Association of Independent Christian Colleges and Seminaries

Well, Burgos has a point. If you accept the Bible as at least "containing" the word of God or reflecting the "inspiration" of humanitys' encounter with the Divine, you can't really pick and choose based on convenience or the current fashion. The only way to escape the parts you don't like is to deny that the Bible is anything but a human creation. That's basically the approach some liberal rabbis take. The problem with that is that once you say that Torah is a strictly human creation there's no authority beyond human tradition to govern human actions. The problem with THAT is there's no objective morality AT ALL because there's no natural law. The law is whatever the guy with the biggest stick says it is. After the Twentieth Century this idea is a lot less attractive than it might have been in 1910.

Everyone patient enough over the years to read my posts here knows that I am a Positivist in most things. But pure Positivism must somehow be accountable to basic decency or being human has no meaning.

Actually, there is a third way and that's to claim current revelation. Any such claim of revelation will rightly attract the most searching scrutiny.

 

Where does the Bible explicitly state women are prohibited from serving in the office of ordained Ministry? Short answer some believe it does based on words used but context is open for interpretation. It nowhere says in the New Testament women may not serve in the ordained Ministry. Paul's "keep silent in the assembly" also was a specific context where disorder was.

https://www.fuller.edu/womeninministry/

 

Believe as you will then -and as I expected. I wasn't anticipating any sudden change.

 

Box C: No religion at all, would be the one I'd tick, on a test. I made that choice. Not above taking an occasional swing when I see something I perceive as a grave wrong against other human beings. I don't think one needs a dozen years (or any years) of religious education to perceive that ugly kind of thing. (No more than it takes to perceive Martin Luther's rabid Anti-Semitism in his writing. And "context" is a lamentable defense against that. There is no defense.) To attempt a "mitigation" or "explanation" of any such human wrong -- or a flat denial - well, I don't think there is enough education in the world to succeed at that. And I'm glad there isn't.

As always, I have no problem with believers, in the major Faiths (or the minor ones.) Some lead exemplary lives, others are just plain good human beings - and all faiths have some at the bottom who are rotten apples, religion notwithstanding. The religions themselves - and particularly religious leaders - at all levels, top to bottom - yeah, I have plenty of problems with those. Never-ending ones. Quite an over-representation of toxicity and perniciousness, there.

 

1 Tim. 2:11-15; 3:1-7 that is where. And no, Paul's teaching in 1 Cor. 14:34 is not merely a command that may be explained away through appealing to a specific occurrence as the broader context (vv. 26ff) is obviously not restricted to the Corinthian situation and he uses the plural ἐκκλησίαις referring to more than a single congregation.

 

Johann, perhaps no one has told you this but, Christians follow...Christ. Not Luther. Not Zwingli. Not Calvin. Not Billy Graham. But Christ. Put your 'ugly test' to Christ and then we can talk.

 

To believe that is prohibiting women from preaching or ministry in some universal sense is a superficial reading.

https://juniaproject.com/5-reasons-stop-using-1-timothy-212-against-women/

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/determinetruth/2021/06/misogyny-and-the-bible-does-the-nt-teach-that-women-must-be-silent-in-the-church-an-examination-of-1-cor-1434-35-women-injustice13-justice24/

 

Making assertions while appealing to egalitarians without addressing the mountain of conservative literature on the subject is superficial.

 

Amen.

 

Hallelujah!

 

Think I'll stay in the Big Tent with Steve and Garp - let "Hagios (άγιος) Burgos" * do ... whatever.
I heard Mavis Staples might be singing here tonight. That right, guys?

She said "Son, are you a Christian?"
I said, "Ma'am, I'm one tonight." (Marc Cohen - Walking in Memphis)

* άγιος = holy

 

"G*d don't hate the Christians,
G*d don't hate the Jews;
G*d don't hate the Muslims,
But they ALL give G*d the Blues." (Mavis Staples)

Today - I know why.

 

(1) As far as I know, Christ Himself never said anything on the matter of women preaching - or not being allowed to do so. Fact is, although my knowledge of what He said is likely far less than yours, I can't recall His saying anything I would consider evil. I don't follow Christ - or love him. But I do like and admire the Historical Jesus and think he was courageous and had valuable things to say.

(2) You once said to me "Your Christ appears to have the taint of modernity." As I understand it, don't Christians believe that Jesus is timeless - that he is for ALL time, not just his own era here on Earth? And It's not like I trivialized Him - had Him rapping, or chilling out watching YouTube etc. No silly stuff.

