Bible IMO, and now there have been many revelations and realisations that we are all equal, as Sons and Daughters of God. In fact, women are not only the equal to men, but are the equal to Jesus, as the idea that he was a unique Son of God doesn't in the growing opinion of many come from him - he came to show what all men and women can be - Sons and Daughters in the fullest sense, of God. Simply because we are God.

You've every right to post here and I don't mean to dispute that, but in a more smiley way I'd say 'You're in the wrong place, bud!' - meaning simply a bit like oil in water, as you allude to at the end.

Sometimes I like to take links back to their shorter version and the homepage. You are simply giving a link to an old-fashioned-style fundamentalist site promoting literal Biblical truth and being against every single other religion, creed, spiritual practice, or other style of Christianity. Put one way, globally it's a very minority view! I note the homepage says the organisation behind the site is a'nonprofit organization whose purpose is to equip Christians and refute error. It is well documented. Come here and learn about false teachings such as Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Islam, the New Age, etc.,' :D... There is indeed a lot of etc.! It may be a more positive use of time to do active good -- rather than to merely spend one's time 'refuting' continuously as such sites and organisations do?

Yes, I daresay you'll get a couple more replies. 😉

Venetian

The Bible isn't all literal fact, and that gets us into a million possible threads.

Reply
Principled
Posts: 3674
(@principled_1611052765)
Famed Member
Joined: 18 years ago

RE: Judy: On women pastors

Hi Venetian,

Interesting observations, as usual! 🙂

Dear Mc,

Thanks for replying to my post on the other thread. I will say again how pleased I am to have another Christian on these boards - albeit from another perspective! We need to have dialogue with each other and, if needs be, to agree to disagree in some cases (I think this is one!)

As I said in my post on the Gospel of Thomas thread, I'd prefer to take Jesus' teachings and example for my guide rather than Paul's (especially as I've learnt, thanks to you, that some of his letters have had political bits added later) Jesus did not discriminate against women. In fact, whom did he show himself to first after his resurrection? A woman, Mary Magdalene, who Bible scholars now are discovering from research centred around an 8-page fragment of the Gospel of Mary of Magdala which was lost for 1,500 years, was an apostle of Jesus and became an important Christian leader after the resurrection.

John's Gospel depicts Mary as the first to see the risen Jesus and then to proclaim the resurrection to the other disciples. Ben Witherington III, professor at Asbury Theological Seminary said: "Since she was commissioned by Jesus to be in essence an apostle to the apostles, she provided the most crucial precedent in the New Testament for women to be teachers, preachers or evangelists,"

There was resistance to the idea of women having spiritual authority even more in those days than now! Peter and some of the others marginalised her and she was left out of the books chosen to form the NT. Then, in 591, Pope Gregory the Great falsely identified her as the unnamed sinful woman in the Bible (Luke 7:37) Almost 1400 years later, in 1969, the church officially corrected its error, though it lingers in public consciousness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK Mc,

   

mcnabbmcnow

Here is basically an explanation for my opinion that only men should be pastors or elders in a church.  It doesn't have to do with skill level but rather, how God set things up in the beginning.

Mc, is this really your opinion, or what you've been led to accept? What I accept is what I have PROVED through healing. I have to have evidence, not blind acceptance.

I've been reading the link you've given, but to me, the whole premise is wrong right from the start, so the article (which I have read) just has no legitimate foundation. Let me explain:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, the garden of Eden, and Adam and Eve.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," (correct, Genesis 1:1)

the garden of Eden, and Adam and Eve (oops!)

Adam and Eve is NOT "how God set things up in the beginning".

Continuing with Genesis 1:26- Genesis 2:3:

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Genesis 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

CHAPTER 2

Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which Go

Reply
Sacredstar
Posts: 3958
(@sacredstar)
Famed Member
Joined: 18 years ago

RE: Judy: On women pastors

Dear MC

I agree with Venetian and Judy on equality etc

However, I do not agree that you are in the wrong place. I think you are in the perfect place to share without being judged for your beliefs. A place that is peaceful, harmonious and often joyous. There is a great deal of knowledge, exprience and expertise here on HP and as long as you don't mind us sharing a different perspective to you then I think you will get on great.

So far I think you have fitted in very well here and I enjoy our exchanges very much. So pray please stay and share more with us and you never know we might even open the eyes of the literal christian so that you may have the conscious vision of a spiritual christian.

Spiritual texts need to be looked at with spiritual eyes to truly understand their inner meanings, symbology etc.

Love and Hugs

Kim xx

Reply
Venetian
Posts: 10419
(@venetian)
Illustrious Member
Joined: 18 years ago

RE: Judy: On women pastors

Just to say that I think Judy above gives a superbly-worded rendition of explaining what is right and wrong in Genesis. Not because anyone here is a self-congratulatory society together, but I really did find it - well - "good" as in the Beginning.

A fundamentalist perspective would be aghast at the idea that anything in Genesis is 'wrong', but it's utterly obvious to scholars that the Genesis Creation story is two conflicting accounts. An enlightened layperson can see that. One is ancient and goes back to the primeval Source of Creation: translate the words into modern jargon and you are almost talking Creation 'physics'. The second (Adam and Eve in the 'Garden') is a later myth. Just as the Bible is not a book, it's a collection of books, letters, and fragments even - so too Genesis is not one book: it's a collection of beliefs and older writingspasted together from various places.

BTW there's an alternative view even on who was appointed head of the first church. Peter affirms that Jesus is Christ, and Jesus replies that he's right, "and on this ROCK I will build my church". I'm intrigued by the notion I'm given from elsewhere that Jesus meant the ROCK of Christ - that the church must be based upon the living Christ-Principle. It's notable that Peter was pretty slow-witted, couldn't physically beat John the 'Beloved' in a run to the tomb, was jealous when Jesus spoke intimately with other disciples along the shore but not him, and St. Paul had to "stand up to him to his face" to keep Christianity on track in that instance when John was mixing Judaism with the new religion and not even eating with non-Jews. My only point on Peterbeing that here's a perspective that even the Christian dispensation was not given to males to carry forward (but to people in Christ). IMO the ladies can certainly embody that Christ-Principle!

[There's an esoteric account that Peter and James were nominal heads of the first church at Bethany, but the men would dispute, not keeping harmony, so the de facto leader until her Ascension ('Assumption') was Mary, the Mother of Jesus. That Mary, incidentally, is reputed to have formed the second Christian church - at Glastonbury, England.]

All the best,

oh, and (sigh!) to repeat my own words as it seems I have to, 'you have every right to post here' and being 'in the wrong place' was clearly a smiley comment(as said) that you'll find yourself a bit outnumbered here as you allude to yourself. :)Your agenda appears to be to take ideas and quotes from those sites and use them to dispute ideas here in opening threads, etc., and this is basically a kind of New Age forum. Any of us would find it difficult and not our ideal place if we were forthright on a forum professing all your views, of course.

