This is real patriarchal conditioning in action

[grimbletart]

if you want to see real patriarchal conditioning never mind worrying about your underwear, look at this....

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18135098

DH just commented, "do you reckon they'll petition to remove the women's vote next?"

It's absolutely nuts.

I saw that this morning and was/am gobsmacked. Did someone at CERN open up a wormhole to the 17th century and pull these women back through it?

My MIL (83) doesn't approve of women vicars. She thinks it is "wrong". I tell that we will have to agree to disagree (after I have told her that thinking that women vicars are "wrong" is wrong )

A woman I work with thinks the same

One of the nicest vicars I know is a woman. She was our curate until she got promoted to vicar at another church. She had a big leaving party and we were all sad to see her go.

my attitude to this is the same as for female boxers, i have nothing but contempt for all organised religeon and the same for anyone who gets thier kicks from watching two people knock fuck out of each other in a ring.

but if it's not going away it might as well be made fair and open to both sexes.

the women who sighned that petition are probobly so indoctrainated and 'fear thee' so much that they cannot make a resonable judgement either way so they are reduced to consulting a 3000 year old documant for their guidence on such matters.

Oh apparently it's not a womans place to lead worship cos it says so in the Bible. I could ask MIL to elaborate but it fucks me off so much that I'd rather not....

I love the idea that these women bishops should have a male counterpart bishop for anyone who doesn't like the fact they are female. Perhaps the black bishops should have a white Extra Bishop as well for racists?

I don't understand how the church is allowed to discriminate like this. Imagine it in any other profession - women allowed to be teachers but never head; women allowed to be doctors, but never consultants, or MPs but never PM. is the church outside the law? Can't a woman who wants to be a bishop (or a gay man who wants to be whatever) just take them to court?

What tribpot says.

agree with tribpot and mrskbpw

What no-one has ever satisfactorily explained to me is why only some things in the in the bible apply to us now in the twenty-first century. Who gets to choose?

well, in 1 Corinthians ch 14 v33-34 it says "As in all the churches of God's people, the woman should keep quite in the meetings. They are not allowed to speak; as the Jewish Law says, they must not be in charge."

1 Corinthians is a hard book for a lot of modern Christians, it's got a few points that are hard to square with standard society views now, however, in our church (with a vicar and majority of congregation who are pro-female Bishops), it's been discussed as being more advice from Paul to the church in Corinth and the advice while right for the situation those early Christians found themselves in, it doesn't follow that Paul would give the same advice to the Church now.

to take the bible, in this case the new testement, would be applying a 2000 year old document to 2012, of course there will be problems. but if we took the bible on a fundemental level, we would be burning animals on the church alter, executing homosexuals and there would be no law against slavery.

my examples are old testement, but you get the idea.

if your a christian, interpreting the bible for the modern world we live in isnt an option, it's compulsory. unless your in northen nigeria.

sharia law is ment to evolve, it isnt a form of law without provision for change, however, it;s the fundemental application dateing from 670ish AD thats the problem.

anyway, i dont think corinthians should be such a hard book, unless you want to take it word for word applying anceint wisdoms to today.

The Bethany Hughes series recently was very interesting on the subject of women in the early years of both Christianity and Islam, where it seemed they were allowed to play a greater part than in later years. However, I'm not sure it really requires a historical precedent; women couldn't be queens in their own right (mostly) until recently, or go to university or indeed vote. I guess all belief systems (not just religious ones) go through evolutions - the Founding Fathers of the US believed passionately in democracy and equality. Er, for white men. And preferably not Catholics. Etc. Etc.

People objected when the Mass was held in the local language, not Latin, as well - or when people could read the Bible for the first time instead of have it interpreted for them by their priests.

One of my favourite quotes is from The West Wing (of course):

ABBEY [The First Lady]: It was a perfectly lovely homily on Ephesians 5:21. "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her."

BARTLET [The President]: Yeah. She's skipping over the part that says, "Wives, be subject to your husbands as to the Lord, for a husband is the head of a wife as Christ is the head of the church."

ABBEY: I do skip over that part.

BARTLET: Why?

ABBEY: Because it's stupid!

I thought the point about the Epistles, both Corinthians and Ephesians, was that they are letters to groups of early Christians, containing Paul's advice and opinions. Paul is not considered to be a prophet and it's only what he thinks, it doesn't have the same weight as the gospels.

Disclaimer: I am actually an atheist, but this is my understanding of it.

The whole religious thing is a lot of illogical nonsense anyway. It's not worth analysing!

I think all the male bishes should have a female counterpart for people who don't like male bishes.

Jux, I think bishops should travel in packs of no less than five, in the hopes that one of them will be non-offensive. What if you don't like tall people or blondes? It must all be catered for.

Five? Five? It should be six I tell you, for those who don't like odd numbers.

Religion is appalling crap sometimes I have to say. How is it ok for debates like that linked above to be going on? It's appalling? I'm aghast and don't see how anyone can defend it.

Trib and Heath, what about those wo can only count in prime numbers? They too need salvation. And people who can only converse with ants.

Is it just me who doesn't see what the issue is here. The church isn't pro woman (unless you're a virgin mother of Christ). To me it's like being shocked if Nick Griffin started a petition to say he would prefer it if Asian and black people stayed out of BNP meetings.

BigFat The point of this thread is more like black people petitioning to keep black people out of certain jobs. It's bizarre.