Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, I noticed. And you did so in an attempt to hide the fact that you were not able to do the same for the other items mentioned. Why else would you post something you were not asked for?

[b]If you can dispute it or offer evidence to the contrary them please do so.
I do not dispute it in the slightest and never did. Did you think I did?[/b]

The thread is about Lady Bishops, the clue is in the title. If you want to discuss evidence for other items then start your own. Your personal remarks will be ignored and if you do it once more, so will you.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
That is your opinion, its not evidence. Your opinion is a subjective reality, it does not constitute evidence no matter how emphatically you say it does. You were not asked what you thought of the Bible. What you were actually asked was to produce Biblical evidence which nullifies the claim that the Bible is unequivocal in its insistence that only ...[text shortened]... to qualify as overseers. A point which you seemed to contest. So far you have failed to do so.

Where have I contested your view that the bible is unequivocal in in its insistence that only males are to qualify as overseers. Anyone who reads the section can see that it does.What I am claiming is that the person writing this passage is writing nonsense, a point which you seem to agree.

Originally posted by deenny
Where have I contested your view that the bible is unequivocal in in its insistence that only males are to qualify as overseers. Anyone who reads the section can see that it does.What I am claiming is that the person writing this passage is writing nonsense, a point which you seem to agree.

I am not making any judgement with regard to whether the writer was writing nonsense. I am trying to determine why a Christian should negate it and supplant it with their own perspective.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The thread is about Lady Bishops, the clue is in the title.

I know that. My point is that you claim that the Bible is unequivocal about Lady Bishops, and are criticizing other Christians for ignoring that, when we both know that the Bible is equally unequivocal about other things that you ignore, but will not discuss.

If you want to discuss evidence for other items then start your own.
I don't really, I was just pointing out your hypocrisy.

Your personal remarks will be ignored and if you do it once more, so will you.
I notice that any statement you don't agree with is a 'personal remark'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I know that. My point is that you claim that the Bible is unequivocal about Lady Bishops, and are criticizing other Christians for ignoring that, when we both know that the Bible is equally unequivocal about other things that you ignore, but will not discuss.

[b]If you want to discuss evidence for other items then start your own.
I don't really, I ...[text shortened]... more, so will you.[/b]
I notice that any statement you don't agree with is a 'personal remark'.[/b]

I have criticised no one. What I have actually done is asked anyone to provide a reason and evidence where necessary to justify why the principle that I cited with regard to the exclusiveness of appointments of overseers should be ignored.

Your other comments are unworthy of serious comment and will be ignored for reasons already stated.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am not making any judgement with regard to whether the writer was writing nonsense. I am trying to determine why a Christian should negate it and supplant it with their own perspective.

But surely we must make a judgement on the writer of this article in the bible. If this woman is so suitable for the job (something you don't seem to disagree with) then the opinion of someone writing nearly 2000 years ago that she is not suitable because she is a woman must be called into question

Originally posted by deenny
But surely we must make a judgement on the writer of this article in the bible. If this woman is so suitable for the job (something you don't seem to disagree with) then the opinion of someone writing nearly 2000 years ago that she is not suitable because she is a woman must be called into question

I have made no moral judgement despite your rather vain attempts to impute one. Personally I have no problem with organisations making rules based on gender, its a non issue for me. If a country club wants to exclude female members its their prerogative. If a ladies gymnasium wants to exclude male members, its also their prerogative.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have made no moral judgement despite your rather vain attempts to impute one. Personally I have no problem with organisations making rules based on gender, its a non issue for me. If a country club wants to exclude female members its their prerogative. If a ladies gymnasium wants to exclude male members, its also their prerogative.

And by the same logic I would assume you would have no problem if they appoint a woman as their bishop.

Originally posted by deenny
And by the same logic I would assume you would have no problem if they appoint a woman as their bishop.

If they want to interpolate the word of God with their own then its their affair.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
If they want to interpolate the word of God with their own then its their affair.

There you go. Both Robbie and myself agree that it is completely up to the Church of England whom they appoint as Bishops. Any other views

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Would I expect a male gymnasium attendant to be employed in an all ladies gymnasium? would you? if not, why not? Organisations should be free to determine their own rules of who they employ and for what reasons. If that excludes anyone based on gender then so be it. I have no issues and no fences are facing. I do not approve nor disapprove.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Would I expect a male gymnasium attendant to be employed in an all ladies gymnasium? would you? if not, why not? Organisations should be free to determine their own rules of who they employ and for what reasons. If that excludes anyone based on gender then so be it. I have no issues and no fences are facing.

You're calling for oppression in the name of freedom.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Recently the church of England appointed its first lady Bishop. It was heralded as a sign of the Churches progress. Similar ground breaking acts of its history were cited for example the break from Rome which although was done primarily because Henry VIII couldn't get a divorce from his first wife it did pave the way for the reformation in England, ...[text shortened]... Again this is simply an argumentum ad populum - many people affirm it therefore it must be good.

"I am attempting to question how one goes about justifying a stance that is clearly anti-Biblical. "

If you want to seriously insvestigate this question I suggest you start with the Wikipedia article on cognitive dissonance.

One of the ways of dealing with it is the Belief Disconfirmation Paradigm. An example:

"An early version of cognitive dissonance theory appeared in Leon Festinger's 1956 book, When Prophecy Fails. This book gives an account of the deepening of cult members' faith following the failure of a cult's prophecy that a UFO landing was imminent. The believers met at a pre-determined place and time, believing they alone would survive the Earth's destruction. The appointed time came and passed without incident. They faced acute cognitive dissonance: had they been the victim of a hoax? Had they donated their worldly possessions in vain? Most members chose to believe something less dissonant to resolve reality not meeting their expectations: they believed that the aliens had given Earth a second chance, and the group was now empowered to spread the word that earth-spoiling must stop. The group dramatically increased their proselytism despite the failed prophecy."

In the present case, the faithful who want women to be in leadership positions but see what the Bible says, could rationalize that God had a grand plan that would recognize an increased role for women when women had grown into the ability to lead, and the time had clearly come (referring to Thatcher, Meir, woman's suffrage, etc.) Paul was transmitting God's message that women weren't ready yet But now they are. These rationalizers could even convince themselves that it was now their mission as good Christians to bring this about, like the UFO believers convinced themselves they needed to preach even more.

Originally posted by DeepThought
You're calling for oppression in the name of freedom.

I am calling for nothing, as I have stated, I neither approve nor disapprove. If you think that is oppressive then so be it, I cannot change your perspective. I have not made nor can be induced to make any moral judgements. I am merely interested in how Christians can interpolate their own words for the written word of God for it appears to me that is what has transpired.