I wonder if they realize who is the HEAD of the Church of England?

peanutGalleryTheater,

The queen is not a bishop nor does she take part in decisions pertaining to the Anglican Church. She is the head of the Church much the same as she is head of the Empire; a titular "ruler" who does not govern.

The Prime Minister runs the UK and the Archbishop of Canterbury runs the Church.

The Archbishop of Canterbury would LOVE to run the Church. He's got a thankless job hauling around tons of antiques on a three-wheeled cart.

Religion vs common sense and fairness = religion wins. Every time. Religion had its day, but now works against human progress. Get rid of it.

As an American Anglican (Episcopalian) I must say that I'm disappointed in the Mother Church. I am also really proud of the fact that WE have been ordaining women bishops for some time now. In fact, our Presiding Bishop (or Primate - head of the American Church) is a woman named Katharine Jefforts Schori. She is the only female Primate in the Anglican Communion, and the last time she attended the Lambeth Conference, our decennnial Communion-wide conference, she was not allowed to wear her bishops mitre while attending services there, while all of the male bishops were. So, she carried her mitre in, and held it in her lap as an act of protest. In the regard, the American really are far ahead of the Brits. Our Church even allows the ordination of openly gay bishops and priests as well as the blessing of same-sex unions.

Well Vince...you had me until the "Our Church even allows the ordination of openly gay bishops and priests as well as the blessing of same-sex unions" comment. I dont care what someone does in their own home...but you cant have openly gay bishops and priests and the like as authority figures since homesexuality is a sin according to the word of God. The same God the bishops\priests proclaim to serve.

Interesting that they'd even bother to vote. I mean, if they voted against it, it means they think they did so because they believe it's against their religion to allow it. Yet, if it's against their religion to allow it, then why the hell are they voting on it in the first place? So, apparently, it's not actually against their religion. And, since that's the case, then what's their reason for voting against it, other than they simply hate women?

They need to just admit that they oppress certain groups of people simply because they don't like them, and for no other reason. That's exactly what this vote proved, so why do they keep up this charade as if we're too stupid to see right through it and know their real motivation? I mean, if they're this transparent to us, imagine how little they're fooling their supposedly omniscient god.

Idiots, the lot of them.

RSL1, you can't pick and choose which laws that are in your Bible you will follow. If you don't follow all of them you are a hypocrite.

The bigger question we should all be asking is: What are all these female bishops doing out of the kitchen?

Am I right, Christian leaders? Ya... you know what I'm talking about. Silly females wanting to be treated the same as men. Don't they know anything about their religion?

Oh for Christ's sakes....literally......next they will start stoning women as preached in the bible,...... not talking California style....

Ahhhh......How I miss those days of sacrificing children and virgins at the alter......the good news...Moses will be working with FEMA during the next Hurricane and will part the seas before the Hurricane hits the shore....! All you have to do is...think of something good and clap your hands.....No...that was in Peter Pan......let's see...Oh Yeah......have faith!....

RLS1

homesexuality is a sin according to the word of God

Actually that is according to YOUR interpretation of the words written by MEN who claim to be speaking for God.

There is also ample historic and biblical evidence that supports the argument that God loves homosexuals.

If I were you, I would not be so arrogant as to assume to know the true feelings of God... especially considering that your supposed knowledge is based on the writings of ancient nomads.

the good news...Moses will be working with FEMA during the next Hurricane and will part the seas before the Hurricane hits the shore

Don't forget about Aquaman .... I mean Jonah .... who will be providing scientists with detailed biological descriptions of the inner workings of various whales.

Hey, it's in the Bible, so it must be true.

Why do atheist hate mongers care what rules exist within churches, much less take the time to write ugly comments on them???? Could it be a little self doubt of your arrogant, self-assured denial of the possibillity of a higher being?

Why do you assume that everyone who questions (or mocks) your church, is an atheist?

Perhaps some just enjoy pointing out the pure hypocrisy that is the religion you ascribe to. Because if we can not laugh at it, then we must accept the sad truth that this corrupt and evil association still has more power than any other organization on the planet.

If an institution doesn't like women - it is sick.

LJRhodes

The Anglican church does not espouse to having a head of the church with "divine" knowledge like the Roman Catholic pope (the one who conceived of, initiated, and executed the cover-up of pedophilia throughout the ranks of Roman Catholic clergy and then moved the pedophiles around thus providing them with fresh victims). Rather, the Anglican church uses a model that can be described as a three-legged stool- there is 1) the word of God and his plan,2) the interpretation of His word by clergy who have studied it in depth, debated it, and prayed about it, and 3) the interpretation of his word by the laity who have studied it and prayed about it. This is why we have parish meetings, regional conventions, national conventions, etc. to determine policies and practices going forward. The Anglican church gives the same consideration to the insight of the LAITY as it does the clergy, unlike the Roman Catholic church.