Venetian

Reply
Principled
Posts: 3674
(@principled_1611052765)
Famed Member
Joined: 18 years ago

RE: Judy: On women pastors

Hello again Mc,

I just wanted to add a bit more about the importance of Genesis 1. You know, you do not have to take my word for any of this - make a deep study of the differences between the two accounts of creation (written at different times and by different authors) Gen 1-Gen 2:3 and the Adam and Eve account of creation. Write out the differences, side by side.

We have precedence for doing this from Jesus. He did not accept all the teachings of the Hebrew Bible in their literal sense - look at how he regarded the commandment "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work etc" (Gen 20:8)

Did Jesus accept the "law of God" (the literal word of the Bible) reportedly given to Moses which says "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth"? NO! Jesus knew what was divine revelation and what was human opinion.

In Hebrews 7:19 Paul writes:

For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

Jesus came proclaiming the Kingdom of Heaven. In Luke 17:20, 21 we read:

And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

To me, Genesis 1 describes this Kingdom of God, or Heaven (harmony). There is an echo of this account of perfection, goodness, harmony and dominion with the millennial vision of Isaiah 11:1-9 Again, we meet the Kingdom of Heaven in Revelation 21 and 22, where all the curses and limitations of the Adam and Eve story get overturned. I love the way that the Bible begins and ends with spiritual perfection and harmony.

Paul understood this when he wrote in II Cor:

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

So, do we identify ourselves as material, made of dust, born in original sin, separated from God, or do we identify ourselves as spiritual (here and now, even though the material senses tell us otherwise), the image and likeness of God?

Mary Baker Eddy, who re-discovered the universal laws of God (Science) didn't invent all this any more that Newton invented - or had the monopoly on - the laws of mathematics. Here is a deeply revealing commentary on Rev 21:1

In Revelation xxi. 1 we read:--

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first
heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was
no more sea.

The Revelator had not yet passed the transitional stage in human experience called death, but he already saw a new heaven and a new earth. Through what sense came this vision to St. John? Not through the material visual organs for seeing, for optics are inadequate to take in so wonderful a scene. Were this new heaven and new earth terrestrial or celestial, material or spiritual? They could not be the former, for the human sense of space is unable to grasp such a view. The Revelator was on our plane of existence, while yet beholding what the eye cannot see,--that which is invisible to the uninspired thought. This testimony of Holy Writ sustains the fact in Science, that the heavens and earth to one human consciousness, that consciousness which God bestows, are spiritual, while to another, the unillumined human mind, the vision is material. This shows unmistakably that what the human mind terms matter and spirit indicates states an

Reply
Conspiritualist
Posts: 2549
(@conspiritualist)
Famed Member
Joined: 18 years ago

RE: Judy: On women pastors

What superb and clear replies Judy, I found them very revealing.

Hi Mc, the whole premise for your argument as a Christian falls down for me if you apply logical discernment to the texts as Judy has so undoubtedly demonstrated.
The one that really stcks out for me for example... If we consider either in a divine or in its basic religious context (or even as in the making of kings of men) what it was & meant to ‘Anoint’ in those lands circa 30AD and then dig a little further & find out who was actually allowed to do the ‘anointing’ – we’d find that it couldn’t be just anybody… a little more research and you’d get to find the rough value of “pure nard” or ‘spikenard’ and all of a sudden you’re no longer considering a prostitute washing and oiling Jesus’ feetas some act of devotion or contrition…
John 12:1-11
1 Six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Laz'arus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. 2 There they made him a supper; Martha served, and Laz'arus was one of those at table with him. 3 Mary took a pound of costly ointment of pure nard and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped his feet with her hair; and the house was filledwith the fragrance of the ointment.

Rgds,
roger

Reply
Anonymous
Posts: 0
 Anonymous
Guest
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago

RE: Judy: On women pastors

Well, first let me say that I thank all of you for making me feel welcome here. I realize that I am not a "new Age" guy and that I am in a severe minority on this board....that's quite OK by me. It's interesting to learn about others who think differently that you do and how they arrive at their beliefs.

I have a problem, I guess, when we start to say this part of Genesis is true, but this part is myth. To me, if we can subjectively decide this, the whole Bible becomes irrelevant. What's the point of accepting any of it? The opening chapters of Genesis are many times thought to be mythological (chapters 1-11). But this view only chooses to notice similarities between Genesis and other creation stories. Babylonian and Sumerian accounts describe the creation as the product of a conflict among finite gods. When one god is defeated and split in half, the River Euphrates flows from one eye and the Tigris from the other. Humanity is made of the blood of and evil god mixed with clay. These tales display the kind of embellishment to be expected when a historical account becomes mythologized.

The common assumption that the Hebrew account is simply a purged and simplified version of the Babylonian legend is fallacious. In the Ancient Near East, the rule is that simple accounts or traditions give rise to elaborate legends, but not the reverse. So evidence supports that Genesis was not myth made into history. Rather, extrabiblical accounts were history turned into myths.

An archeological find that impacts biblical criticism is the recently discovered Ebla tablets. This discovery was made in northern Syria by two professors from the University of Rome. The apologetic importance of the Ebla tablets is that they confirm and parallel early chapters of Genesis. These tablets contain references to Sodom and Gomorrah, Baal, Adam, Eve, and Noah. Ebla's version predates the Bablyonian account by 600 years, and the creation account is strikingly close to that in Genesis, speaking of one being who created the heavens, moon, stars, and earth. The tablets report belief in creation out of nothing, declaring "Lord of heaven and earth; the earth was not, you created it, the light of day was not, you created it, the morning light you had not yet made exist."

These Elba archives destroy the notion that monotheism somehow evolved from earlier polytheism and henotheism. The Elba archives also dealt a crushing blow to the theory that Moses could not have written the Penateuch because writing was nonexistent in his day. These tablets demonstrate that 1,000 years before Moses, laws, customs, and events were recorded in writing in the same area of the world in which Moses lived.

There is plenty of archeological evidence that backs up the Bible...I'd stop short of saying it proves the Bible, but to me, it leaves me little reason to doubt the Bible, at least for me personally.

Reply
Venetian
Posts: 10419
(@venetian)
Illustrious Member
Joined: 18 years ago

RE: Judy: On women pastors

Hi Mc,

From having posted among all the others who've posted here for two years now, I can tell you you're shooting at the wrong target in the point(s) you are now trying to make (which has again become "the Bible as literal truth" vs. the Bible as a collection of books compiled by man containing great truth, some error, some politics, and maybe even such as Laws, quite a bit of little consequence").