(3) Jesus Himself doesn't need to undergo my "ugly test." Perhaps some people on Earth do. I name no names.

(4) I am not religious. I am a confirmed credal Atheist. I have taken the nonexistence of God as a matter of faith. I cannot find Jesus. How do I reach Jesus to talk about the "ugly test" - or anything else? Answer - I don't. I simply can't. Not possible.

(5) I think asking me to take my "ugly test" question to Jesus is a cop-out. You are (at least symbolically) hiding behind Jesus - letting Him take my flak. Long before my renunciation of all religion, somebody told me that isn't what you do with Jesus. Oh yes, I've probably made another contextual error or something. Dear me, I seem to have a propensity to do thinks like that....

 

Things like that. Typo. My apology.

 

"I don't follow Christ - or love Him. But I do like and admire the Historical Jesus and think He was courageous and had valuable things to say.

My apologies for the inadvertent lack of capital letters. Unintentional. And there may be one or two more. If I may, I'll (partially) hide behind the 10-minute timer. I got a phone call from my son, who is about 1000 miles away on holiday, while I was reviewing my post - and it timed out.

 

Indeed. If your library has Libby/Overdrive (or some equivalent for ebooks/audiobooks), or if you have a subscription to Wondrium or similar, I think you might enjoy "The Catholic Church: A History" from The Great Courses. I'm pretty sure the guy who did the lectures is Catholic himself, but he doesn't gloss over the "uncomfortable" parts of church history, as is so often the case.

Assuming a real Jesus who is everything claimed (I.E., the literal Son of God), I don't think that a rapping or chilling Jesus should necessarily be viewed as disrespectful. If you look at the historical context in which He lived, the things being preached were definitely ahead of their time. Back then, He used parables to get His point across. Today, it might be Minecraft videos. Even taking those verses in Timothy and 1 Corinthians at 100% face value would have been liberal for the times!

As I understand it, the Jewish temple at the time had 4 or 5 courtyards. The very inside of the temple was where the Holy of Holies was, and only the high priest was allowed in on special days. Just outside this was the courtyard where, IIRC, only the other priests were allowed to be. Surrounding this was the courtyard where Jewish men were permitted. Another courtyard surrounded this where Jewish women were permitted to go. Then came the courtyard(s) where anyone was permitted: Jewish or Gentile. Even today, it's not uncommon for some denominations of Jewish men & women to be separate when attending religious services.

So just allowing men & women to sit together in church, in the same building, in the first place would've been quite a radical notion for the times.

This is also how modern liberal Christians can exist: looking at the Bible not as a strict set of rules for what must be forever more (which would be conservative and restrictive by today's standards), but as prescriptions for what we must aspire to. Be better. Don't be a jerk. Which I think makes some atheists more "Christian" than a lot of modern people who claim to be Christian.

Incidentally, I think the world would probably be a better place if we'd gone with the Irish Catholicism of the 600s or so (approximately) and not continued with the Roman Catholicism of the same time period. If you listen to that Great Courses lecture series, I think you'll understand why.

 

I LIKE this! I mentioned my not going full-out 2022 only because I was (wrongly, as I see it) told "my Christ had the "taint of modernity." He had the "taint" of NOTHING. He was, and is, timeless, according to His faithful. Were He here now, He might indeed have a YouTube channel or some other way to reach a lot of people. And yes - rap will do that too, so indeed, why not? And if He were here right now, he might even choose to post on DI.

"Be better. Don't be a jerk." Well-said. That is what's supposed to happen. Trouble is, one denom's "jerk" is another denom's "better." Nobody adheres to a standard definition anymore. A lot of people got killed because of that lack, back in the day. For example the slaughter of up to 1,000,000 Cathars -and the Rhineland Massacre of Jews in the 11th century - a prelude to the Crusades.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhineland_massacres

Indeed. Ireland would certainly have remained a better place for women if the "Great Smackdown" had not occurred. Pre-Christian Ireland was very conscious of women's rights. They could own property etc. and take up pretty well any career they qualified for - be doctors, lawyers, judges etc. And pre-Christian Ireland was a very advanced place for medicine. They had "universal health care" of a kind very advanced for the time. If you needed a doctor or a hospital and couldn't pay - it was there. Tradition has it, that the first Irish hospital (an speadal) opened in 398 b.c.e. All Doctors were required to have four medical students at all times. There were separate mental hospitals, for those so afflicted. A society that in quite a few ways, "did better."

 

Paul the apostle of...Jesus Christ.