As a result, it's only a matter of time before the church progresses to ordaining women as bishops. With each new generation will be more open-minnded and progressive laity and they will eventually vote with the clergy.

The Anglicans, at least in the ECUSA, consider us (all of us, not just Anglicans) to be works in progress, in constant communication with God. Irrespective of denomination, Anglicans believe in worshiping with others and sharing communion with others. Anglicans also believe in respecting those who do not believe in God.

RLS1 The bible does not state that homosexuality is a sin. It has been INTERPRETED that way. It says homosexuality is an abomination, just as it says eating shellfish is an abomination. Do you fight or argue against the right of people to eat shellfish as strongly as you do against homosexuality? Have you worked hard to outlaw eating shellfish?

Homosexuality is not a choice. God created homosexuals to have the sexual preferences that they have. It has been biologically mapped in the brain, much as areas of creativity, etc. have been. Other than the supposed "original sin", sin is a choice. Homosexuality is not a choice, therefore it cannot be a sin.

spider-737231 - Why do atheist hate mongers care what rules exist within churches, much less take the time to write ugly comments on them????

Maybe that's because you nutty bible thumpers seem incapable of keeping your cult in your own life and insist that your silly sharia laws be imposed on everybody.

You open yourself up to ridicule when you do that.

Tuesday's vote, on provisions to be made for conservatives theologically opposed to senior women clergy, needed to pass before women could be enthroned

Yes, absolutely no suggestion here as to who may have blocked this movement. Nevertheless, I would remind the posters here on the forum that the laity (that is non-clergy like nuns and lay brothers)voted it down, not the bishops and clergy. The leadership is ready to, what is it you all like to say, "move forward." Turns out the world isn't so black and white, is it?

Human nature(that is our flesh, or sinful nature) does not want to hear anything about sin or the bible because it makes us feel guilty and our sinful nature does not want to hear anything pertaining to God, sin or the bible. People do not get as mad when someone tells them that lying is wrong or stealing etc. but they sure do get upset when you mention anything regarding sex without marriage, homosexuallity, etc. why is that, hmmm!!!! I can bet you that if I told some of you that it is wrong to be skinny you wouldnt make as big deal about it as you would other sins, not that being skinny is a sin but it is not healthy. We do not want to hear what hits close to home like a person would be more angry if we tell them being fat is not a good thing. And btw giving an opinion about something is not being hateful or judgemental.

The church can do whatever it choses whether the opinionated public agrees or not.

If you aren't in the drivers seat in the organization, you are merely another bystander and have no relevance.

Leave the church alone.

Well, that makes a lot of sense. Keep the men in the lead roles because they represent the whole congregation...oh wait! No they don't. I wouldn't belong to a church that didn't treat women as equals, but that's just me. I guess that's what they wanted...how sad.

And spider, just because a person thinks that women church leaders make sense doesn't mean s/he is an atheist. Your comment sounded pretty hateful in itself and wasn't accurate.

Its too bad. They are missing out, women would have much to contribute. There is of course the same problem in the Muslim world, I think only one or two countries allow women to be imams. Sad.

Heck of a job, Christianity!

For God's sake (no pun intended), even the Taliban are more Progressive.

People do not get as mad when someone tells them that lying is wrong or stealing etc. but they sure do get upset when you mention anything regarding sex without marriage, homosexuallity, etc. why is that, hmmm!!!!

Suseq, it seems your side doesn't really care about the lying or stealing (as long as the liar or thief turns around, proclaims they "found Jayzus(tm)" and starts proselytizing for the right wing) nearly as much as those sins which involve our boy-and-girl parts. Your side is the one that seems to think that morality begins and ends at the genitalia, which is a profoundly warped sense of morality...

"The church can do whatever it choses whether the opinionated public agrees or not."

Only as long as it's legal.

"If you aren't in the drivers seat in the organization, you are merely another bystander and have no relevance."

Is that what those in the church think of anyone who doesn't belong to their church, or follow their church, that they have no relevance? Gee, I really don't believe that was what the Christ taught his followers Phil, am I right? Or, is this just your understanding of how the church should be run? If it is, you really can't blame people for not wanting to follow your type of church.

"Leave the church alone."

It's not the church that is the problem Phil. It's the hypocrites in charge of it, and running it into the ground that is the biggest problem.

She is the only female Primate in the Anglican Communion, and the last time she attended the Lambeth Conference, our decennnial Communion-wide conference, she was not allowed to wear her bishops mitre while attending services there, while all of the male bishops were.

Perhaps she shouldn't have attended the conference. The American Episcopal Church carries a great deal of weight because of its wealth. She, and Americans Episcoplians in general, didn't have to accept that insult.

Are you high? Nanny Pelosi? Miss "We must vote for it to see what's in it" is considered by you to be a good leader? No wonder you voted for Obamma.