We all agree that there's a lot of truth behind much of the Bible. A lot of archeology backs parts of the Bible up. Even the 'Flood' is backed up by finds such as the Siberian catastrophe that killed off the mamoths. To demonstrate that parts of the Bible are accurate (to which we wholeheartedly agree) doesn't in the slightest back up what we call Christian fundamentalism.

The account of Creation BTW is paralleled in virtually every culture upon Earth, and IMO is far, far better explained (in more detail but precisely in agreement with the first Genesis account) by the Vedas - which predate the Bible. Writing existed much further back than even you state, so again one fails to see the point there. India appears to have had literacy at least at several thousand years BC. In fact St. John's Gospel opens with a quote from the Vedas - only that "OM" is translated in the Bible as "the Word".

So your scatter-shot-gunning here but not touching the points we've made. Neither does the shotgun effect hit all other necessary targets - for example, one will never find 'evidence' of Adam and Eve, which IMO is certainly myth and untrue. Or rather, it is allegory about all men and women not as they began but about their inner nature now.

Without picking up the Book to get the exact quotes, as I like to point out, many parts of the epistles are just private letters between individuals. The attitude of "the Bible is all the literal word of God" hardly fits when an epistle (letter) begins along the lines of "Hi, I'm with Tim right now travelling, hope you are well" and so forth.

You write, "To me, if we can subjectively decide this, the whole Bible becomes irrelevant. What's the point of accepting any of it?" I see this approach as lacking all real logic. It's very easy to accept a great deal of the Bible, but not all of it - and toknow of the merely human input, the mistranslations we are heir to and the political additions over the centuries. If I had time I'd show you dozens if not absolutely scores of utter contradictions between the gospels -a layperson could find them by just looking and comparing - so therefore all in the gospels is not - cannot - be literal truth. That doesn't mean anyone doubts, say, the life of Jesus!

Also bear in mind that the gospels are simplified gospels for the 'common people' or masses. The early church fathers affirmed that more detailed gospels and writings were left by the same gospel authors, and by the disciples themselves, a fragment of which surfaced in the 1800s as "The Secret Gospel of Mark". So 'your' Mark Gospel is only a simplified version: Mark wrote a more detailed and complex one, containing theology probably shocking to you, but known to Mark from the lips of Jesus himself. Just one among a hundred reasons to take an hermaneutic approach, not a literal one, to a hodge-podge collection of books - some wonderful, somedry to the point of boring in the "begat" parts :D- called the Bible today.

All over the world the debate is happening between literalists re the Bible and real scholars, with the USA as the scary plexus right now as fundamentalism (including the idea that the world is about 6,500 years old!) has strongholds ... so we don't really need to keep reciting or repeating this core debate on every Christianity thread. It's the points about women priests that are supposed to be addressed! [&:]

Yours,

Venetian

Reply
Conspiritualist
Posts: 2549
(@conspiritualist)
Famed Member
Joined: 18 years ago

RE: Judy: On women pastors

Couldn't've been put better 'V'...

Hi mcnabmcnow I think it might serve your time better if you first use the HP search facilityand feed in the points you're gonna make to see if they've been discussedat lenght before... if not it'd probably make a goodnew thread, but I feel that you'll find most of your "scatter-shot-gunning" (as V puts it) above has already been covered... in the meantime do please try to stick to (& perhaps even address) the thread that you Mcstarted!

Reply
Anonymous
Posts: 0
 Anonymous
Guest
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago

RE: Judy: On women pastors

I left the original topic for a reason. Whether or not you believe the Bible is the literal, infallible word of God affects all areas of doctrine, such as woman pastors, homosexuality, abortion, adultery, cursing,etc.... So the main thing that we all disagree on is whether the Bible can be taken literally....from that, our doctrinal differences flow.

Venetian, it's nice that you say that a layperson can see all of these Biblical contradictions. However, I'd like to see some of them listed. Why? Because numerous times supposed contradictions in the Bibleturned out not to be true, proved sometimes through archeology. Often it was amisunderstanding. And many of these contradictions occur because people read out of context or simply don't understand what the passage is saying. Many are not contradictions at all. Unexplainable doesn't necessarily automatically make something a contradiction. My guess is that almost all can be explained. I'd also like to know how many of these contradictions affect Biblicaldoctrine at all? And the other questions are, what version of the Bible is being used? Plus, people misunderstand about the switch from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant and still think Old Testament ceremonial laws apply today.

Reply
Conspiritualist
Posts: 2549
(@conspiritualist)
Famed Member
Joined: 18 years ago

RE: Judy: On women pastors

ORIGINAL: mcnabbmcnow

I left the original topic for a reason.... <snip> ...... So the main thing that we all disagree on is whether the Bible can be taken literally....

... Err! No!... I think you'll find (on this thread) we are discussing if we agree that women can or cant occupy positions of Christian religious authority... its you who supports the argument that they can't 'because the bible says so' - counter argumentsin the replies to you discuss how even thebible doesn't really support you (in a Christian sense) - how about actually Mcanswering some of those points ... err, how about addressing my point about the act of'anointing'.. how itwas percieved at that time and in that culture and justwhat kind of individual was actually allowed to perform such a ceremony (on the son of God and a King of the line of David... by a woman... aprotitute too!).

Reply
Venetian
Posts: 10419
(@venetian)
Illustrious Member
Joined: 18 years ago

RE: Judy: On women pastors

I think there's a pretty serious question arisen about why you are on HP, and another serious question about whether we are talking to someone who thinks for himself.

I did find it amusing to go to the homepage of the link you originally give, and then look from there at other pages of the "Christian Apologetics" :D.

This site has the whole list of religions and the New Age etc., and other types of Christianity, and actively encourages people (as you have done) to go to chat rooms and forums to evangelise and prove them wrong:

[link= http://www.carm.org/cut.htm] http://www.carm.org/cut.htm [/link]

Here there are instructions on how to cut and paste initial points, then how to answer objections, and what kind of thing to expect in response from the different religions and beliefs. I'll carefully follow the instructions on "How To Use A Mouse To Cut And Paste":

---------------------

The internet is full of chat rooms and those chat rooms are full of cultists, atheists, Muslims, relativists, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc., and they are all opposing the truth of God's word. Unfortunately, too many Christians don't have the resources or knowledge to be able to provide answers. That is what this section is for.
The purpose of this page is to provide quick cut and paste answers to common objections against Christianity as well as provide documentation for cult teachings. Each answer has been boiled down to a maximum of 255 characters, including spaces, to allow it to be pasted on all chat systems -- at least all that I checked. If you know of other basic questions, please let me know.
Each topic in this section will contain quotes and/or statements to copy and paste. Additionally, they will have comments after them to help you ask appropriate questions or make good points. Remember, this is only an aid and not a fool-proof way of winning a debate

------------------------
So I see it's all there on Islam which you began a thread on. For example one page is:
[link= http://www.carm.org/islam/terrorism.htm]http://www.carm.org/islam/terrorism.htm[/link]

HP if anything is largely New Age, and hey, we are there too! -
[link= http://www.carm.org/nam/nawitness.htm]http://www.carm.org/nam/nawitness.htm[/link]

Apparentlythis isn'tdialogue with an independent thinking brain and your replies are going to be a variation on that "How To Use A Mouse..." section. It's not even a real church-supported or authoratative site, just one of a number like it out there.

