georgesbluegirl

The specific passage I was referring to was 1 Corinthians 14:33-35,37 "As in all the churches of the holy ones, women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. But if they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. For it is improper for a woman to speak in the church...If anyone thinks that he is a prophet or a spiritual person, he should recognize that what I am writing to you is a commandment of the Lord." As Super Jew pointed out, this was aimed at women who would distract people by talking during prayer. I guess that's why we don't hear much about the no-women-talking rule these days? But to say that its null because of its context is interpretation, which is what I am stressing - subordination was context of the time, so you have to take that (like many other things) into consideration when reading the Holy Bible. It doesn't make it any less holy, but it does show you that interpretation and context is sometimes useful and necessary. I know I as a Catholic believe differently about the Bible as many people here do, but it just seems obvious that you HAVE to consider the people writing the books when reading them. "A woman must receive instruction silently and under complete control. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet." - 1 Timothy 2:11-12 "A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death." - Leviticus 21:9 And really, Mary Magdalene is a great example. Guess what? Magdalene was never a prostitute! You can find whole books on this - she was one of the earliest disciples, from the tribe of Benjamin and wealthy. She followed Jesus and was his friend, and was probably a "backer" so to speak, of his, so that he could continue to teach and share God's Word. It was the early church fathers who relegated her position to that of a reformed "whore" because many decisions were being made at that time to disinclude women from positions of power. Many other older texts that have to do with Jesus (not just referring to the Gnostic gospels here, but some of the accounts that aren't in the Bible and historical records of the time) explain Magdalene's real identity.

Has nothing to do with pride. I am a believer, as I already stated. Then why don't you follow the mandate that I already stated from Corinthians, regardless of the context and interpretation? Or do you? The Bible also tells us that a priest's daughter who has been "whoring" must be burned. That sounds like a man - by that I mean HUMAN - writing to me.

Hahaha it's okay LadyC, no one's picked up on it yet: George's blue girl comes from the song "For You, Blue" from the album "Let It Be," the song written by George Harrison, who is my favorite musician and (dare I say?) hero. It's a cool twelve-bar blues song...

Oh meant to point out...re my parents, by "emotion" thing I was saying that my mom is probably LESS likely to make a decision based on emotion than my dad, so if you say that the less emotional of the two should be the one to make the decision, it would be my mother. And Romeo and Juliet was a play, and it was by a genius.

Super Jew you rock! That's exactly what I was trying to point out...much of the Scripture must be interpreted and taken in context. That's how I view the "submission" bits - just the context that the male authors of the various books had at the time. The Bible is filled with it. Doesn't make it any less important, it's just worth paying attention to.

Um, although you hinted before that I am an unbeliever, I am, in fact, a Christian (as for lemonyellowsun, well, he just seems to like to cause a ruckus ) I don't mean that the wife should never submit to the husband's will, there should definitely be times when this is the case. But there should also be times when the husband submits to the wife. It works fine in my family. May I remind you that in the 1 Corinthians, the Bible tells us that women should remain silent in church and if they want to know anything about it, ask their husbands later??? I believe in interpreting the Word, and it seems most people must too, I see women speak all the time in church, reading, ministering....

Everybody is still missing the point on this saved/unsaved thing, but whatever. It's all about the love, people... Hi Angela! I do in fact have a great relationship with God, as I have had since I was younger and first started really talking to Him. I am a Christian and I accept Jesus as Lord and my Savior. Thanks for stopping by the thread...any passing comments (as you can see there is a heated debate...)