As they used to say to me in the UK when Mrs Thatcher ran the show---"she is the best man we have!"

dmill,

Sure they are. Too bad they both LOST...

Heaveto,

She was in the UK. Not a surprise.

Bob, the majority of the American voters voted for President Obama TWICE. You are just a sore loser.

Are you KIDDING dmill?! I'm as liberal as they come, but Pelosi is a disaster in no uncertain terms. That she was re-elected AND is retaining control of the House Minority is almost as astonishing as Bachmann getting the nod AGAIN.

Freddy...freddy......now now....all anyone has to do is look at your posts to see you are as liberal as...well any teabagger that ever posted.......I do agree with you about Bachmann.......but rt winger millionaires paid for some pretty big lies for her....her contribute rs were mostly outsiders......But ol crackpot hiding in the bushes Bachmann will be fun fodder on SNL as always...so she does provide for comedy for the nation....

all anyone has to do is look at your posts to see you are as liberal as...well any teabagger that ever posted

Liberal as any teabagger...? I can only conclude you either don't know teabaggers, or didn't read many of my posts.

gutcheck1: who wouldnt have voted for Obama, he's Santa Claus, I guess I would vote for him if I got free everything, Not! I work for my money!!! I wonder what ever happened to the lady that said that she will never have to worry about putting gas in her car now that Obama was elected, mabe now that he got re-elected she will get a Cad. I knew all along that Romney would not win, people are used to the freebees!!!

A bunch of misogynist dinosaurs hanging on to the last century because they are too afraid to look into the next. For centuries men fought to control (and in some places continue to control) women because they had no other way of determining whose kids were whose. Those days are over thanks to science, (another place churches of all ilks have fought for control), so it is only a matter of time before these anachronistic attitudes and decisions are overturned. Have patience and remember... God helps those who help themselves. We will keep fighting for equality in every aspect of our lives.

Only in your myopic viewpoint dear.

gutcheck and phil - Yes, I did vote against Obama. Yes, I will vote against any idiot who continues to drive down the America I grew up in under his misguided views of what America should be. yes, I also realize that he was able to fool many of the people twice. And, as I am sure you never gave respect to Bush for being elected twice (and yes, he did receive enough votes in FL in 2000 to win), then I see no reason why you deny me the right not to respect the empty suit who continues to occupy the White House.

As for blaming Barry, now that he has had 4 years to ruin the economy, divide the counrty along racial and economic lines, and lower both our esteem and influence in the world, can we now blame Obama for the troubles in the country? Or are you both the types who will be blaming Bush for the ills of the country into 2017?

This has happened before..and...no change. Hmmm.

Keep watching for it.

No change? DADT is gone, we finally have SOME form of universal health mandate, and the disastrous 'War on Drugs' seems to be ending, if Colorado and Washington can continue to push forward for all of us.

The times ARE changing!

VincentBlackShadow

Are you refering to women being ordained as bishops? If so, I agree. It's just a matter of time. The Anglicans, as a whole, are a reasonably lot, if nothing else. ...unlike the Roman Catholics.

Hey folks----when you have a "good gig" you have to protect it---it beats 'working'

Its been a good deal for Obama.

@NC, why don't you get a life. There are always people like you trying hard to troll US politics into everything. The election's over, time to move on, nothing to see here.

NC - I think this is your pat answer/response/post for just about everything that may hit the Internet news. SpcTorres called it right ~ you're the Troll du Jour

Guess sometimes taint is still a little sore, huh, NC?

It really is interesting that the bishops and the clergy passed the change but the laity didn't.

HChris

Once the younger generation Anglicans become the voting laity, it will be voted in.

Well religion is not designed to change. And it seems the educated part of the planet is becoming more non-religious. Anyone that uses Technology and Science should be changed with Witchcraft and Heresy. Religion is the reason for the the dark ages. And religion continues to be what holds the world back from progressing. Now days it Islam more then Christianity.

Welcome to the 21st century....

The kids (Episcopalians and others) aren't doing too badly, it's Mom over there on the island who's old, half-blind and hard of hearing.

Well truthfully if you people read the bible you will see that a women is not to usurp authority over a man, in other words a women should not teach a man about the things of God, nor should she give a man counseling, that's just the way it is, either you believe the bible or not. Man is head over the women, the bible says it and that settles it!!!!!!!!!!!

suseq, it does not. Or do you not believe in modern rights for women either? Think it was fair that Joan of Arc was burned at the stake?

But you see, prpl, suseq is one of those "Christians" who worship Saul of Tarsus (the source of her quotes about women) over Jesus of Nazareth, who made no such claims. Funny how people like her can spout the Pauline Epistles like water from a fire hose, but almost never have a thing to say about those four little books with the red letters in them...

Man is head over the women, the bible says it and that settles it!!!!!!!!!!!