V

Reply
Anonymous
Posts: 0
 Anonymous
Guest
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago

RE: Judy: On women pastors

"Mc, is this really your opinion, or what you've been led to accept? What I accept is what I have PROVED through healing. I have to have evidence, not blind acceptance. "

Hi Judy,

Faith is "being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see" (Hebrews 11:1).
"So we fix our eyes," Paul wrote, "not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.... We live by faith, not by sight" (2 Corinthians 4:18; 5:7).

I have questions, I guess, to you're saying in a previous thread that that is not the type of God I want to serve. The truth is, if God created us, how are we, as mortal, dependent, human beings, in a position to judge God? Everything around us, from TV, to movies, to all of popular culture, teaches us to love ourselves, putting more strain on our relationship with God. We become so arrogant that we think we can judge God, even though He knows so much more than us. We have an idea in our heads of what God should be, and if He doesn't fit our description we say the heck with religion. However, the Christian life should be one of humilty and being a servant, as Christ was on the cross.

The reason I believe some get so alarmed at my being against women pastors is that it goes against popular culture, particularily, TV, movies, magazines, etc....that is what causes the shock value. If there were none of these things above, do you think people would get as alarmed?

Please explain to me, if you could, a little more about these two creations. The first creation contained the typical 7 days of creation in the biblical account? What creation was Eve a part of? Was there two creations, or are you saying the second creation was a false one? I'm sorry, this is totally foreign to me so I didn't respond to your earlier thread much because I am stlll trying to grasp what you are saying.

To Venetian, and others, I find it strange that these posts are all contained under Christianity, because some beliefs on here are so far from mine (or any churches in the US)as far as being a Christian. I have Sacred Star hinting that Jesus sinned and made mistakes. To all of you, I am curious how you would answer these questions.

1. Was Jesus God? is there more than one God?
2. Did Jesus rise from the dead?
3. Do you believe Jesus ever sinned?
4. How do you believe one gets to heaven?

It feels like I am talking with people who have a variety of different viewpoints...you just all don't take the Bible literally. That's the one thing that is agreed upon.

I realize I am not going to convert anyone. But I still need to understand where you are coming from. And Venetian, that was just a link I picked up to answer Judy's question. I read it and agreed with what it said. I don't spend days on that site and know nothing really about it.

Reply
Principled
Posts: 3674
(@principled_1611052765)
Famed Member
Joined: 18 years ago

RE: Judy: On women pastors

Hi Mc,

I've just returned to post a reply to Venetian and see you've posted again. Well, I am pleased to hear you only came across this site by accident as it were....

What on earth gives you the idea that I am judging God? If I reject what I consider a false concept of God - the one called Jehovah (the Jewish tribal god) in the original Hebrew of the Adam and Eve allegory, it's because the God I worship is what is termed Elohim in Genesis 1.

Mary Baker Eddy explains better than I can:
It may be worth while here to remark that, according to the best scholars, there are clear evidences of two distinct documents in the early part of the book of Genesis. One is called the Elohistic, because the Supreme Being is therein called Elohim. The other document is called the Jehovistic, because Deity therein is always called Jehovah,--or Lord God, as our common version translates it.
Throughout the first chapter of Genesis and in three verses of the second,--in what we understand to be the spiritually scientific account of creation,--it is Elohim (God) who creates. From the fourth verse of chapter two to chapter five, the creator is called Jehovah, or the Lord. The different accounts become more and more closely intertwined to the end of chapter twelve, after which the distinction is not definitely traceable. In the historic parts of the Old Testament, it is usually Jehovah, peculiarly the divine sovereign of the Hebrew people, who is referred to.
The idolatry which followed this material mythology is seen in the Phoenician worship of Baal, in the Moabitish god Chemosh, in the Moloch of the Amorites, in the Hindoo Vishnu, in the Greek Aphrodite, and in a thousand other so-called deities.
It was also found among the Israelites, who constantly went after "strange gods." They called the Supreme Being by the national name of Jehovah. In that name of Jehovah, the true idea of God seems almost lost. God becomes "a man of war," a tribal god to be worshipped, rather than Love, the divine Principle to be lived and loved. (Science and Health p 523)

This is from the Glossary at the back of Science and Health:

GOD. The great I AM; the all-knowing, all-seeing, all-acting, all-wise, all-loving, and eternal; Principle; Mind; Soul; Spirit; Life; Truth; Love; all substance; intelligence.

That's the God I love and worship. God who is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient.

It's late and I'm going away for the weekend, so don't have time to answer your question about Genesis, but I have written a whole thread on its spiritual signification (further down on the Christianity pages) and and if you're really interested in the subject, Mary Baker Eddy wrote a whole chapter on it in Science and Health - all the answers are there:

The other questions will hopefully be answered by my next post to Venetian (from my perpective that is) If not, when I return.

As to why all these New Agers are writing on Christianity pages, well, it's probably because I came along 4 years ago (I would not be welcome on any "Christian" discussion forums - "judge not" as Jesus said!) and I started writing about Christianity and upsetting some (not all!) of the spiritual seekers here who didn't want anything to do with religion. I may be quite wrong, but I believe that these religion pages were started to give me a place to write where I wouldn't upset some people on HP.

Love and peace,

Judy

Reply
Principled
Posts: 3674
(@principled_1611052765)
Famed Member
Joined: 18 years ago

RE: Judy: On women pastors

(This was written before the one to Mc above - before i'd seen his last post)

Oh Venetian - bless you - you've made my day. Here, let me give you a big kiss! [sm=1kis.gif]

Would you believe, I'd just finished writing a reply (straight in the box stupidly rather than in a word-processing document) when my Internet Explorer crashed. Groan! Well, I've often found that I've been stopped from posting for a reason and when I got it up and running again (having lost the reply) there was this beauty.

You can imagine which pages I went and looked up. I have to say it is not as full of glaring lies as the one that Kim posted before Christmas, but it still is built falsely on misquotes, passages taken out of context and the total inability to grasp metaphysical concepts.