Mutual submission...nice in theory, but I've never seen it actually work in practice. People never seem to talk about it, anyway. The "elbow mass" is absolutely true, too. Every year...everyone kind of giggles, including the priest occasionally! But there doesn't HAVE to be a final decision maker. Man and woman are meant to work together because they complete each other. A well-matched man and woman will have points that complement each other - all opinions should be equal. And the part about women being more emotional? A lot of that has to do with nurture. I need look no farther than my own parents. My father was raised in a household BRIMMING with feminine energy - he has six sisters (all of them named Mary, I might add...no, we're not Catholic....=P). He grew up very comfortable with emotion, knowledgable about arts, and he is often very emotional - more so than my mother, who was one of five and the ONLY girl (in a military family). My mother is logical and precise, and thinks much more in a "masculine" way. My mother and father are beautiful, compassionate people who are and have always been loving parents and leaders. They complement each other, they respect each other, and our family gets along wonderfully despite the fact that my mother does not submit to my father. Following the "emotion" thing, she would be the one to make the decision. Get what I'm saying? A woman may be inclined toward emotion, but personalities vary so much that a woman may have a more masculine personality than her husband. Look at Romeo and Juliet! Who was the decision maker? Juliet! Had more to say but forget....I'll post it when I remember.

Someone explain to me how submitting to your husband makes God happy. God created man and woman to complement each other in every way. Psychologically, men and women both have "masculine" and "feminine" aspects that must be balanced within themselves (think yin/yang). Even the ways that men and women tend to think complement each other. So why would a man be dominant over a woman? This throws the balance, which God has created, out of order. By saying that a woman should let her husband have the final say, scenarios are immediately created where a man - doing his best to fulfill the will of God and serve his family - would choose to make a decision that would have long-term negative ramifications on his family. If his wife knows better, and says so, and he ignores her because he believes his way is right, he has essentially nullified the relevancy of her opinion. The Bible was written thousands of years ago, by men! Men who were inspired by God to carry the great message to the world, but they necessarily interpreted the Word of God through the lens of their customs and beliefs. It was custom at that time for a wife to submit to her husband - remember, women only got the right to vote in the 20th century!! Please explain this all to me...and use your own beliefs and opinions, not only Scripture because I've read all of the Scripture. Remember, the Bible also says in various places that a "whoring" priest's daughter should be burned, that women should not teach, that a girl's virginity has a literal price (Deuteronomy, I believe) and that women should not speak in church. I've heard people say, "If you love him, you should be willing to submit to him and know that his love will provide for you." But if my husband loves me truly, then I should never need to submit to him.

To me, it doesn't matter how God created us, only that God created us.

Depending on our culture, we find God different ways. It just is.

Which is essentially what I am saying. The difference of opinion that we have going on in this conversation is whether or not it is a "sin" to be without Jesus if the sinner in question never even had the opportunity to receive Him. I'll cut out all arguing about other religions and Heaven etc, I just want to make this point. You can't equate driving a car and living - driving a car requires a license, which requires knowledge of implied responsibility. We are not required to have a license to live. We are not born with the absolute understanding that we are supposed to reach for God. It is the responsibility of ourselves and those around us to lead us to understanding of the divine. "Responsibility" has nothing to do with the unsaved man or woman who has never had an opportunity to BE saved.