Of course, the fact that MEN determined which books (which were also written by men) to include the bible had nothing to do with that message.

Do you also keep all of the laws of Leviticus? Goodbye pork and shellfish.

In the New Testament the rabbinic laws were fulfilled by Christ's sacrafice . Dietary restrictions and such were no longer an issue . What is addressed here is the administrative rules laid down by St Paul and other founding Church fathers , as led by the Holy Spirit .

and throw out your wash and wear shirts and your jock strap and take the Canadians as slaves! (more from the OLD Testament) You Bible-thumpers make fools out of yourselves on a daily basis.

Speaking of the laws of Leviticus, not only can you not eat tasty pork but if you commit adultery, you and the other person have to die.

Considering that adultery happens in all parts of fhe world, I'd say you have your work cut out for you, jdgator. That is of course, if you're a true believer.

And coincidentally, St. Paul was a guy. No doubt were all the members of the Council of Nicaea that approved the current canon. What a bunch of nonsense. No wonder the church struggles to survive. It is no longer relevant to a contemporary age.

If the Church is so irrelevant why are you posting? What frightens you moral relativists so much about this irrelevant church?

OK first off... Look at the time the bible was written by man... yes by men. It is the interpretation of gods law. Also look at in what part of the world that this book was written. It has nothing to do with picking and choosing parts of the bible... The Roman Catholics took that to heart already... It is the 21st century Women have rights now... We can work a job outside of the home, own land, vote and even decide to get pregnant... And to be frank... To commit adultery one of the parties has to be married... If both parties aren't then it's just fornication out of wedlock... A much lesser offense to man and God... That's why I have my own idea and interpretation and hug trees now :)

OP- if you need religion or a bible to tell you not to cheat on your husband, you need help lol

jdgator: voted up!

jdgator

How many languages do you speak? Have you ever tried to translate something for someone from one language to another? There very often is not an exact translation of the meaning of the text. The bible has been translatd from Greek to Latin to English. There is NO WAY it says in English the exact same thing it said in Greek. In addition, the books of the bible were chosen from among hundreds more, some of which told the same story, some of which were radically different. The men of those times were human, not divine. It's foolish to think that all of the writing and all of the choices of books to go into the bible were directed by God just because the men who did the writing and the choosing SAID SO.

Yes, and the bible also says that you can twist the scriptures to your own destruction.

And coincidentally, St. Paul was a guy. No doubt were all the members of the Council of Nicaea that approved the current canon. What a bunch of nonsense

Exactly. People conveniently forget the biases of those who assembled the Bible. If something didn't fit their preconceived notions (or offended the Emperor), it was omitted.

and i would never go to a church that didn't respect women as equal to men. the bible was written by men, of course they were trying to protect their own power. i'm not falling for that BS.

How about you Miriam-1016291 realize you're an outsider to other people's beliefs...stay out of THEIR business and let them be a bishop if they want to. Not everyone follows your man made "bible" so YOU can leave it alone!

Miriam, I do not remember Christ telling anyone that a woman cannot pastor a church! cite biblical verses please! So what you are saying is that if a woman brings people to salvation men or women, God will say " no, that does not count! you were ministered to by a woman and worst of all she was pastor of your church!"such idiocy!

It's people like Miriam and their ridiculous beliefs that make people stray from God. My God would never belittle women like that.

@lynseypug

Truly, no where in the Bible does it say women are not equal, but it wouldn't matter to you and seeing how the Church does beleive in the Bible, at least it has a foundational doctrine that guides it and you my friend have no basis in which to form an opinion and lack expertise in conclusion. So, say what you want to, but in the end, whatever you say is mere self-concludion with no evidence for factual discussion.

addy121,

If you stray from God do not blame it upon others. Blame yourself.

sdbolt,

I do not remember anywhere in the Bible it saying anything about women being pastors of churches or any other clerical role. I do not recall any female Apostles although there were a whole lot of female disciples...just like all of us who are followers of Christ today.

All of us can help bring others to God.

Mean and women are equal, not identical.

NC-

I did NOT stray from God. I am saying some others look at these people like they're absolutely crazy and don't believe in a God because of the ridiculousness of some people's beliefs. Which, it is sad, it's not God's fault these people are confused.

No, Jesus did not say women should not be the "head" of men (i.e. pastors, priests, etc.). The Apostle Paul said it. And the comment about the Levitical law is not relevant.

The Levitical law was given for the Old Covenant and as much a dietary guideline due to the living conditions and the culture of the Hebrews OF THAT TIME. To take it out of context and use it here is like so many preachers who take Scripture out of context as a pretext for their personal, often prejudiced, point of view. It was not given to the New Covenant people (although New Covenant Christians would be well served diet-wise and health-wise if they adhered to many of the Levitical dietary laws).