There's a hilarious section titled "Questions to ask Christian Scientists - thanks Mc, that'll be very useful!

Well, this is now going off-topic again, but quite honestly, we'd exhausted that, let's just see how the integrity of this "Christian"-based website bears up.

These are our religious tenets - everything is there for all to see.

We believe in the Virgin Birth, Resurrection and the Ascension, but you would never have guessed that reading what that website says!

"Our Master fully and finally demonstrated divine Science in his victory over death and the grave. Jesus' deed was for the enlightenment of men and for the salvation of the whole world from sin, sickness, and death." (Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures by Mary Baker Eddy p 44)

Here is one mis-statement (or the inability to understand a spiritual concept) from carm.org:

Christian Science denies that Jesus was the Christ
And as back-up, something out of context:

"The word Christ is not properly a synonym for Jesus, thought it is commonly so used" (S&H, p. 333:3-4)

This is that sentence in context - the meaning will come clear when you read it all:

XI. Jesus was the son of a virgin. He was appointed to speak God's word and to appear to mortals in such a form of humanity as they could understand as well as perceive. Mary's conception of him was spiritual, for only purity could reflect Truth and Love, which were plainly incarnate in the good and pure Christ Jesus. He expressed the highest type of divinity, which a fleshly form could express in that age. Into the real and ideal man the fleshly element cannot enter. Thus it is that Christ illustrates the coincidence, or spiritual agreement, between God and man in His image.

XII. The word Christ is not properly a synonym for Jesus, though it is commonly so used. Jesus was a human name, which belonged to him in common with other Hebrew boys and men, for it is identical with the name Joshua, the renowned Hebrew leader. On the other hand, Christ is not a name so much as the divine title of Jesus. Christ expresses God's spiritual, eternal nature. The name is synonymous with Messiah, and alludes to the spirituality which is taught, illustrated, and demonstrated in the life of which Christ Jesus was the embodiment. The proper name of our Master in the Greek was Jesus the Christ; but Christ Jesus better signifies the Godlike. (Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, p. 332-333)

And this old potato gets hauled out again and again: [sm=boring.gif]

"If there had never existed such a person as the Galilean Prophet, it would make no difference to me." (The First Church of Christ Scientist and Miscellany, pp. 318, 319).

Here it is in context:

Authorship of Science and Health

The following statement, which was published in the Sentinel of December 1, 1906, exactly defining her relations with the Rev. James Henry Wiggin of Boston, was made by Mrs. Eddy in refutation of allegations in the public press to the effect that Mr. Wiggin had a share in the authorship of "Science and Hea

Reply
Venetian
Posts: 10419
(@venetian)
Illustrious Member
Joined: 18 years ago

RE: Judy: On women pastors

ORIGINAL: mcnabbmcnow

And Venetian, that was just a link I picked up to answer Judy's question. I read it and agreed with what it said. I don't spend days on that site and know nothing really about it.

Hi Mc,

Oh, OK, that's great then. But it does give you an idea of the worth of that site? And therefore the worth of its opinions on female pastors?

1. Was Jesus God? is there more than one God?
2. Did Jesus rise from the dead?
3. Do you believe Jesus ever sinned?
4. How do you believe one gets to heaven?

It feels like I am talking with people who have a variety of different viewpoints...


Yes, I think that's the useful and interesting thing, and therefore we learn from each other, or agree to disagree.

As for your four questions, again there might be different opinions here and it's late where I am (UK). Let's try quickies? -

1. Yes, Jesus was God, but only a part of God, as we all are. It's our destiny to realise our Godhood, he was ahead in the race so came to demonstrate it, and to demonstrate what we are all destined to accomplish (over many lives). There's One God but HeShe is also 'divided' as well. As there's a Trinity (3), that 3 becomes still more ... oh, it would take too long to explain tonight, sorry.

2. Yes - IMO. Others have too. For example read "Autobiography of a Yogi" in which a wonderful sage also rises from the dead. (Sri Yukteswar.) It's not a unique accomplishment. Death is 'not real' and Jesus was rare in that he demonstrated that publicly. Very rare!

3. Did Jesus sin? IMHO not as such, certainly not. Everybody can put their foot in it and make tiny errors, like happening to say the wrong thing for a moment. I actually think TBH he might not, given a chance over, have thrown out the money changers - though I don't at all believe he did that in temper, but to restore the temple to purity. But since most of us here believe in reincarnation, Jesus in that life was the culmination of hundreds of lifetimes. He will have sinned (I call it creating negative karma) in previous lives, and gradually, as we all are intended to do, he became a better person with each life until - hey presto - the life of Jesus.

4. Heaven is not a place but a state of consciousness. Yet in that consciousness you can be in 'another plane' which after all you COULD call a place. You get there by becoming Perfect, and the Christ, as Jesus did - not by the vicarious atonement and accepting him as your saviour.

This IMO is your most important question by far, as it pertains to the reality of ourselves and how we should live our lives, and why. There are no simple formulas for getting to 'heaven'. You attain a Christlike state mainly as a DIY job as we see so many saints of West and East have worked on - the personal spiritual Path, not just of being 'good' but of being truly holy and that in an active way, such as in effective world service.


If such concepts are new to you, I'm sorry if this makes you still more confused!! But it gets worse, as others here will have still other perspectives and may differ to me. 😀


Judy, hi,

[font=ar

Reply
Principled
Posts: 3674
(@principled_1611052765)
Famed Member
Joined: 18 years ago

RE: Judy: On women pastors

Hello again Mc,

I really shouldn't be back here on the computer when I am so behind with everything else I need to do, but I hate to leave misconceptions lingering. But, I came across two articles today that are relevant to the original subject of this thread. Here is a very moving personal account from a deeply spiritual lady (I know her) who had been a lay minister in the Methodist Church.

A spiritual journey
By Joan Wattam

(Underneath Joan's article is a really interesting healing of a scar caused by barbed wire (after the author was chased by a bull) The scar had been there for 20 years, but was gone once the higher understanding of our one-ness with God was applied.)

There was also a wonderful article on titled "I'm not Eve" -- women's place redefined"
By Katherine DeGrow which was adapted from the Christian Science Sentinel

Sadly, It's no longer on the web, but this is an excerpt from the beginning:

Women were declared human by one vote.

Tradition has it that in the year 584 C.E., a council was held in Lyon, France, where the question of women's humanity was debated by church leaders. Sixty-three delegates were reportedly present; 32 voted yes and 31 voted no.

Jesus associated with women freely and welcomed them as followers. In fact, one account tells of his holding a conversation with a woman of Samaria—at a time when men of his culture would not even acknowledge their mothers or sisters in public. Women remained by Jesus' side at the cross and were the first at the tomb after his resurrection.

