Clergy and Politicans Not the Same

Words of Wisdom for BO and JM!!!

Keep in mind that Pilate was a necessary accessory in the "rise" of JC. Without that crucifixion, where would we Christians be??

And JC an organizer?? Hardly!!! Paul did most of the organizing and original advertising. M, M, L, and J did the added embellishing and ad campaign raising a simple preacher man to deity status akin to the OT and Roman emperors campaign people More necessary accessories!!!!

Christianity really should be named for The Five Voodoo Doctors aka P, M, M, L and J with their changing of wine into blood and bread into living tissue and the raising of at least two dead people.

Palin Country

by John Allemang. Poetic justice.

Please call us rednecks, 'cause we're proud
to be so rude and rough and loud,
And act in ways elitists think
Proves that we've had too much to drink
In some dead-end Alaskan dive
When ,dude, it just shows we're alive.
We love our church, our kids, our beer;
Can tell you right down to the year
That God put Man upon the earth,
Know life starts well ahead of birth,
Don't give a damn about the arts,
And stay away from foreign parts
Until the moment that we're sent
As John McCain's vice-president.

The great thing, when your neck is red?
Nobody cares what's in your head.
The voters seem to like them dumb,
So why not pick a hockey mum
Who hunts and prays and procreates
To govern these United States?
If you can drive a snowmobile,
The people, bless them, think you're real.
And in the end, who needs a brain?
Just tell your kids they must abstain,
Pretend that when your rule's ignored
It's some great gift sent by the Lord,
And proves you'll go to any length
to make each redneck fault a strength.

From The Globe And Mail. Canada. Sep 6.2008

"And as to the Republican nominees, Sarah Palin is neither seeking ordination nor headship, i.e. leadership. The leadership role goes to John McCain. Thus she is not violating the teaching of male only ordination or attempting to be the head."

Um, are you serious? What exactly do you think the Vice President does?

The topic at hand is whether women can be leaders of both the religions and democracies of the world and here we see the influence of Paul (or pseudo Pauls).

Galatians 3:28 ("There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus") is, according to some historic Jesus exegetes, not credible as a historical utterance by either Jesus or Paul. It is the only time Paul considers women as being equivalent to men.

http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/013_Two_As_One

And Paul's (or pseudo Pauls) apparent real utterances about women give credence to this conclusion.

e.g.

"He (Paul) feared the turn-on of women's voices as much as the sight of their hair and skin..... At one point he even suggests that the sight of female hair might distract any angel in church attendance (1 Cor. 11:10). Professor Bruce Chilton in his book, Rabbi Paul, pulls no punches in criticizing one of the founders of Christianity. Basically Paul was a "prude".

Professor Chilton btw is a Professor of Religion at Bard College and a priest at the Free Church of St. John in Barrytown, NY.

And the following:

"In 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 Paul writes: “But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” He goes on to say that “any woman who prays or prophesies” should keep her head covered, whereas a man should never cover his head, “since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.)”

In 1 Corinthians 14:33-35, Paul gives us the famous injunction, “… women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.” This theme is taken up again in 1 Timothy 2:11-15, where women are instructed to dress modestly and to keep silent in church: “For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.”

Ephesians 5:21-32 is the passage that is read at every Orthodox marriage ceremony, so it’s already quite well known to us. This is the passage in which women are told to be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord, which Paul repeats briefly in his letter to the Colossians (3:18). The husband, Paul explains, “is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church.” While women are to be subject to their husbands, so men are to love their wives “as their own bodies.” “This is a great mystery,” Paul says, “and I take it to mean Christ and the church.”

Simply add Paul's (and the pseudo Pauls) thinking about women to the list of flaws in the foundations of Christianity and a major reason why women have been discriminated against for these so many, many years.

sorry, not cheek, chin, right of chin.

Bishop Nicholas Sarkozy,

do You know any toy tied to a tree? do You know any toy with a stick in its cheek? is there any technique as "to take one hair from the cheek, for each time"?

women heal, Mrs Dixon.