Yes, I agree there are women who are just as capable of being a pastor, etc. as men. I have a profound respect for many Christian women today (and in the past); however, as one person has said, you cannot pick what you want to believe out of the Bible. And yes, women have and do play an extraordinary role in the Biblical Christian church. Where women play the role as a pastor, etc. is where the men have shirked their (Biblical) responsibility as leaders. And it is happening more and more. There are many unqualified, weak-willed (and even non-Christian) men in Christian ministry (sad to say).

Addy, God doesn't belittle women, He elevates them. Man has belittled them, even many men who call themselves Christians. Nowhere in the New Testament does it make women the doormat (except in the minds of those who do not understand the cultural and proper translation of the Scriptures and who pervert them to make women dormats). By the way, did Jesus have a woman amongst his close disciples? No. But don't discount the role played by the Woman at the Well, Mary Magdalene, and other women. After all, it was WOMEN who first discovered the risen Christ and the men who were doubters. Even the Apostle Paul highly esteemed women. Don't believe it? See what he says about Timothy's mother.

All this controversy about women being head of men in Christian work and more is to be expected. As the end-times come closer and closer there will be more of this, just like the perversion of the Gospel by gays and lesbians thinking the Bible supports their lifestyle. Christians should expect more and more of these things as this world becomes more and more corrupt. There is no reason to become upset and obsessed by it. That includes the persecution, either overtly or covertly (e.g. as in the Athiest and radical gay and lesbian communities) of Christians. It is ordained by God to take place. Read revelations and the apocolyptic portions of Paul's Gospels. In fact, as these things grow, true Christians should become more and more excited because they mean the time of the return of Christ is getting closer and closer.

I know God doesn't belittle women...I just said that in my earlier comment, thanks.

atheists have no confusion at all. we treat everyone the same.

Vincent, what are you smoking? Atheists do not treat everyone the same. Many atheists are so vehemently opposed to Christians they will do all they can to harm them, including kill them. Or did you foget Stalin and Mao were atheists?

The best thing that Stalin ever did was die.

sleepinginseattle- atheists don't care about religion but never once in my experience, even in berkeley, ca, have i seen an atheist discriminate or treat a christian poorly. i even lived in the south and never saw the stuff you are saying is fairly common for atheists to do. have you seen it first hand?

Or did you foget Stalin and Mao were atheists?

No, and they did not kill IN THE NAME OF ATHEISM. Twisting facts won't make your case.

A bunch of OLD MEN wrote those laws making sure they could oppress Women. They are supposed to be barefoot, pregnant and two steps behind a man. This is what makes a man feel superior, oppression!! I am pretty sure they are scared as @!$%# we are just as good if not better than they are!

Vincent and mindy, Oh, I don't think so. You certainly can't speak for everyone, but there's a LOT of atheists that treat anyone who follows religious beliefs as a dumb sheep.

Miriam, you're kind of an idiot. The Bible may not directly say, 'Let women be clergy,' but it also doesn't say DON'T let them be clergy. We ARE talking about a book or regulations from 2000+ years ago. Things change, but the same rules don't apply to the here and now as they did back then. If the Church wants to survive, it has to adapt... unfortunately most of the point of the Church is to keep things the same as they always have been. If it's the laity downvoting the allowance of female bishops, it's because they're hung up on tradition... it's hard to get people to change. The congregation is old, though... not as many people enter or stay with the Church, and change comes with further generations.

there's a LOT of atheists that treat anyone who follows religious beliefs as a dumb sheep.

Can't disagree with that, but if you ask them, they are merely turning the tables on Xtians who have belittled and marginalized them their entire lives.

Xtians would do themselves a great favor if they start acting like Christians.

Fred Evil, Unfortunately, there's crazies on either side. And even more unfortunate, they're the ones we hear the most about. :P

sdbolt: 1st Timothy 2:12. The bible does not say that a women cannot invite men to church but it does say that a women should not teach a man, if you dont believe the bible fine.

Ah yes, Saul of Tarsus again! Tell me, did Jesus have anything to say about that?

*crickets*

Thought so. Tell me, do you follow Jesus--or Paul?...

Addy: the bible says choose ye this day whom you will serve, and it also says that nothing can seperate us from the love of God, but we can still leave HIM!!!! The bible also says that God gave the foolishness of preaching to save us, and how can we be saved without a preacher. The wisdom of man is foolishness with God. People dont leave church because of people, they leave because they want to do their own thing, to be blunt, sin!

1st Timothy 2:12. The bible does not say that a women cannot invite men to church but it does say that a women should not teach a man, if you dont believe the bible fine.

Good to hear you try and quote Paul the christian killer and ultimate hypocrite. I bet you follow the teachings of charles manson as well. Funny in this day and age when a mass murderer writes a religious doctrine we label it as crazy talk, but if it was written by a mass murderer 2,000 years ago it must be the truth.