In the years following Jesus' ministry, Christian churches were more inclusive than other associations in the Roman world, appealing to men and women of all races and classes. So, what could have led to this debate over the humanity of women?

We can look first to St. Augustine (354-430 C.E.). He was bishop of the church in Hippo, North Africa. Often referred to as the father of Western Christianity, Augustine believed that humanity was irreparably damaged by "the fall." According to this theology, Eve was the cause of the fall because she gave Adam, her husband, the forbidden fruit. So the concept of original sin became the basis of most of Western theology, and Eve was identified as the original sinner. The view of women as sinners became strongly entrenched and was preached from pulpits for centuries to come."

I put it to you Mc, that when you reject women as pastors, you are buying into the doctrines set forth, not by Jesus, but by the opinions of the male-dominated Church of Rome formed under Constantine, that women are sinners and inferior to men. Is that how you think of your mother and your wife?

I also want to clear up a misconception you obviously have as to what I meant here:

Principled:

Mc, is this really your opinion, or what you've been led to accept? What I accept is what I have PROVED through healing. I have to have evidence, not blind acceptance.

quote: mcnabbmcnow

Faith is "being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see" (Hebrews 11:1).
"So we fix our eyes," Paul wrote, "not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.... We live by faith, not by sight" (2 Corinthians 4:18; 5:7)

.

Hey Mc, just to clear this bit up (I totally agree with your inspiring Bible quotes there.)

I was referring to the doctrines you have found on these various web pages (or perhaps from your own pastors) which have often been passed down for centuries.

When I talk of blind acceptance, I am talking of people blindly believing what a preacher tells them, (like if they blow up innocent people in the name of our religion they will go to heaven and have 72 virgins at their disposal). We are promised (or threatened) that such and such will (or will not) happen to us if we do (or do not

Reply
Venetian
Posts: 10419
(@venetian)
Illustrious Member
Joined: 18 years ago

RE: Judy: On women pastors

In response to Mc's question 4, last night I quickly wrote:

ORIGINAL: venetian

4. Heaven is not a place but a state of consciousness. Yet in that consciousness you can be in 'another plane' which after all you COULD call a place. You get there by becoming Perfect, and the Christ, as Jesus did - not by the vicarious atonement and accepting him as your saviour.

This IMO is your most important question by far, as it pertains to the reality of ourselves and how we should live our lives, and why. There are no simple formulas for getting to 'heaven'. You attain a Christlike state mainly as a DIY job as we see so many saints of West and East have worked on - the personal spiritual Path, not just of being 'good' but of being truly holy and that in an active way, such as in effective world service.

I realise the key difference here, and why this will all seem outlandish not only to a fundamentalist but even to an orthodox or average Christian, is that they have the doctrine that we are born as sinners. The concept of 'original sin', that we are 'sinners'. Jesus is therefore apart and unique from us in that he did not sin, to this belief-system.

I don't think it'll be found anywhere in the NT that we are born into inevitable 'sin' (have to use quotes as I don't like the word and prefer karma!). In practice we see around us that people do make mistakes; they also rectify them. And we have free will and therefore can decide at every turning of life's way whether or not to do right or wrong. It is possible to decide right every time. A wonderful teacher of mine says that he became the amazing figure I find him today by "making a million right decisions". If we have free will then we can decide never to do wrong. Gradually this becomes more and more of a habit. 'Sin' becomes a thing of the past.

But there's still this doctrine of 'original' sin. That's a wrong and false theology that's kept Christians in the very sense of being sinners (when they could have had a higher concept of themselves and become that higher concept) for centuries. Jesus said: "Be ye Perfect, even as your Father in heaven is Perfect". If he told us to do that, then he knows that we can. I happen to believe quite a number of people over time have accomplished this.

What it boils down to is that most Christianity is itself opposed to the actual message and teaching of Jesus, in having original sin in their theology. Such Christianity is unChristian.

To counter the false theology - which really does have to go from this world - of so-called original sin, Matthew Fox has written an essential book called "Original Blessing".

Judy,

I see we've both addressed that same subject of 'original sin' which has been so limiting to men and women who believed in it. (You become what you think you are, and you cannot exceed your self-concept.)

You are right: Jesus didn't go around saying that all other people were sinners. Look to Constantine and the guilt he felt from his earlier life, which shaped his theology, for that. It's purely and simply a man-made invention.

On the subject of the female sex, however, I'm not so sure TBH, Judy. I've been around for a few decades now in this life and if I were to be asked to vote on whether females are human ... sometimes I might at any rate abstain. :DStill trying to work it out a la the 'Mars and Venus' book!

Venetian

Reply
Principled
Posts: 3674
(@principled_1611052765)
Famed Member
Joined: 18 years ago

RE: Judy: On women pastors

On the subject of the female sex, however, I'm not so sure TBH, Judy. I've been around for a few decades now in this life and if I were to be asked to vote on whether females are human ... sometimes I might at any rate abstain.  Still trying to work it out a la the 'Mars and Venus' book!

Venetian

Oooooooooooooooooooooooooeeeeeeeeer!!

[sm=rollaugh.gif] (in the absence of a strangling smiley!!) [sm=rollaugh.gif]

Judy 😀

Reply
Anonymous
Posts: 0
 Anonymous
Guest
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago

RE: Judy: On women pastors

"Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned." (Rom 5:12 NRSV).

"I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good. So then it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inmost self, but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?" (Romans 7:15–24).

Though the New Testament doctrine of original sin is thought by some to be expressed by Paul, it is also thought to be implicit in the teachings of Jesus: for example in such words as: "I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5). This passage speaks of the lack of spiritual life in one who is outside of Christ, which is thought to be a consequence of sin.

Reply
Venetian
Posts: 10419
(@venetian)
Illustrious Member
Joined: 18 years ago

RE: Judy: On women pastors

Hi Mc,

Your three quotes ...

1. Yes, the first is the opinion of Paul. He may even have known a little better, but was writing to people who believed in Adam from Genesis. The only problem with it is the 'one man'. I don't believe we all came from one couple literally. Otherwise translate 'sin' to 'karma', look up what karma means, and Paul was correct - except that the sin isn't inherent and doesn't have to be continued or committed. Sin is an act, it's not some kind of quality or thing inside us like blood or bile. So yer don't have to commit the acts.

2. This is a sentiment you'll find expressed by many mystics and people attempting the path of saintliness in a mighty way. There's a stage which may be very long or not so long in which you want to do only good, but then former habits come up and you do something wrong that you regret. It's a stage of the 'battle' between the lower and Higher Self, or the stage of saying 'enough!' to 'sin' ... yet finding that it takes time for the former habits to drop away. As a spiritual teacher said to a bunch of us when some despaired at overcoming this or that, "It's simply this: Rome wasn't built in a day. Persist, it takes time, and you'll get there." Paul wasn't yet 'there'. Jesus was.