Wow republicans can sure obfuscate the truth can't they? LOL! Palin is not seeking a leadership role? Are you kidding me? Lady you are why some women shouldn't lead men.

It may seem convenient to attempt to circumvent Biblical architecture created by Yod Yahweh Jehovah when saying that Bible teachings and intructions from Yod do not apply equally to the faith-based institutions and the secular world or universe. Church instruction according to Biblical teachings is applicable in values and character and construct when examining the secular ideas of leadership. Since the Bible says that women should not be in authority over a man, it can be construed that the Episcopal Church should never have ordained women.

Or, in short, she *is* running for Pastor-In-Chief.

If it's not good enough for *your* house, why should I think it's good enough for *mine?*

"Do I accept the teaching that women are invalid priests as some have said of me? No. Do I accept that I was not capable of heading or leading a church due to my gender? No. Comparing Sarah Palin's possibility to be Vice President or being ordained in a faith tradition that does not accept women is comparing clergy to politicians. Not the same."

Bishop....

You do realize that this particular woman is running *solely* on her ostensible obedience to a religious-political agenda that says women *can't* be part of forming selfsame religious-political agenda, even if they think it's just fine for her to go out and try and be a poster child for enforcing the same 'submission' she's rewarded for speaking, (however nastily) ...while in fact *making* political office a matter of speaking and enforcing religion... Like theocratic clergy?

The people that love her, particularly for being a trained 'attack dog' (self-described 'pit bull in lipstick' as she may be,) that can say the bigoted things they applaud but couldn't say themselves... Love her for an artifice of *obedience* to an agenda she by her own beliefs isn't entitled to shape.

She doesn't believe *other* women are entitled to make their own decisions, in church *or* public life, she just feels the 'approval' for behaving as the alliance between corporate greed and Religious Right self-righteousness would have her behave.

It's like Ann Coulter. She gets applause for being a 'righteous MILF' (funny the odd sexual frisson, check out Palin's Vogue spread) and mocking not just the minority candidate, but the *very idea* of 'community leaders.'

Now, all a sudden, Fundies want 'Separation of Church and state.' As long as it suits their advantage.

I say, you want em separate, separate em.

Don't try this playing us up one side and down the other.

We'll have neither.

When we have a woman in high office, I want her qualifications to extend beyond not using birth control.

Bishop, I imagine your beliefs regarding the priesthood make sense within the context of the theology of the American Episcopal Church. I do not know whether they make sense within the context of the wider Anglican Communion. That matter seems to be undecided, at present.

I am sure that your beliefs about the role of women in the clergy do not make sense within the context of Catholic theology.

I think it's a mistake to regard leadership as a monolithic quality. Men and women provide leadership in distinctly different ways, though individual men and women can and sometimes do provide that leadership in ways that are more characteristic of their opposite gender rather than that of their own. Men and women represent, and even incarnate, Jesus in distinctly different ways. The question for a theologian is does it make sense for a woman to incarnate the distinct role of Jesus as priest and victim when that role defines the Gospel message, itself? The answer to that question also answers the question could Jesus have been a woman? If a woman had been the Word made flesh, who would have received that Word into their womb, thereby incarnating the Church?

Read Al Mohler's article in response to the same issue. It provides more clarity, more Biblical (sciptural) support, and fairly represents the teaching of the Southern Baptists and other conservative Christian groups...(i.e. the issue is NOT ability/capability as Jane seems to imply, but instead the authoritative teaching of God in His Word).

Mohler's contemporary at SBTS, Bruce Ware, has some excellent teaching on the the comparative nature of Christ to the Father (and within the Trinity in general) vs. a wife to her husband. It is a very enlightenig message.

Note: all analogies invlolving God are limited and should not be taken too far because the Creator is infinite and thus vastly different from the creatures...analogies are just ment to highlight SOME, specific similarities.