Addy, God doesn't belittle women, He elevates them.

Hmm ... you know, that's kind of the same excuse the Muslims use when they force women to wear veils and remain out of sight: that they're so exalted that they must be elevated and protected from the carnal lusts of men, even against their will.

No matter the spin that you try to put on it, at the end of the day women are still in an inferior position to men. As a man, I can understand the appeal of that. What I don't understand is why a woman in the 21st Century tolerates it for a microsecond. But, women voted for senatorial candidates Akins and Mordouch. So, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

i would like to extend a personal "WELCOME TO THE 21stCENTURY" to you!!!!

Sweetheart, I'd like to introduce you to my sister sometime. She's a theologian and she will take your Bible-thumping and thump you right back over the head with it. Picking and choosing verses, out of both textual and historical context, is the most ignorant thing a Christian can possibly do. The Bible is a holistic document, meant to be approached from the context of the WHOLE story rather than nitpicking smaller parts. If I had some of my sister's papers on gender and the church, I would send them to you. Rather than narrowing in on one tiny little verse (which was written as a guide to the historical conditions), you should do some research on what the whole Bible - including Paul in other areas - says about women and how they relate to men.

As far as the "women have their place in the church" argument, tell me: of all of the traditional "women's" roles in the Church (teaching Sunday School, cooking potlucks, playing piano), which of them are off-limits to men?
Answer: none. Men can take on any of those roles if they want. Historically, a minority have done so, but they are available to them if they so wish.
The converse is not true: the positions that are traditional "men's" roles are not open to women. THAT is where your argument does not hold water. If it were truly an equal distribution of roles, men and women could step into each other's roles interchangeably. Unfortunately, situations like this keep that from being the case, and people like you with an exceedingly narrow interpretation of Scripture perpetuate that.

Thank you, rjh.

jdgator, Get with the times, would you? You're pitting a 2000+ year old book against modern women's rights. The times, they are a'changin', son. Try to keep up.

rjh4509: Even If you know the bible like the back of your hand that does not mean that you will make it to heaven. We have to obey the whole bible, starting out with Acts 2:38.

I'm sure when you left your church because they went so far as to ordain homosexuals, you didn't look back to see them saying good riddance. One problem with good Christians like you is you think everyone agrees with you. Christians like to use the body count of all Christians when they are voicing their opinions, but as you have seen, not all agree with you. Welcome to the 21st century.

marc, I can do you one better. My mother had been a prominent member of the Episcopal Church for years upon years, serving in altar guild, as junior and senior warden, as head of the National Episcopal Cursillo Committee, and lastly, as lay-chaplain of the college-age group. She didn't hold with the Church's stance on gay marriage, or ordination of gay priests, and therefore wanted to protest. She didn't holler about it, she asked what the proper way to protest was, and that was to withhold her tithe. She didn't want to stop giving altogether, and asked if she could have a list of the accounts the money went to, so she could pick and choose. The church itself never got back to her with such a list. The bishop, however, got wind of this, and came to see her. He basically told her point blank that her position was an embarrassment to the Church. She flat-out quit that moment, and joined the Anglicans.

We also had a woman who in the end was ordained as a priest, but they made her jump through an insane number of hoops to attain that status. I think she eventually defected to the Lutherans because of all the harrassment they were giving her.

Marsha, maybe YOU need to be welcomed to the 21st century, as you don't seem to know that if you search enough, you will find a church that suits your beliefs exactly.

Did God himself tell you that? Nope. He didn't.

Please share the passage in the scripture that spells that out.

Yes, by all means, we should resolutely stick with the social conventions of the early Roman Empire. If you really believe what you wrote, Gonzo, you're laughably stupid.

Tetrapoda, precisely. Maybe because the Church doesn't support evolutionary theory, it can't adapt itself.

Gonzo: no one on here could have said it better. And for the person that wants to call people names, the bible says that the wisdom of man is foolishness with God. You people on here want to talk about Christians judging you and preaching at you, let me tell you, I have been on these boards for a long time and I see a lot more hatred coming out of the unbelievers then the Christians. And btw the bible says to tell the sinner about God because He knows that some of you will not listen and then you wont be able to say that you never heard about salvation. And I do not believe that you people hate Christians because you think we are hypocrites, you hate us because the bible says that you will, it says because they hated God they will also hate you. No worries tho!!! I know I use to think the same way before I came to God.

The only woman that the Church has any respect for is the fictional character Virgin Mary. The rest of women get treated like crap by the Vatican and its enterage (sp?).

Virgin Mary, YEAH RIGHT, Joseph probably forced himself upon her and they made the story up so she wouldnt be shunned the rest of her life.

Well said.

Yes, Marc, I would agree. That is why I will wait until Christ's return to find out whether women are right being ordained as pastors, bishops, etc. However, until then, I will follow the Apostle Paul's leading on the matter.