3. "I am the vine, you are the branches" my school of thought believes to mean that we all have the Christ Principle within us. "I" here is not Jesus the man but the Christ Principle which is universal - the Word as John calls it. So this Universal Christ, through Jesus whom it inhabits, can say "I AM the vine". And we are all parts of that Christ - unless as the verse continues, we depart from it - which isn't permanent BTW.

V

Reply
Venetian
Posts: 10419
(@venetian)
Illustrious Member
Joined: 18 years ago

RE: Judy: On women pastors

Mc,

Further, it occurs to me to say that you just simply won't ever find or ever know spiritual Truth by human intelect. Human intellect includes all the Bible-quoting, all the personal interpretations, all the trying to 'out-argue another opinion. That's intellect and mind-stuff. You'll never find Christ with your mind or intellect.

Spirituality and spiritual wisdom and understanding is an intuitive thing, an inner Realisation of the Heart. It's actually mysticism. It takes a mystical streak. Hinduism in some of its forms is much better at knowing this than modern Christianity, though the Catholic mystics who are famous obviously had this inner knowing - which is a personal knowing and becoming of their Christ Self - in abundance.

Christians quote and quote away, as if they are going to eventually prove something 100% with their minds, and then - what? See Jesus? Go to heaven? Nope, real spirituality doesn't work like that....

V

Reply
Anonymous
Posts: 0
 Anonymous
Guest
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago

RE: Judy: On women pastors

ORIGINAL: venetian

Mc,

Further, it occurs to me to say that you just simply won't ever find or ever know spiritual Truth by human intelect. Human intellect includes all the Bible-quoting, all the personal interpretations, all the trying to 'out-argue another opinion. That's intellect and mind-stuff. You'll never find Christ with your mind or intellect.

Spirituality and spiritual wisdom and understanding is an intuitive thing, an inner Realisation of the Heart. It's actually mysticism. It takes a mystical streak. Hinduism in some of its forms is much better at knowing this than modern Christianity, though the Catholic mystics who are famous obviously had this inner knowing - which is a personal knowing and becoming of their Christ Self - in abundance.

Christians quote and quote away, as if they are going to eventually prove something 100% with their minds, and then - what? See Jesus? Go to heaven? Nope, real spirituality doesn't work like that....

V

V,

I guess I understand that spirtuality isn't simply factual. But, for some people, I think they can't emotionally build a relationship with God unless they accept the factual first. I realize that faith without love is dead.

On the first quote, I do believe we all came from one man. I know some will say "Then how can we have so many races?" Simple, when the Tower of Babel happened people were split to ends of the earth and developed different languages. Keep in mind to, that Christianity does not oppose microevolution. We do believe changes within a species happen over time, so certainly humans could develop different characteristics over time. However, many Christians balk at the notion of macroevolution, of one species actually turning into another. When people ask me racial questions, I say "We all are really the same race, the human one." So obviously I don't oppose interracial marriage in the least bit. But back to the main point, the verse says that sin came to the world through Adam...therefore, we were born with a sinful nature.

On the second quote, where do we find evidence that Paul is going to eventually "get there"? Are you saying that ultimately, Paul will experience a state of sinlessness? I guess to me, that can only be done through Christ's blood and his sacrificial payment for our sins on the cross. It doesn't mean we are sinless, it just means our sins are washed away in God's mind when we repent and ask for forgiveness. I do agree that we certainly can improve, and not sin in areas where maybe we did before. But that doesn't make us not a sinner.

Reply
songstress
Posts: 4286
(@songstress)
Famed Member
Joined: 18 years ago

RE: Judy: On women pastors

Hello All,

Enthralling reading and views, as usual.

I can't really quote from The Bible, because I turned away from a lot of Christian teaching quite a few years ago, mainly because of mysogenistic and homophobic thought, but it seems that something has been forgotten in the discussion here. I know enough about Jesus to know that:

1) His disciples numbered many more than the 12 we know about.
2) Some of the disciples were women, including Mary Magdalene, Mary of Bethany, Martha and Jesus's own mother.
3) He was an ancient 'Left winger.'
4) The mysogenistic Bishop Cyril excised certain gospels from The Bible, including the 'lost' Gospel of Mark, which David refers to, and the Gospel of Thomas, because they were far too sympathetic to the 'real' story of Jesus's life. He also turned Mary Magdalene into a prostitute and 'cast her out' of Jesus's circle.
5. The Magdalene was one of Jesus's greatest devotees; indeed, she was Christianity's hidden goddess. She was instrumental in founding the Christian church in France. She may have been married to Jesus as well, but that's for another discussion
6) God created man and woman equally. One cannot exist without the other. Jesus knew this, and this is why he encouraged women to his bosom, as well as men. He was a Left-wing 'radical' of his time, and saw to balance the inequality between the sexes that was prevalent at the time.
7) All versions of The Bible are a collection of writings and books, and each has undergone changes whenever a dictator needed to point the finger. One look at the King James verson will tell anyone that he had a 'downer' on 'wise women.'
8) This reading of sacred passages to suit the ends of fundamentalists still goes on, at the peril of enlightenment and sensible discussion. It's not confined to Christianity, but is part of a thread that runs through all major religions because each believes 'it' has the answers. Nobody has the answers.

Sorry for butting in.

Love,
Patsy.
[&:]

Reply
Venetian
Posts: 10419
(@venetian)
Illustrious Member
Joined: 18 years ago

RE: Judy: On women pastors

I'm sure your 'butting in' is always welcome, Patsy!! No thread is owned by 3 or 4 who happen to be major on it as you know.

Another line occurred to me just now about scripture not getting us all that far. I'd ooverdone it at the gym and lopped off intoa brief nap, to awake with a quote from Jesus in one of the gospels. The old boys already instituted as the priesthood obviously came up to challlenge him time and time again, trying to trip him up and 'beat' him over scripture. In the end, though he was a master of using scripture himself, he said to them:

"Search the scriptures, for therein YE THINK ye have eternal life." (my emphasis)

Scripture is important of course, but I've never been one to get too deeply into all this trying to 'win' by knowing the best or the most biblical quotes - not a comment to Mc but on Christian evangelical types in general who do THINK their eternal life is to be found in printed words.

Venetian

Reply
Sacredstar
Posts: 3958
(@sacredstar)
Famed Member
Joined: 18 years ago

RE: Judy: On women pastors

Well what an amazing thread and all angles seemed to have been covered. I would like to pick up again on the equality that Jesus was so passionate about 2,000 years ago. MC why is so hard for people to accept equality between man and woman in all areas of endeavour? Surely in the 21st century it is time for us to embrace the purity of the Christ heart of sharing and caring in oneness?