For reference's sake.... Commentary from religioustolerance.com, documentation is authentic The fate of non-Catholics, as expressed at Vatican II: The "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church - Lumen Gentium" (1964) is one of many documents to come out of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council (often referred to as "Vatican II"). The Council was held in Rome between 1962 and 1965. Lumen Gentium" contains in its Chapter 1 an essay on "The Mystery of the church." Sections 14 to 16 describe the potential for salvation of: Followers of the Catholic Church, Members of other Christian denominations, and Believers of non-Christian religions. 5 The language is difficult to follow for a lay person. However, an "Assessment of this Council" was written "as an AID to study by Catholic Students of the Second Vatican Council. They contain material, some written in a journalistic style, for the American reader." In the section "The Constitution of the Church" the assessment reads: "The Catholic Church professes that it is the one, holy catholic and apostolic Church of Christ; this it does not and could not deny. But in its Constitution the Church now solemnly acknowledges that the Holy Ghost is truly active in the churches and communities separated from itself. To these other Christian Churches the Catholic Church is bound in many ways: through reverence for God's word in the Scriptures; through the fact of baptism; through other sacraments which they recognize." 5. The non-Christian may not be blamed for his ignorance of Christ and his Church; salvation is open to him also, if he seeks God sincerely and if he follows the commands of his conscience, for through this means the Holy Ghost acts upon all men; this divine action is not confined within the limited boundaries of the visible Church." 6 This statement would seem to include the possibility that seekers after God may attain salvation, even though they have not concluded that God exists. Presumably, the authors of this document define "God" in Roman Catholic terms as a super-human intelligence and personality with specific attributes, such as being omnipotent, omniscient, omnibeneficient, omnipresent, etc. This statement indicates that even some Agnostics and Atheists could be saved and attain heaven, if they sincerely sought this Christian God. The "Decree on Ecumenism: Unitatis Redintegratio" (1964) is one of nine decrees of Vatican II. It deals with Ecumenism, which the Catholic Church defines as the reuniting of all Christian faith groups under the authority of the pope. This includes Eastern Orthodox churches, the Anglican Communion, and Protestant denominations -- those who "came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church." Section 3 deals with "separated brethren" -- followers of Christian denominations which The document repeats the belief that the Roman Catholic church is the only true Christian church -- the only denomination which "has been endowed with all divinely revealed truth and with all means of grace." Other Christian denominations are considered deficient. But the document does recognize that salvation is possible through the Catholic church for followers of those separated faith groups. It recognizes other denominations as fellow Christians: "The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. ...it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church." "Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ." "The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation." "It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church." "Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life- that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is 'the all-embracing means of salvation,' that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God." (Footnote references deleted) 7 The "Declaration on the relation of the Church to non-Christian religions: Nostra Aetate," (1965) is one of three declarations of Vatican II. 8 It states that: "[The Christian] God made the whole human race to live over the face of the earth." "The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these [non-Christian] religions." "God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers..." "...the [Roman Catholic] Church is the new People of God..." "...the Church has always held and holds now, Christ underwent His passion and death freely, because of the sins of men and out of infinite love, in order that all may reach salvation."

I wasn't misunderstanding you, I was agreeing with you about the first part, and then taking it the next step to my belief, which is that rejecting God and not being a Christian are not the same thing.

My point was exactly what Qun is saying...if you never hear the Word, how can God hold you responsible as He would hold someone responsible for denying the Word? If a person never hears of Christ's sacrifice, whatever the circumstances, how can they be doomed? Salvation is not a matter of chance encounters. God is understanding and loving. This is what I believe. Living in a Western culture where Christianity is never far away, it is hard to understand living in a place where it is rare, if ever, spoken of. But there are many places like this. I don't believe people that never hear of Christ go to hell, that's the bottom line. For that matter, I believe that Jesus died for our sins and that all life reaches toward divinity and that He forgives the blindness of His people when they strive to live their lives toward him. Ever occur to you that we are all praying to the same God? As for Gandhi...you may all disagree, but I find it hard to picture Gandhi in Hell. John Lennon, Malcolm X???

This is where I have a problem. I believe with all my heart that God is all-loving of every one of His children. I understand the problem when one of His children "turns" from Him, but I don't believe that He would keep a person out of Heaven simply because they never in their lifetime had access to the Word of God. I don't believe he would allow someone to be in a position from which they could never be saved, which is what you seem to be saying about those who never have to opportunity to hear the Gospel.

What is the general Protestant (Christian, Baptist, whoever wants to answer) belief about non-Christians and the afterlife? We as Catholics believe that it is possible for anyone actively seeking God - in any religion, not just Christianity - to reach Heaven and remain there with the Creator. Which is cool, because it acknowledges the beauty and relevancy of Hinduism, Judaism, etc. So what to the Protestants think? If you HAVE to be saved to go to Heaven, well, what about people born into another religion who never hear of Christ?