The reality is that in the Catholic church, men are not becoming ordained as they had in the past. Two or three parishes have to share a pastor, just to say Mass. Many of the priests are coming from South and Central America, as well as Africa. So . . . we're running out of guys. Women could very easily step up and fill the void but the old guys in the Vatican won't even contemplate it. There's all kinds of reasons, both in scripture and other dogma, which was also written by men.

I suspect you are not experiencing the same issue in the Anglican church.

Observing2, We had a woman who tried to become an Episcopal priest. They ran her around in circles and through hoops for years, and I think, finally turned her down. She defected to the Lutherans, and was ordained there.

The same "old guys in the Vatican" who protect pedophiles can't bring themselves to ordain women as priets.

brainwashed: two wrongs do not make a right!!!

The vast majority in the world identify themselves as belonging to one religion or another.

Yes, but more and more people have the wit to ignore what patently stupid clerics say, even in much of the Islamic world.

No animal sacrifices are not necesasry because CHrist became the ONE true and perfect sacrifice the Paschal Lamb that takes away the sins of the world. Don't you know anything about Christianity or do you just watch Liberal TV for what they say Christianity is?

I love how folks pick apart the Old Testament, BTW, Jesus came to remove the burden of it and replaced with a new covenant, its called the New Testament. Also, not all men are qualified for ministry either, a quick read of Timothy will lay out for you the requirements. Old white men didn't make the requirements, men led by the Holy Spirit wrote the Bible and whether you choose to beleive it or not, its a choice we all get to make, only the outcomes differ.

Good observations, American Soldier!

No animal sacrifices are necessary because the apostle Paul dropped a lot of Jewish religious practices out of early Christianity so non-Jews could and would accept the core teachings of the Church. It's the same reason you don't ever hear about kosher Christians, that would be a major burden on people simple enough to like eating pigs, etc.

Tetrapoda, not only that, but Jesus, when asked which of the Commandments was most important, said that the most important were love God and love your neighbor, and that's really all that matters. God does not care if you eat shrimp or catfish.

the Bible is a book inspired by God/Jesus but made by men based on alleged occcurances and with the Bible being orchestrated by said men and men being fallable and not perfect like God/Jesus then ergo...the Bible is not perfect either nor it's writings, are they...times change as do intelligent people, it's called progression but apparently some don't relish change and although live in the present they have antiquated and outdated errant beliefs from a bygone era - they should be 'educated' - you can cure ignorance through education, but you just can't cure stupid...like the 'Bishops' of this C of E are it seems.

No, Barann, it isn't "progression" or "progress" it is SIN. And sin will proliferate more and more until, like in many cases today, good becomes evil and evil good. But we'll all find out, and I personally believe pretty soon, given the signs of the times. Jesus will return and then the sheep will be separated from the goats and the goats left behind. I have been called a right-wing religious nut (although I don't claim to be "religious" by the definition most people use. Religion is based on works, what we do, and [true] Christianity is based on the redemptive work of Christ. But I probably am a "right-wing" Christian nut (and not a Republican or Tea Partier, either).

lWell I am a right wing fanatic Christian republican who voted for Romney and didnt care if he was blue, green purple or a republican for that matter, if he has most of my values I will vote for him. I will not vote for Santa Claus tho because I dont believe in him. I can get my own toys with my own money thank you very much!!!

Yes it is the country where they have a queen. And she does not run the country, either.

NC, the Queen is the head of the Church of England. A little ironic, don't you think?

...whoa....it's gonna be hard for most of these 19th century minded folks to wrap their heads around that one......

19th century minded or Biblically minded? They are NOT the same, as much as many would like to think so.

NC, so what is it about women that makes them (apparently) unsuitable to be bishops?

is it so bad to have traditions?

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

for those of you making the leap-someday MY generation will be dead,you'll be able to call any mix of LGBT the same as heterosexual marriage

You're right ... why can't we go back to the good ole' days of "Biblical definitions" for marriage?

You know, the time when there were actually seven different types of marriage (none more popular than Polygamy). My personal favorite is where the woman is nothing more than property. Oh, and then there's the one where Ox and cattle are involved!!!!!

Ahhhhhh, tradition.

Such a wonderful thing...

If you want to live like the old testament go ahead.I'll live like the new testament.Of course we've evolved.I personally acknowledge womens' superiority.It'll take time,but women will lead

Many thanks, American Soldier, for this verse. It is exactly why a number of those commenting here can't understand, or don't want to understand, "our" viewpoint.

Sleeping In Seattle, the female taxpayers of the UK who have just been told by their nation's church that they are inferior to men don't really care what your viewpoint is.

You're forgetting the Catholics. C of E allows MUCH more than the Catholic church ever will.

