Religious tolerance

God has always existed and always will, which is a strange concept to grasp. I find even my mind has to be forced open on that one.

You are right. Inspired does not mean written.

The ordination of women does not fit with anything written in the Bible, so I am not for it.
A lot of women say that they are called by God to do it, so I cant speak for them.

Anya - just seen your question to me yesterday 22.37 about "quote".
I mean the whole letter in the OP - quotes from the OT of laws which now seem ..... lets say inappropriate, a favourite word nowadays.
It's so easy to pick holes, easier to destroy something than to build.

S2B is the bible on which you base your beliefs, the Old Testament, the New Testament or both?

That is interesting soon. Maybe I got it wrong, but I thought you were a Methodist- who have been very open on the ordination of women for a very long time, and officially since...

'Clergywomen have been part of Methodism since John Wesley licensed Sarah Crosby to preach in 1761. Although women were ordained in the Methodist tradition as early as the late 1800s, it was the May 4, 1956 General Conference vote for full clergy rights that forever changed the face of ordained clergy.'

maybe my memory is playing tricks, here- or are you in disagreement with your Church on this point?

I am a Methodist.
The Methodist organisation is very democratic. I am in the minority on that point.

On a personal level, and this applies to all christians, we have to go with what we believe. That is part of faith.
not sure we want to get too deep on this point].

Anya. Both. They are both part of the Bible for christians. But most Jews go by the Old Testament.

Thanks soon for your honest reply. Of course any question that goes 'too deep' for you can just be ignored, as you well know.

I found it really puzzling where I lived, that so many people in the villages around us went to the another Church than their own- because the didn't like the attitude of their Vicar on this (or other- like gay rights) or other issues. Our Vicar was vehement against the ordination of women, one in a next village was ambivalent, and in another village very much for it. We alsmost had traffic jams on Sunday mornings ;)

Just thinking though if (quote) :

we have to go with what we believe.

then it does imply, perhaps, that there is a wide interpretation of the scriptures, even within specific Christian faiths (and there are so many). I find this confusing- if there is no basis in the Bible, according to you, for the ordination of women, why is the Methodist Church pro- and has been for a very long time. That must be difficult for you.

"The sacred Scriptures of Judaism consist of three groups of documents: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings (such as Psalms and Proverbs). These Scriptures also form the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. (Judaism does not accept the inspiration of the New Testament or its account of the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies.)"

Is this not the Torah?

There is a two part answer to your post granjura.

The first one is easy enough to understand. As I said before, the Bible is a complex book.

Actually there are at least 3 parts.

1. The Bible is a complex book, well series of books.
2. Some people, and that includes christians dont want to do what is it in, so as in life, try to get round it, and may only see what they want to see. Or pick out the bits that they like. [I am not judging anyone here, just saying what happens sometimes.
3. People as you say come from different backgrounds and even faiths, so it is quite easy to have incorporated that into your belief system, rather than what is actually in the Bible.
I would like to add that there are people in the world who cannot read, so have to rely on what they are told or had handed down.

Point 4. I will add later as it is a tricky concept, and I need time to word it well.

The ordination of women bit by the way. It is a bit like belonging to any large organisation. Most people do not agree with all of it's decisions. It isnt much more difficult than that really. For me anyway.

I read the NRSV[New Revised Standard Version] of the Bible, as this one seems to be the most consistent one throughout. It is also the one that I think is still the most used one in the pulpit.

Point 4 is basically Romans chapter 14, with the most important verse being the last one.
Basically it says that even though someone thinks they are doing right

because they are acting according to their faith, that is the most important bit.
They may be getting things a bit wrong, but doing something to God or for God is more important than getting everything 100% right.

soontobe You didn't answer my question as to whether you go along with the "man is the boss" theme that you acknowledge is evident in most parts of the Bible but I guess from your more recent posts that you do.

Given that the belief you and many others hold is that the Bible in effect instructs women to "know their (inferior) place", do you also think the quotes from the Bible that granjura posted should be heeded (e.g. Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands; Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection… etc. etc.)? Do you feel that the reported teachings and behaviour of Jesus demonstrate his commitment to maintaining these notions of female inferiority?

I thought I did answer it. Sorry if I wasnt clear.
I dont see it as a good thing or a bad thing.

Wives submit to husbands - in my marriage, he has 51% say, and me 49%!
Let the woman learn in silence - I try not to read a bible passage etc.

Last sentence. Yes.

It would be very interesting to hear the thoughts of other committed Christians here, I have to say. Am I wrong in saying that many would not agree with you on the 49/51? 49/51, when the chips are down, is not very different in a 'democracy' than 30/70 - here new laws and big decisions are all taken on the majority principle- sometimes very very close- the 51% will always, inevitable win on the 49%. In fact, I'd wager that a decision is harder to accept on a 30/70 than on a 49/51.

It's 95/5 in our house. To me.

I do not accept women submitting to husbands , if the man is Christian he shouldn't expect his wife to submit , he should acknowledge we are all equal in the eyes of God. Paul tells women to obey their husbands but he also tells men to honour their wives , for me this means honouring their wife places them as equals

Sorry, of course I meant:

In fact, I'd wager that a decision is easier to accept on a 30/70 than on a 49/51.

My view is that we're not equal in every quality, we're different. Men are stronger in some things, women in others. We complement eachother.
So ideally a married couple are one unit.

Anniebach If you accept that a woman should "obey" her husband then the fact that he has to "honour" her does not make them equals.

"Obey" can, I believe, be only interpreted in one way - "You do what I tell you to do". "Honour" is a much more vague term and can be interpreted in many ways. A man might say he honours women by opening doors for them, offering them a seat on the train - and not expecting them to worry their pretty little heads about who governs the country because their job looking after the house and children is much more important.

Eloethan , no way did I say I accepted Paul's teaching , it is often used by many who do. I just said how I interpret it , honouring a wife means accepting your wife as your equal which she is

it could also mean protecting her from the outside world by keeping her in the home, covering her with a scarf and having her head shaved or even having her clitoris cut so she is not empted by sex- the interpretation of 'honour' can be interpreted in 1000s of ways- and are in part of the world in Christianity, Judaism and Islam (Eritrea has the highest % of female genital mutilation in the world, and it is totally Christian). I can mean to be beaten or even stoned to death for not obeying.

So glad that in our marriage Anniebach, it means being equal.

Being equal of course does NOT mean being the same- and not necessarily on traditional 'male'/'female' lines. DH and I are absolutely complemetary to each other- he excelles in anything I am hopeless at, and vice versa. But much of it does NOT fall on traditional male/female expectations (where it is often impossible to defy the % of nature versus nurture- and sociatal expectations and attitudes practically from birth- we both had strong and talented mothers who went agains expectations so often).

grrr where is that EDIT button - I just type too fast, sorry.

'define' not 'defy'

"Honour" surely means"to accord her the respect she is due, physically , intellectually and emotionally".
Straightforward enough, and a better translation of "worship" as in
"with my body I thee worship" in the marriage service.
To say "I thee honour" conveys a more respectful message. To me it does not say what you cite in the opening lines of your post, gj.

neither does it to me alea- glad we agree. All I am saying is that it is open to a multitude of interpretation from the sublime to the ridiculous and extremely cruel. For me 49/51 is the beginning of that slippery slope.