Let me begin by reminding everyone that Britney Spears is NOT A ROCK STAR. She is a pop singer. She doesn't have the relevancy of a rock star. Good music is good music. If something's different, if you get a feel for it, if it gives you goosebumps listening to it, it's good. I've heard Christian rock, and it's basically bland and pretty similar. Not good. I'm into The BEATLES first of all, I like Nirvana, Doors, Hendrix, Cream & Clapton continued, Jethro Tull, The Clash, Emerson, Lake and Palmer, etc. Why? Because they all make great music. I don't pick the music I listen to because I have a Bible in my hand all the time and I'm waiting for a quote or three outright references to God. I'm listening for stuff that speaks to me, music that moves me...the kind of melody that just rolls through you. Secular music isn't bad for you, as people here have mentioned! Not that all of it conveys morality...it doesn't (hence sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll). But I'm a musician and a lover of music and I have to explore good music, regardless of lyrics and what I feel the band may or may not be perpetuating. It's in my blood. I can't help it. Besides, often you latch on to the music you identify with, which is a good thing for Christians. (Anyone who was in my thread is going to kill me for mentioning George again...) George Harrison is my hero, and he drew on his Hindu beliefs for his lyrics, but they speak of oneness and harmony with God that people of any religion can come to love and appreciate. "My sweet Lord/I really want to see you/ I really want to talk to you/ I really want to know you Lord but it takes so long, my Lord/ My sweet Lord." Or "Try to realize - it's all within yourself, no-one else can make you change - And to see - you're really only very small - And life flows on - Within you - And without you." Just let it play.

Justification and baptism: You made me do my homework (grumble, grumble). I had to look up the verses, check the Catechism, etc. to make sure I had backing to what I believed was right. In the Catechism, it quotes the same passages that you are using to ask about justification. It reads: "But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, the righteousness of of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, the are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus." - Romans 3:21-26 Basically, it's really difficult for me to explain Baptism...but the reason that we have it in our Catechism as means of justification is that we believe that Baptism is THE sacrament of faith. In other words, being baptized is the manifestation of faith in Christ. Therefore it IS by faith that we receive justification, because faith (as far as Catholic beliefs go) is present for baptism to take place. Baptism is an act of faith, THE act of faith. Sorry if that's unclear...I would recommend checking out the Catholic Catechism (you can find it easily online...just Google or check a Catholic Youth website). The section on Justification is in Part Three (Life in Christ), Section One, Chapter Three, Article Two, Heading One. If you really want to look it up. I understand it's a bit mucky to wade through, but if you do you'll fnd that our beliefs on this topic are, in fact, Scripturally based. The Ten Commandments: SOOOO much easier to explain! Basically, there are two different "sets," if you will, of commandments, one (the Protestant version) based on Exodus, and the other (the Catholic version) based on Deuteronomy. I guess that around the Reformation Protestants decided on the other set, I don't know. The major difference, besides the numbering and splitting/combining of the last commandment(s) is the "thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image" commandment, which obviously Catholics wouldn't have since we're big on shrines and depictions and always have been. I'm wondering though why Protestants have this commandment when they have plenty of depictions of similar nature. I don't know enough about the commandment to understand why that's allowed or what the intricacies are. Some Protestant out there wanna explain? Oh, and since when were appearances of Mary "all Satanic?" Sheesh, I leave the board for one night and everything goes crazy. Dear Mother in Heaven....

wow servinghim, you certainly entered with a bang...thanks for the compliments, welcome to the thread! now the important question (as you may have noticed) how do you feel about George Harrison? lol

He WAS a "mere mortal.' Jesus was 100% human as well as 100% divine. Jesus complete humanity is what makes the fact that He is God so awesome. Jesus was a man. He was therefore required to follow the laws of God - as a man. He didn't have any special exceptions in his humanity - he ate, drank, slept, spoke - only in his divinity. If we have acknowledged Jesus as completely human AND completely divine we must also accept that he was bound to the law that God set for men. Think about it...where do you see Jesus violating his Father's law? "I have not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it." That's in Matthew, I believe. Long and short: Jesus talks to dead people, obviously he's not violating the law of the Father...I don't see how that's any different than any human speaking to the saints. Argue with me on this if you want...but I have the theology books to prove it! "Christianity is one of the most beautiful religions in the world. If only the Christians would follow it." - Gandhi Kinda makes you think...

good point...poor sean lennon, having her for a mom...

Hank Williams? Not so much into him. He's okay...my country runs more toward Loretta Lynn, Earl Scruggs, anything bluegrass, Alison Krauss and Union Station, and Johnny Cash (any country guy who can pull off WELL a Springsteen cover deserves major props). Like alt-country stuff like Ryan Adams too. George was always quiet and introspective, he was known for it. Your friend seems to have had an irregular experience, Botz, since I've read many (I'm a huge fan, so that means MANY) accounts of him written by people, high and low on the totem pole, who he worked with. They remember him as thoughtful, compassionate, meditative, loving, and kind. He wasn't a hateful sort of guy...he's the one who cited "love" in about every song he wrote, and spent the last 40 or so years of his life trying to banish his ego. Stopped liking playing rock n roll star after a point too. But what matters most is his music. His structures are amazing, and he has a GREAT sense of rhythm (way better than Ringo's, but that's not saying much) that he plays around with. His progressions gel very well with his lyrics, the ideas for many lyrics coming from Taoist, Buddhist, and Hindu writings. Overall, you just sit back and let it play...it just rolls. George described himself in one word as a gardener. There are many ways to seek God. Obviously...isn't that the point of this thread? On to dgolvach: I CRIED the first time I watched "Concert for George." When they all sing "Photograph"..."Every time I see your face it reminds me of the places we used to go / But all I've got is this photograph and I realize you're not coming back anymore." Only time Ringo has ever had such a profound effect on me. Of course, Clapton rocks, and George's son Dhani looks EXACTLY like him. My other favorite moments were Ravi Shankar's section in the beginning, with Arpan feat. Clapton and Paul playing "something" on the uke. Overall, a great great effort. I listen to the album all the time. I recommend "Brainwashed." I really enjoyed it...you would too if you love George! "Try to realize it's all within your self - No one else can make you change. And to see - you're really only very small - And life flows on - Within you - and without you." - George, "Within You, Without You" We should totally get back to Catholicism before I completely lose track of things!

I am totally for a married priesthood. Many people don't know this, but we actually are allowed to have married priests...but only if they converted from a non-Catholic sect where they were a minister and already had a family. Change comes slowly in this church, remember in the 2000 year scheme of things, Vatican II is still relatively "new." I'm praying for some good developments, though. I believe in us...whoo! Don't see what infallibility has to do with it any way, that's only when the Pope's speaking from the Vatican "ex cathedra" and I think the last time it was used was Pope Pius the somethingth to assert the Assumption of Mary into heaven as an Article of Faith, and that was the late fifties or sixties - that was Church teaching before that anyway.

Thanks dgolvach...I agree with you about the priest thing, like I said before. Bishops covering up the scandals for so long didn't help either, but you have to remember that the generation of priests in bishop and cardinal positions right now comes from the pre-Vat II "it's our problem" conservative crowd. I hope that the new, more energetic post-II generation of priest will help remove some stereotypes. There are also a bunch of books and materials out that perpetuate the problem. I was talking to a good priest friend of mine and he was saying that it gets to be a headache because just because people assume so much now about the bad things that have gone on among a few priests, few books about the subject are really put to scrutiny. The seminary I mentioned before was liberally mentioned in one book, and they finally did this TV interview to tell everybody about the facts and PROVE that the guy was libeling...and even with documented proof, people are still skeptical. As far as the "dead" thing...I believe people in heaven can hear us. Many people keep talking to passed on relatives after their death. Jesus talks to those not on Earth at the Transfiguration...I think someone mentioned that. The Bible has plenty of references to holy men and women asking those in heaven for help. I agree with GS...you have to read the passage in context. I would continue but...the dog just got stuck under a chair, the idiot. "Give me love, give me love, give me Peace on Earth." - George