The Levitical Law doesn't apply. That was applicable to the Israelites of that time.

Times change...what may have been good 'back then' isn't relevant now...conventional laws of the land supercede, and rightly so, any matters of the clergy or a clerical doctrine...just because the Bible espouts one thing doesn't mean that it's right anymore, in current society...people have thankfully progressed past religion thanks to Science - religion was simply initially used by the 'leaders' to keep the rank & file in line and offering them a nice place to go...heaven...if they were good and to hell if they were bad...fear works wonders with the uneducated and ignorant as we all know...but religion has had it's day and that day isn't today.

Ahh, the religion vs. science fallacy. You do realize that by setting yourself up with that false dilemma, you are simply creating a transference of faith from religion (a human-created, fallible, institution) to science (another human-created, fallible institution)? And please, don't make the mistake of confusing "religion" with "faith". Faith is the foundation - religion is the trappings.

And faith and science - indeed, even religion and science - can co-exist. Especially since you neglect to realize that both serve very different societal purposes. Replacing one with the other (in either direction) leaves holes in both areas. Whether you embrace religion and reject science, or embrace science and reject religion, you are being equally narrow-minded.

Agree, rjh. Too many want to reject "religion" because of "science." Many will reject the idea that science can even prove there is a God but are unwilling to accept that science because it is not part of their belief system. What someone believes does not change what is.

No, not narrow minded, rather one is based on something that can't be proven...religion (which is nothing more than an errant belief in a God or supreme being & his alleged 'teachings' et al)...either or, it's all just 'theoretical' and can not be 'proven', where as Science of course entails some theory, but is for the most part factual and can put theories or concepts in to practical application where as religion et al can not...science can not prove the existence of God as something that doesn't and/or never existed in reality only in theory, like God can not be proven...Science it's like the real world, where as religion is like the 'virtual' world...it's there but it's not real...it's a ficticious place.

Science can't prove God does or does not exist. Science can't prove love or faith, mercy or justice exist. Science has no idea where a personality or a soul comes from. And science is cold, sterile, unfeeling.

Well said, Mark.

The Bible is simply the 'alleged' word of an 'alleged' God as preached by the 'faithful' of the day...a simple believer or religious fanatic attempting to educate the gullible, uneducated, illiterate and ignorant rank & file of society of the day to his way of thinking, nothing more...we've proved conclusively that God didn't create the Earth nor was there an Adam & Eve per se...sure there may have been an Achmed and Achmina back in the day but they resulted from evolution, not God...it's ok to have your beliefs if that is what makes and keeps you happy but I fail to see how a modern person educated and living in todays environment can still belief those antiquated, outdated and obviously errant beliefs of yester year...come on people...be realistic and realize that religion is as dead as Jesus is and that the belief in that concept is only being perpetuated to ausage the still prevelant fear of the unknown of death...they've done a good job of conditioning us...but that conditioning is waning with the advent of science and advancement...& thankfully so, as a false belief in something that will never be experienced should be precluded from being advocated.

Jesus is NOT dead. He is very much alive. Hundreds and hundreds of people saw him alive after he was crucified and certified dead by Roman soldiers who did those things for a living and whose very life would be in jepoardy if they took down a person who was still alive from a cross.

And as American Soldier has so well said, people like you will call everything in the Bible "foolishness" because you are blinded by Satan to the truth. One day, and I believe soon, your eyes will be opened by Christ's return and then your wailing and gnashing of teeth will not save you from God's wrath.

Barann,

Be sure to tell all this to Jesus when you meet him, and I am Positive that you will some day.

REC, I met him, in a whorehouse in Saigon back in the late 60's. We were making fun of him because he couldn't get it up. I'm sure he's the same guy now, he couldn't have changed all that much.

Sleeping, jesus can't be dead, people see him in their grilled cheese sandwiches all the time. That jesus! What a showman!

God is dead. -Nietsche

Nietsche is dead. -God

I saw the Flying Spaghetti Monster in my Mac'N'Cheeze the other day. Changed my life forever.

WHAT are you babbling about? Enjoy your increasing irrelevance.

FJC (what does that mean? Fun with Jesus Christ in stead of Dick and Jane?), there are also instituional methods people use to protect their image while also getting what they want. It is called "strategizing". They often use this in board meetings and internal elections where, in an effort to get the result they want while also appearing to not interfere, they'll call on people to show up and vote the way they want. Everybody thinks the big guy, the top guy, had nothing to do with it. This way the top guys get what they want, they get to keep their image, and they get to blame "you"...and say, "People wanted this! Don't complain, you people, your people, voted! The people have spoken! Hallejaluya, Amen, Allah-O-Akbar, Shanti, Ommm, Peekiboo!"

It is a strategy of many many institutions: old or new, organized or not so organized, smart or not so smart and powerful or not so powerful. What are you? Ten years old?