I would also like to throw another pebble in the pond e.g Men Come From Mars and Women Come From Venus as once again this is old archetypes.

"After the fall of consciousness humanity divided into hunter and the hunted; we are being asked to break down these archetypes that are buried deep within human consciousness. Archetypes are inherited patterns of thought, symbolic imagery that is derived from the past collective experience. The victim and the perpetrator, the judge and the accused, the strong and the weak, the powerful and the powerless, men from mars and women are from venus, man being the breadwinner and woman the receiver. All are part of duality and the polarity of fallen consciousness. Many aeons ago, we were enlightened spiritual beings living in paradise, spiritual beings knowingly living a human experience in oneness with each other and the planet on which we lived."

These finds make the bible look modern in comparison.

Acheulian Goddess 230,000-800,000 years old.

This website mentions the earlier find as well.

Deanna L'Am is leading a tour to sacred sites in Israel next year, to visit a goddess who is at least 230,000 years old.

The "Acheulian Goddess", as she has come to be called, was named for the geologic layer in which she was found, estimated to be between 230,000 and 800,000 years old. Carved with flint out of scoria stone, she is tiny enough to hold in the palm of the hand and resembles the much younger Venus of Willendorf, who is only 30,000 years old.

"Her antiquity was completely staggering to me," says Deanna, "and the fact that she was found on the Syrian Israeli border, the Golan Heights, which is the place of the tear between the two countries. The political significance of that! Just on the line, just on the bridge, where war erupted, she was buried, carrying a message of unity. Because obviously when she was around, there were no borders!"

[DLMURL] http://www.awakenedwoman.com/goddess_of_palestine.htm[/DLMURL]

Well that leaves a literal Genesis out in the cold! 😀

being love

Kim xx

Reply
Anonymous
Posts: 0
 Anonymous
Guest
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago

RE: Judy: On women pastors

ORIGINAL: Sacredstar

Well what an amazing thread and all angles seemed to have been covered. I would like to pick up again on the equality that Jesus was so passionate about 2,000 years ago. MC why is so hard for people to accept equality between man and woman in all areas of endeavour? Surely in the 21st century it is time for us to embrace the purity of the Christ heart of sharing and caring in oneness?

I would also like to throw another pebble in the pond e.g Men Come From Mars and Women Come From Venus as once again this is old archetypes.

"After the fall of consciousness humanity divided into hunter and the hunted; we are being asked to break down these archetypes that are buried deep within human consciousness. Archetypes are inherited patterns of thought, symbolic imagery that is derived from the past collective experience. The victim and the perpetrator, the judge and the accused, the strong and the weak, the powerful and the powerless, men from mars and women are from venus, man being the breadwinner and woman the receiver. All are part of duality and the polarity of fallen consciousness. Many aeons ago, we were enlightened spiritual beings living in paradise, spiritual beings knowingly living a human experience in oneness with each other and the planet on which we lived."

These finds make the bible look modern in comparison.

Acheulian Goddess 230,000-800,000 years old.

This website mentions the earlier find as well.

Deanna L'Am is leading a tour to sacred sites in Israel next year, to visit a goddess who is at least 230,000 years old.

The "Acheulian Goddess", as she has come to be called, was named for the geologic layer in which she was found, estimated to be between 230,000 and 800,000 years old. Carved with flint out of scoria stone, she is tiny enough to hold in the palm of the hand and resembles the much younger Venus of Willendorf, who is only 30,000 years old.

"Her antiquity was completely staggering to me," says Deanna, "and the fact that she was found on the Syrian Israeli border, the Golan Heights, which is the place of the tear between the two countries. The political significance of that! Just on the line, just on the bridge, where war erupted, she was buried, carrying a message of unity. Because obviously when she was around, there were no borders!"

[link= http://www.awakenedwoman.com/goddess_of_palestine.htm]http://www.awakenedwoman.com/goddess_of_palestine.htm[/link]

Well that leaves a literal Genesis out in the cold! 😀

being love

Kim xx

Sacred Star, alright, I have to ask it. Please don't take offense to this question, but through some of my research, I have a question about you. Are you engaged in wicca, or witchcraft? Looking at a lot of your viewpoints, they really match up almost 100%with someone who is into wicca and witchcraft, which would mean I have to be a little careful. The Bible has warnings against such things......Do you consider yourself a witch? Just curious, please don't get upset by this.... Here is an example of typical "wicca" beliefs...

  • A polytheistic world-view (there are many gods, usually a pair).
  • Abelief in reincarnation (animals come back as humans)
  • A belief that ALL objects have life and souls.
  • Most are militantly feminist and politically left-wing, even anarchistic; although there are exceptions.
  • A "do your own thing" morality, as long as it doesn't "hurt anybody." This often includes free sexual activity (at least within the group).
  • The belief that persons can evolve spiritually through their own efforts and ultimately attain either enlightenment or even godhood (similar to what Mormon's believe).

There is no headquarter orga

Reply
Venetian
Posts: 10419
(@venetian)
Illustrious Member
Joined: 18 years ago

RE: Judy: On women pastors

Hi Mc,

[sm=rollaugh.gif][sm=rollaugh.gif][sm=rollaugh.gif][sm=rollaugh.gif][sm=rollaugh.gif]

(Five smileys for the number of points to a pentangle. [:-])

You really have been indoctrinated somewhere (what place, organisation, or church, Mc? time for you to 'fess up) into some wierd stuff. IMO you'd do well to investigate, meet others, talk to them in real life, and find out for yourself instead of swallowing these categories wholesale.

(Sorry to butt in as you weren't addressing me, but I think many will be ROFling with me!)

V

Reply
Anonymous
Posts: 0
 Anonymous
Guest
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago

RE: Judy: On women pastors

ORIGINAL: venetian

Hi Mc,

[sm=rollaugh.gif][sm=rollaugh.gif][sm=rollaugh.gif][sm=rollaugh.gif][sm=rollaugh.gif]

(Five smileys for the number of points to a pentangle. [:-])

You really have been indoctrinated somewhere (what place, organisation, or church, Mc? time for you to 'fess up) into some wierd stuff. IMO you'd do well to investigate, meet others, talk to them in real life, and find out for yourself instead of swallowing these categories wholesale.

(Sorry to butt in as you weren't addressing me, but I think many will be ROFling with me!)

V

I know, I know. Make fun of me. I don't think most people on here are involved in witchcraft or Wicca, but something seems different about Sacred Star, and it wouldn't surprise me if she was. I'm just curious...that's all.

Reply
Page 1 / 3
Share: