Church approves women bishops at historic vote in York - updated with reaction from women priests

York Press: Members of the General Synod after the vote Members of the General Synod after the vote

THE Church of England has approved the creation of women bishops, in a historic vote in York.

All three houses, the bishops, the clergy and the laity, voted in favour of the move by the necessary majority.

Parliament has to approve the legislation before it becomes church law, and traditionally the Government does not object to General Synod legislation. The exact timetable is yet to be decided, but the first women bishops could be ordained by the New Year.

Among the General Synod members taking part in the historic vote was the Rev Jane Nattrass, who is responsible for six churches in York city centre. She was ordained 14 years ago.

“I am thrilled that this has happened today,” she said. “It has been a long time coming. I think the Church of England has done the right thing today.”

She said the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu chaired the session very well. As is traditional at the General Synod, the results of individual votes were taken in silence before the archbishop led communal singing at the end.

“I enjoyed becoming a Synod member a few weeks and I am thrilled that I was able to press the button to say Yes,” she said.

The meeting was her first as a General Synod and her churches include St Martin-le-Grand on Coney Street, St Helen’s, St Olave’s, All Saints on Pavement, Holy Trinity in Micklegate and St Denys’.

For the Rev Canon Sue Sheriff, another General Synod member, and in charge of the united benefices of Tadcaster, today’s vote marked the culmination of a journey that began more than quarter of a century ago.

“I was ordained as deacon in 1987 and to be honest I never thought today would come. When there were the first women priests, it was like an immense dream come true. This time we have worked so hard for it.”

Members of the Church of England have been hugging each other, and outside the meeting hall, have been jumping and shouting for joy. There are no official celebrations planned, but groups of Synd attenders are making their own private celebrations.

“I have been really quiet. I think I am almost in shock. It feels so surreal,” she said. “Only when I get out of this rarefied atmosphere and get back to my family and friends and parishioners, will I understand what it means because I will see what it means to them. It is just wonderful.”

She has already received many text messages of congratulations and well wishes.

The voting figures were: House of Bishops: 77 in favour, two against, one abstention; House of Clery: 162 in favour, 25 against, four abstentions; House of Laity 152 in favour, 45 against, five abstentions.

The vote reverses one two years, also in York, when the Church of England's General Synod narrowly voted against ordaining women as bishops.

On that occasion, both the House of Bishops and the House of Clergy had the necessary two-thirds majority, but though the House of Laity was also in favour, the majority was not sufficient.

The move failed by six votes.This time, the majority in the House of Laity was 77 per cent or more than three-quarters..

Last year the General Synod, meeting in York, decided to restart the process and in February it voted to shorten the consultation period in the process, opening the way for today's historic vote.

The Church of England has debated the highly divisive issue for years. The result of today's vote was received in near silence at the request of the Archbishop of York in the Central Hall of the University of York.

Women have been ordained as priests for 20 years in the Church of England with one ordination earlier this year at York Minster seeing more women than men ordained for the first time. But until today, every woman priest knew that she could not become a bishop, regardless of her ability.

Comments (32)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:49pm Mon 14 Jul 14

Garrowby Turnoff says...

It's the only right and proper result. Women Bishops are just as capable of looking after their diocesan flock as a man, if not more so.
It's the only right and proper result. Women Bishops are just as capable of looking after their diocesan flock as a man, if not more so. Garrowby Turnoff
  • Score: 2

5:51pm Mon 14 Jul 14

HoofHearteds says...

Fantastic news! At last Gender equality in the internal systems of power.

Next let's hope the word "Equality" is expanded in areas like, allowing not only Military officers weddings at the Minster but, to the poor and lower fortunates in society as well. While were on this "Equality" drive, maybe next time there's a large presence of Religious elites in York, they leave the poor alone and allow them to beg if needs be.

Equality of Power is an interesting agenda prominence, especially in times like these.
Fantastic news! At last Gender equality in the internal systems of power. Next let's hope the word "Equality" is expanded in areas like, allowing not only Military officers weddings at the Minster but, to the poor and lower fortunates in society as well. While were on this "Equality" drive, maybe next time there's a large presence of Religious elites in York, they leave the poor alone and allow them to beg if needs be. Equality of Power is an interesting agenda prominence, especially in times like these. HoofHearteds
  • Score: -4

5:54pm Mon 14 Jul 14

Omega Point says...

For heavans sake YP bishops are not ordained.
For heavans sake YP bishops are not ordained. Omega Point
  • Score: 0

6:25pm Mon 14 Jul 14

RingoStarr says...

Samson and Delilah?
Samson and Delilah? RingoStarr
  • Score: 3

6:49pm Mon 14 Jul 14

nearlyman says...

HoofHearteds wrote:
Fantastic news! At last Gender equality in the internal systems of power.

Next let's hope the word "Equality" is expanded in areas like, allowing not only Military officers weddings at the Minster but, to the poor and lower fortunates in society as well. While were on this "Equality" drive, maybe next time there's a large presence of Religious elites in York, they leave the poor alone and allow them to beg if needs be.

Equality of Power is an interesting agenda prominence, especially in times like these.
It rather totally shows your total lack of knowledge in these matter. For your info, and perhaps if you acquired some knowledge before sounding off (no doubt as a non church person) you would see that there are long standing regulations within the C of E on where those of faith get married. Its not a hireable venue for any Beckhamesque fancy dress party!!
This is the extract from YM's website to assist you;
Church of England marriage laws impose clear eligibility criteria that define who is permitted to marry in cathedrals. Every couple wishing to have their marriage solemnized here must obtain a Special Licence from the Archbishop of Canterbury. These are issued on his behalf by the Registrar of the Court of Faculties in London.

The Registrar will only issue a Special Licence if the couple has what is referred to in law as a “present and demonstrable connection” with the cathedral in question – in practical terms, this normally means either coming to services at the cathedral on a regular basis over several months, or being one of the cathedral’s current employees. What the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Registrar will be looking for is convincing evidence that the couple has a genuine and substantial, personal and on-going, connection with the cathedral in question, which is so strong that it therefore makes this cathedral the most obvious church in which their marriage service should be held. Our hope and expectation is that couples will continue to worship regularly in the Minster after their wedding for as long as they live in the area.

Current serving members of the Yorkshire Regiment are normally entitled to be married here without needing to show any other “present and demonstrable connection” with the Minster.

Every application for a Special Licence must have the cathedral’s support, and all the normal Church of England eligibility rules for having a wedding service held in a church (e.g. neither person has been divorced, etc.) also apply.

The full legal rules, regulations and requirements for getting married in cathedrals by Special Licence can be found on the Court of Faculties’ website, at www.facultyoffice.or
g.uk/marriage.
[quote][p][bold]HoofHearteds[/bold] wrote: Fantastic news! At last Gender equality in the internal systems of power. Next let's hope the word "Equality" is expanded in areas like, allowing not only Military officers weddings at the Minster but, to the poor and lower fortunates in society as well. While were on this "Equality" drive, maybe next time there's a large presence of Religious elites in York, they leave the poor alone and allow them to beg if needs be. Equality of Power is an interesting agenda prominence, especially in times like these.[/p][/quote]It rather totally shows your total lack of knowledge in these matter. For your info, and perhaps if you acquired some knowledge before sounding off (no doubt as a non church person) you would see that there are long standing regulations within the C of E on where those of faith get married. Its not a hireable venue for any Beckhamesque fancy dress party!! This is the extract from YM's website to assist you; Church of England marriage laws impose clear eligibility criteria that define who is permitted to marry in cathedrals. Every couple wishing to have their marriage solemnized here must obtain a Special Licence from the Archbishop of Canterbury. These are issued on his behalf by the Registrar of the Court of Faculties in London. The Registrar will only issue a Special Licence if the couple has what is referred to in law as a “present and demonstrable connection” with the cathedral in question – in practical terms, this normally means either coming to services at the cathedral on a regular basis over several months, or being one of the cathedral’s current employees. What the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Registrar will be looking for is convincing evidence that the couple has a genuine and substantial, personal and on-going, connection with the cathedral in question, which is so strong that it therefore makes this cathedral the most obvious church in which their marriage service should be held. Our hope and expectation is that couples will continue to worship regularly in the Minster after their wedding for as long as they live in the area. Current serving members of the Yorkshire Regiment are normally entitled to be married here without needing to show any other “present and demonstrable connection” with the Minster. Every application for a Special Licence must have the cathedral’s support, and all the normal Church of England eligibility rules for having a wedding service held in a church (e.g. neither person has been divorced, etc.) also apply. The full legal rules, regulations and requirements for getting married in cathedrals by Special Licence can be found on the Court of Faculties’ website, at www.facultyoffice.or g.uk/marriage. nearlyman
  • Score: 10

6:59pm Mon 14 Jul 14

nearlyman says...

But back on the matter in hand.............man
y of those who have been against it have been so as a result of their deeply held theological beliefs. These may be right or wrong, but those people are feeling great trauma no doubt at this moment in time and any of those within the church who rightly feel great joy at this decision would be well advised to acknowledge their sucess with compassionate restraint and dignity. Anything less than this will show religion to be just another saleable commodity driven by market forces.

But of course that would no doubt suit your agenda.
But back on the matter in hand.............man y of those who have been against it have been so as a result of their deeply held theological beliefs. These may be right or wrong, but those people are feeling great trauma no doubt at this moment in time and any of those within the church who rightly feel great joy at this decision would be well advised to acknowledge their sucess with compassionate restraint and dignity. Anything less than this will show religion to be just another saleable commodity driven by market forces. But of course that would no doubt suit your agenda. nearlyman
  • Score: -1

7:09pm Mon 14 Jul 14

eeoodares says...

It seems bizarre that they are not Bishops already?
It seems bizarre that they are not Bishops already? eeoodares
  • Score: -6

7:38pm Mon 14 Jul 14

mortimer897 says...

nearlyman wrote:
But back on the matter in hand.............man

y of those who have been against it have been so as a result of their deeply held theological beliefs. These may be right or wrong, but those people are feeling great trauma no doubt at this moment in time and any of those within the church who rightly feel great joy at this decision would be well advised to acknowledge their sucess with compassionate restraint and dignity. Anything less than this will show religion to be just another saleable commodity driven by market forces.

But of course that would no doubt suit your agenda.
This raises the fundamental question: in today's society, should "deeply held theological beliefs" be allowed to overrule the law of the land, namely the requirement to comply with sex-discrimination act and the sexuality and ethnicity discrimination laws? Should one type of organisation be granted an exemption from having to obey those laws, because their own internal rules were made many centuries ago in less enlightened times and no longer reflect what Society regards as acceptable?
[quote][p][bold]nearlyman[/bold] wrote: But back on the matter in hand.............man y of those who have been against it have been so as a result of their deeply held theological beliefs. These may be right or wrong, but those people are feeling great trauma no doubt at this moment in time and any of those within the church who rightly feel great joy at this decision would be well advised to acknowledge their sucess with compassionate restraint and dignity. Anything less than this will show religion to be just another saleable commodity driven by market forces. But of course that would no doubt suit your agenda.[/p][/quote]This raises the fundamental question: in today's society, should "deeply held theological beliefs" be allowed to overrule the law of the land, namely the requirement to comply with sex-discrimination act and the sexuality and ethnicity discrimination laws? Should one type of organisation be granted an exemption from having to obey those laws, because their own internal rules were made many centuries ago in less enlightened times and no longer reflect what Society regards as acceptable? mortimer897
  • Score: 1

7:56pm Mon 14 Jul 14

nearlyman says...

mortimer897 wrote:
nearlyman wrote:
But back on the matter in hand.............man


y of those who have been against it have been so as a result of their deeply held theological beliefs. These may be right or wrong, but those people are feeling great trauma no doubt at this moment in time and any of those within the church who rightly feel great joy at this decision would be well advised to acknowledge their sucess with compassionate restraint and dignity. Anything less than this will show religion to be just another saleable commodity driven by market forces.

But of course that would no doubt suit your agenda.
This raises the fundamental question: in today's society, should "deeply held theological beliefs" be allowed to overrule the law of the land, namely the requirement to comply with sex-discrimination act and the sexuality and ethnicity discrimination laws? Should one type of organisation be granted an exemption from having to obey those laws, because their own internal rules were made many centuries ago in less enlightened times and no longer reflect what Society regards as acceptable?
That is indeed the million dollar question !!...............bu there are all sorts of exemptions in law already!
[quote][p][bold]mortimer897[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nearlyman[/bold] wrote: But back on the matter in hand.............man y of those who have been against it have been so as a result of their deeply held theological beliefs. These may be right or wrong, but those people are feeling great trauma no doubt at this moment in time and any of those within the church who rightly feel great joy at this decision would be well advised to acknowledge their sucess with compassionate restraint and dignity. Anything less than this will show religion to be just another saleable commodity driven by market forces. But of course that would no doubt suit your agenda.[/p][/quote]This raises the fundamental question: in today's society, should "deeply held theological beliefs" be allowed to overrule the law of the land, namely the requirement to comply with sex-discrimination act and the sexuality and ethnicity discrimination laws? Should one type of organisation be granted an exemption from having to obey those laws, because their own internal rules were made many centuries ago in less enlightened times and no longer reflect what Society regards as acceptable?[/p][/quote]That is indeed the million dollar question !!...............bu there are all sorts of exemptions in law already! nearlyman
  • Score: -1

8:34pm Mon 14 Jul 14

Pinza-C55 says...

How nice that the church has been dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century.
How sad that they still believe in a Talking Snake and an Invisible Man In The Sky.
How nice that the church has been dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century. How sad that they still believe in a Talking Snake and an Invisible Man In The Sky. Pinza-C55
  • Score: -11

9:36pm Mon 14 Jul 14

piaggio1 says...

Religion ??? Dont yer just love it .!!!!!
Religion ??? Dont yer just love it .!!!!! piaggio1
  • Score: 0

9:04am Tue 15 Jul 14

Digeorge says...

For over 20 years the Church of England has been debating this issue in the General Synod, the same members of the Synod sprouting their objections, I also used to work for them in London and in York, did the research behind this as part of a major report.

20 years ago, I was a regular attender at a Church in South East London Church of England parish which hosted one of the first women priests, it was 'outrage' at the time, the church and made the public domain.

It is welcome news and fantastic news for the women to be equal in the light of the Church.

Two years ago, I am sure that many women like myself have questioned whether or not they wish to continue going to Church with outdated laws and incompatible with the rest of society in relation to equal rights and opportunities.

Fantastic news and I wonder what on earth the Synod will debate! As this issue has taken reams and trees of paper for many a generation!
For over 20 years the Church of England has been debating this issue in the General Synod, the same members of the Synod sprouting their objections, I also used to work for them in London and in York, did the research behind this as part of a major report. 20 years ago, I was a regular attender at a Church in South East London Church of England parish which hosted one of the first women priests, it was 'outrage' at the time, the church and made the public domain. It is welcome news and fantastic news for the women to be equal in the light of the Church. Two years ago, I am sure that many women like myself have questioned whether or not they wish to continue going to Church with outdated laws and incompatible with the rest of society in relation to equal rights and opportunities. Fantastic news and I wonder what on earth the Synod will debate! As this issue has taken reams and trees of paper for many a generation! Digeorge
  • Score: 1

9:05am Tue 15 Jul 14

RingoStarr says...

Pinza-C55 wrote:
How nice that the church has been dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century.
How sad that they still believe in a Talking Snake and an Invisible Man In The Sky.
You're definitely not a muslim.
[quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: How nice that the church has been dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century. How sad that they still believe in a Talking Snake and an Invisible Man In The Sky.[/p][/quote]You're definitely not a muslim. RingoStarr
  • Score: 2

9:54am Tue 15 Jul 14

Firedrake says...

Omega Point: well they certainly have to be ordained before they can be consecrated ...
Omega Point: well they certainly have to be ordained before they can be consecrated ... Firedrake
  • Score: 0

10:22am Tue 15 Jul 14

Firedrake says...

Pinza-C55: the overwhelming number of Christians I know and have known (many thousands over the last half century or so) whether Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican or Nonconformist, are not Literal-Creationalis
ts and don't regard the Devil as a talking snake or God as an invisible man in the sky. Of course there will be differing degrees of literalism across denominational spectrum - concerning such matters as various interpretations of what precisely happens to the elements at the Eucharist - but even those of my friends who regard themselves as "fundamentalists" tend to use that term withe reference to fundamental teaching and doctrine ... not slavish adhearance to a literal interpretation of every word of Scripture. Some of my Quaker friends are almost Buddhistic in their perception of God manifest in and through all things. My Catholic friends use ritual and beauty to express the inexpressable and glory in the power of image and action.

When you comment on political or scocial matters I generally agree with you - your judgement seems fair and balanced - but for some reason, when it comes to Christianity, you seem to assume that the narrow theology of a minority within a minority (at least in Britain and Europe) is representative of the majority. Rest assured that it is not.
Pinza-C55: the overwhelming number of Christians I know and have known (many thousands over the last half century or so) whether Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican or Nonconformist, are not Literal-Creationalis ts and don't regard the Devil as a talking snake or God as an invisible man in the sky. Of course there will be differing degrees of literalism across denominational spectrum - concerning such matters as various interpretations of what precisely happens to the elements at the Eucharist - but even those of my friends who regard themselves as "fundamentalists" tend to use that term withe reference to fundamental teaching and doctrine ... not slavish adhearance to a literal interpretation of every word of Scripture. Some of my Quaker friends are almost Buddhistic in their perception of God manifest in and through all things. My Catholic friends use ritual and beauty to express the inexpressable and glory in the power of image and action. When you comment on political or scocial matters I generally agree with you - your judgement seems fair and balanced - but for some reason, when it comes to Christianity, you seem to assume that the narrow theology of a minority within a minority (at least in Britain and Europe) is representative of the majority. Rest assured that it is not. Firedrake
  • Score: 5

11:19am Tue 15 Jul 14

Firedrake says...

Apologies for typos in the above: written in haste with some passion!
Apologies for typos in the above: written in haste with some passion! Firedrake
  • Score: 0

12:33pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Omega Point says...

Firedrake wrote:
Omega Point: well they certainly have to be ordained before they can be consecrated ...
Thanks of course, I meant that installation to the episcopacy is not called ordination, thanks
[quote][p][bold]Firedrake[/bold] wrote: Omega Point: well they certainly have to be ordained before they can be consecrated ...[/p][/quote]Thanks of course, I meant that installation to the episcopacy is not called ordination, thanks Omega Point
  • Score: 0

5:45pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Seadog says...

Be careful, Firedrake: the "Thin End of the Wedge" brigade will have you down for a dodgy Liberal!

More seriously, though, and possibly even more important than the actual result of this historic (and - in my view - entirely correct) decision to allow women to become bishops, is the remarkable transformation of attitudes within the debate itself. Vigorous: yes. Impassioned: yes. Soul-searching: yes. Intellectually rigorous: yes ... but extraordinarily GRACIOUS too ... as if the dear old CofE has finally turned a corner and reclaimed the virtues and values of "unity without uniformity". For nearly five centuries this in-built diversity held her together with miraculously ironic cement, but in recent years I have begun to fear that it might prove her undoing at last and I could well understand why traditionalists at both ends of the candle were starting to "fall away" into the seeming security of "Rome" on the one hand and "Geneva" on the other.

Thus, whilst I certainly welcome the elevation of women to the Episcopate as and when all such legal formularies as are required have been satisfactorily dealt with, I welcome, even more, a return to the kind of broad, tolerant, inclusive and consensual Anglican polity with I grew up.
Be careful, Firedrake: the "Thin End of the Wedge" brigade will have you down for a dodgy Liberal! More seriously, though, and possibly even more important than the actual result of this historic (and - in my view - entirely correct) decision to allow women to become bishops, is the remarkable transformation of attitudes within the debate itself. Vigorous: yes. Impassioned: yes. Soul-searching: yes. Intellectually rigorous: yes ... but extraordinarily GRACIOUS too ... as if the dear old CofE has finally turned a corner and reclaimed the virtues and values of "unity without uniformity". For nearly five centuries this in-built diversity held her together with miraculously ironic cement, but in recent years I have begun to fear that it might prove her undoing at last and I could well understand why traditionalists at both ends of the candle were starting to "fall away" into the seeming security of "Rome" on the one hand and "Geneva" on the other. Thus, whilst I certainly welcome the elevation of women to the Episcopate as and when all such legal formularies as are required have been satisfactorily dealt with, I welcome, even more, a return to the kind of broad, tolerant, inclusive and consensual Anglican polity with I grew up. Seadog
  • Score: 0

6:34pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Pinza-C55 says...

Firedrake wrote:
Pinza-C55: the overwhelming number of Christians I know and have known (many thousands over the last half century or so) whether Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican or Nonconformist, are not Literal-Creationalis

ts and don't regard the Devil as a talking snake or God as an invisible man in the sky. Of course there will be differing degrees of literalism across denominational spectrum - concerning such matters as various interpretations of what precisely happens to the elements at the Eucharist - but even those of my friends who regard themselves as "fundamentalist
s" tend to use that term withe reference to fundamental teaching and doctrine ... not slavish adhearance to a literal interpretation of every word of Scripture. Some of my Quaker friends are almost Buddhistic in their perception of God manifest in and through all things. My Catholic friends use ritual and beauty to express the inexpressable and glory in the power of image and action.

When you comment on political or scocial matters I generally agree with you - your judgement seems fair and balanced - but for some reason, when it comes to Christianity, you seem to assume that the narrow theology of a minority within a minority (at least in Britain and Europe) is representative of the majority. Rest assured that it is not.
"Pinza-C55: the overwhelming number of Christians I know and have known (many thousands over the last half century or so) whether Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican or Nonconformist, are not Literal-Creationalis ts and don't regard the Devil as a talking snake or God as an invisible man in the sky. "
That's nice. If they don't believe that the Talking Snake existed (I never said it was the devil) or that "god" is basically an invisible man in the sky, then they must believe that a large part of the bible is not true? So how do they pick out the parts which are true?
"My Catholic friends use ritual and beauty to express the inexpressable and glory in the power of image and action"
Lovely. And the catholic church is largely responsible for the spread of AIDS in Africa through it's ban on the use of condoms.
" When you comment on political or scocial matters I generally agree with you - your judgement seems fair and balanced"
Thank you.
"but for some reason, when it comes to Christianity, you seem to assume that the narrow theology of a minority within a minority (at least in Britain and Europe) is representative of the majority."
The core beliefs are the same, regardless of how pleasant the individual believer is.
I never see atheism promoted in the Press but I am treated to regular helpings of what I regard as superstitious nonsense and the utterings of John Sentamu are treated as pearls of wisdom. I find this deeply irritating and I think it is my duty to say so, regardless of who I upset.
You might like to watch this video - the host and caller are both American but the same principles apply.
https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=ZfnUVqL7
Qbk
[quote][p][bold]Firedrake[/bold] wrote: Pinza-C55: the overwhelming number of Christians I know and have known (many thousands over the last half century or so) whether Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican or Nonconformist, are not Literal-Creationalis ts and don't regard the Devil as a talking snake or God as an invisible man in the sky. Of course there will be differing degrees of literalism across denominational spectrum - concerning such matters as various interpretations of what precisely happens to the elements at the Eucharist - but even those of my friends who regard themselves as "fundamentalist s" tend to use that term withe reference to fundamental teaching and doctrine ... not slavish adhearance to a literal interpretation of every word of Scripture. Some of my Quaker friends are almost Buddhistic in their perception of God manifest in and through all things. My Catholic friends use ritual and beauty to express the inexpressable and glory in the power of image and action. When you comment on political or scocial matters I generally agree with you - your judgement seems fair and balanced - but for some reason, when it comes to Christianity, you seem to assume that the narrow theology of a minority within a minority (at least in Britain and Europe) is representative of the majority. Rest assured that it is not.[/p][/quote]"Pinza-C55: the overwhelming number of Christians I know and have known (many thousands over the last half century or so) whether Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican or Nonconformist, are not Literal-Creationalis ts and don't regard the Devil as a talking snake or God as an invisible man in the sky. " That's nice. If they don't believe that the Talking Snake existed (I never said it was the devil) or that "god" is basically an invisible man in the sky, then they must believe that a large part of the bible is not true? So how do they pick out the parts which are true? "My Catholic friends use ritual and beauty to express the inexpressable and glory in the power of image and action" Lovely. And the catholic church is largely responsible for the spread of AIDS in Africa through it's ban on the use of condoms. " When you comment on political or scocial matters I generally agree with you - your judgement seems fair and balanced" Thank you. "but for some reason, when it comes to Christianity, you seem to assume that the narrow theology of a minority within a minority (at least in Britain and Europe) is representative of the majority." The core beliefs are the same, regardless of how pleasant the individual believer is. I never see atheism promoted in the Press but I am treated to regular helpings of what I regard as superstitious nonsense and the utterings of John Sentamu are treated as pearls of wisdom. I find this deeply irritating and I think it is my duty to say so, regardless of who I upset. You might like to watch this video - the host and caller are both American but the same principles apply. https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=ZfnUVqL7 Qbk Pinza-C55
  • Score: -1

6:39pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Pinza-C55 says...

RingoStarr wrote:
Pinza-C55 wrote:
How nice that the church has been dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century.
How sad that they still believe in a Talking Snake and an Invisible Man In The Sky.
You're definitely not a muslim.
I'm no religion but if I was a muslim then they still believe in the Talking Snake and the Invisible Man.
When I realised as a child that Santa was a fairy story , I realised that "god" was a fairy story. The number of people who believe it and the depth of their belief is no more relevant than the number of people who used to believe the Earth was flat.
[quote][p][bold]RingoStarr[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: How nice that the church has been dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century. How sad that they still believe in a Talking Snake and an Invisible Man In The Sky.[/p][/quote]You're definitely not a muslim.[/p][/quote]I'm no religion but if I was a muslim then they still believe in the Talking Snake and the Invisible Man. When I realised as a child that Santa was a fairy story , I realised that "god" was a fairy story. The number of people who believe it and the depth of their belief is no more relevant than the number of people who used to believe the Earth was flat. Pinza-C55
  • Score: -1

6:51pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Seadog says...

So whom do think Christians/Muslims do mean by the "talking snake" ... whether metaphorically or literally?
So whom do think Christians/Muslims do mean by the "talking snake" ... whether metaphorically or literally? Seadog
  • Score: 1

6:54pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Seadog says...

Sorry - whom do YOU think ... etc.
Sorry - whom do YOU think ... etc. Seadog
  • Score: 1

7:10pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Pinza-C55 says...

Seadog wrote:
So whom do think Christians/Muslims do mean by the "talking snake" ... whether metaphorically or literally?
I have heard various theist viewpoints but I don't really care about the minutiae of their beliefs.
Whether they believe that it was a snake with vocal chords and higher brain functions. a snake possessed by a demon or the devil, it is equally ridiculous and the more they try to rationalise it the more ridiculous it becomes.
I have read that, since society was very male centric at the time, the story was a way to load all the blame for human suffering onto a woman (Eve) which is probably closest to the truth.
Of course if you meet a woman who says she takes the bible literally then you point out that it says god cursed women forever with periods and childbirth pains, the conversation can get a bit fraught.....
[quote][p][bold]Seadog[/bold] wrote: So whom do think Christians/Muslims do mean by the "talking snake" ... whether metaphorically or literally?[/p][/quote]I have heard various theist viewpoints but I don't really care about the minutiae of their beliefs. Whether they believe that it was a snake with vocal chords and higher brain functions. a snake possessed by a demon or the devil, it is equally ridiculous and the more they try to rationalise it the more ridiculous it becomes. I have read that, since society was very male centric at the time, the story was a way to load all the blame for human suffering onto a woman (Eve) which is probably closest to the truth. Of course if you meet a woman who says she takes the bible literally then you point out that it says god cursed women forever with periods and childbirth pains, the conversation can get a bit fraught..... Pinza-C55
  • Score: -1

8:43pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Seadog says...

The talking snake is just a metaphore. Nothing ridiculous about that. Evil - however you construe it it - remains an objective reality. Fortunately ... so does good.

It's not about "Which bits of the Bible are true?" but rather "What kind of truth does each part of the Bible convey?" The Bible is a library ( that's what the word means) of 66 books written by at least a hundred authors over (I think) about 1400 years ... more, if you include the generations of oral tradition underpinning the early part of the Old Testament. It contains myth - in the proper non-perorative sense of the word - poetry, philosophy and real "nuts and bolts" history too. Samuel, Chronicles and Kings are a very different kettle of fish from Genesis! There's good archaeology for the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah!

The Gospels are unique ... perhaps the first ever "novels" as I seem to remember the likes of C S Lewis arguing back in the day .... but certainly not "fiction" in the modern sense of the word! The Pauline epistles (perhaps the most misquoted section of all) are works of mystical Judeo-Helenic theology which raise the hairs on the back of the neck ... though I do draw the line at the fashionable gnostic interpretations of his writing.

And who can fail to be moved by the thundering drama of the Apocalypse ... however literally or otherwise you take it?
The talking snake is just a metaphore. Nothing ridiculous about that. Evil - however you construe it it - remains an objective reality. Fortunately ... so does good. It's not about "Which bits of the Bible are true?" but rather "What kind of truth does each part of the Bible convey?" The Bible is a library ( that's what the word means) of 66 books written by at least a hundred authors over (I think) about 1400 years ... more, if you include the generations of oral tradition underpinning the early part of the Old Testament. It contains myth - in the proper non-perorative sense of the word - poetry, philosophy and real "nuts and bolts" history too. Samuel, Chronicles and Kings are a very different kettle of fish from Genesis! There's good archaeology for the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah! The Gospels are unique ... perhaps the first ever "novels" as I seem to remember the likes of C S Lewis arguing back in the day .... but certainly not "fiction" in the modern sense of the word! The Pauline epistles (perhaps the most misquoted section of all) are works of mystical Judeo-Helenic theology which raise the hairs on the back of the neck ... though I do draw the line at the fashionable gnostic interpretations of his writing. And who can fail to be moved by the thundering drama of the Apocalypse ... however literally or otherwise you take it? Seadog
  • Score: 1

8:55pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

Women priests. Great, great. Now there's priests of both sexes I don't listen to. Ha, I don't care.
Have a hermaphrodite one. I don't care. Have one with three dicks and eight titties, I don't , I don't... You know, have one with gills and a trunk. That would be cool. I might go see that, you know, but... You know, I appreciate your quaint traditions and superstitions. I on the other hand am an evolved being who deals solely with the source of life, which exists in all of our hearts. Ha ha That middle man thing, it's wacky and I appreciate it...
[quote]Women priests. Great, great. Now there's priests of both sexes I don't listen to. Ha, I don't care. Have a hermaphrodite one. I don't care. Have one with three dicks and eight titties, I don't , I don't... You know, have one with gills and a trunk. That would be cool. I might go see that, you know, but... You know, I appreciate your quaint traditions and superstitions. I on the other hand am an evolved being who deals solely with the source of life, which exists in all of our hearts. Ha ha That middle man thing, it's wacky and I appreciate it...[/quote] Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: 2

9:58pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Pinza-C55 says...

Seadog wrote:
The talking snake is just a metaphore. Nothing ridiculous about that. Evil - however you construe it it - remains an objective reality. Fortunately ... so does good.

It's not about "Which bits of the Bible are true?" but rather "What kind of truth does each part of the Bible convey?" The Bible is a library ( that's what the word means) of 66 books written by at least a hundred authors over (I think) about 1400 years ... more, if you include the generations of oral tradition underpinning the early part of the Old Testament. It contains myth - in the proper non-perorative sense of the word - poetry, philosophy and real "nuts and bolts" history too. Samuel, Chronicles and Kings are a very different kettle of fish from Genesis! There's good archaeology for the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah!

The Gospels are unique ... perhaps the first ever "novels" as I seem to remember the likes of C S Lewis arguing back in the day .... but certainly not "fiction" in the modern sense of the word! The Pauline epistles (perhaps the most misquoted section of all) are works of mystical Judeo-Helenic theology which raise the hairs on the back of the neck ... though I do draw the line at the fashionable gnostic interpretations of his writing.

And who can fail to be moved by the thundering drama of the Apocalypse ... however literally or otherwise you take it?
"The talking snake is just a metaphore. Nothing ridiculous about that. Evil - however you construe it it - remains an objective reality. Fortunately ... so does good."
No it isn't an "objective reality". Evil and good are simply labels which we apply to actions and we label them "evil" and "good" according to the the norms of the time.
When (according to the bible) god killed all men, women, babies, animals and vegetation in the world by drowning them was that Good or Evil? If it was a "metaphor" then a metaphor for what, and how do you know it was a metaphor?
"There's good archaeology for the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah!"
Sure some bible stories are set in real places, just like Spiderman is set in New York.
Israeli funded investigations have found no evidence for the exodus -useful summary here
http://rationalwiki.
org/wiki/Evidence_fo
r_the_Exodus
"though I do draw the line at the fashionable gnostic interpretations of his writing."
I don't care about the style of his writing or interpretations of it. "Can any of it be proved?" is the only important question.
"And who can fail to be moved by the thundering drama of the Apocalypse ... however literally or otherwise you take it?"
"Being moved" means nothing. As a kid I found the story of the Hydra exciting but it is just a work of ancient fiction.
Revelations has the star "Wormwood" crashing into the Earth because in those days the primitive people who wrote the bible didn't know that stars were bigger than the Earth?
Do you literally believe that the "devil" is an existant being and that hell is a real place?
[quote][p][bold]Seadog[/bold] wrote: The talking snake is just a metaphore. Nothing ridiculous about that. Evil - however you construe it it - remains an objective reality. Fortunately ... so does good. It's not about "Which bits of the Bible are true?" but rather "What kind of truth does each part of the Bible convey?" The Bible is a library ( that's what the word means) of 66 books written by at least a hundred authors over (I think) about 1400 years ... more, if you include the generations of oral tradition underpinning the early part of the Old Testament. It contains myth - in the proper non-perorative sense of the word - poetry, philosophy and real "nuts and bolts" history too. Samuel, Chronicles and Kings are a very different kettle of fish from Genesis! There's good archaeology for the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah! The Gospels are unique ... perhaps the first ever "novels" as I seem to remember the likes of C S Lewis arguing back in the day .... but certainly not "fiction" in the modern sense of the word! The Pauline epistles (perhaps the most misquoted section of all) are works of mystical Judeo-Helenic theology which raise the hairs on the back of the neck ... though I do draw the line at the fashionable gnostic interpretations of his writing. And who can fail to be moved by the thundering drama of the Apocalypse ... however literally or otherwise you take it?[/p][/quote]"The talking snake is just a metaphore. Nothing ridiculous about that. Evil - however you construe it it - remains an objective reality. Fortunately ... so does good." No it isn't an "objective reality". Evil and good are simply labels which we apply to actions and we label them "evil" and "good" according to the the norms of the time. When (according to the bible) god killed all men, women, babies, animals and vegetation in the world by drowning them was that Good or Evil? If it was a "metaphor" then a metaphor for what, and how do you know it was a metaphor? "There's good archaeology for the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah!" Sure some bible stories are set in real places, just like Spiderman is set in New York. Israeli funded investigations have found no evidence for the exodus -useful summary here http://rationalwiki. org/wiki/Evidence_fo r_the_Exodus "though I do draw the line at the fashionable gnostic interpretations of his writing." I don't care about the style of his writing or interpretations of it. "Can any of it be proved?" is the only important question. "And who can fail to be moved by the thundering drama of the Apocalypse ... however literally or otherwise you take it?" "Being moved" means nothing. As a kid I found the story of the Hydra exciting but it is just a work of ancient fiction. Revelations has the star "Wormwood" crashing into the Earth because in those days the primitive people who wrote the bible didn't know that stars were bigger than the Earth? Do you literally believe that the "devil" is an existant being and that hell is a real place? Pinza-C55
  • Score: -2

10:12pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Seadog says...

I forget precisely which Jacobean dramatist put it this way (not Shkespeare, I think. Webster, perhaps?)

"We are in He'll ... It circumscribeds us here. "
Christians - and no doubt others- would argue that their faith (or rather that in which they have their faith) offers the way out.

Differing as our views clearly are, I nonetheless thank you for entering into debate over this.
I forget precisely which Jacobean dramatist put it this way (not Shkespeare, I think. Webster, perhaps?) "We are in He'll ... It circumscribeds us here. " Christians - and no doubt others- would argue that their faith (or rather that in which they have their faith) offers the way out. Differing as our views clearly are, I nonetheless thank you for entering into debate over this. Seadog
  • Score: 1

10:20pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Pinza-C55 says...

Seadog wrote:
I forget precisely which Jacobean dramatist put it this way (not Shkespeare, I think. Webster, perhaps?)

"We are in He'll ... It circumscribeds us here. "
Christians - and no doubt others- would argue that their faith (or rather that in which they have their faith) offers the way out.

Differing as our views clearly are, I nonetheless thank you for entering into debate over this.
You're welcome to the debate, I enjoy it. But it troubles me that you haven't answered a single one of my questions so it really doesn't count as a debate.
I note that the in the 19 minutes since I posted I have received one thumbs down.
Can you assure me that you didn't thumb me down rather than answering my questions?
[quote][p][bold]Seadog[/bold] wrote: I forget precisely which Jacobean dramatist put it this way (not Shkespeare, I think. Webster, perhaps?) "We are in He'll ... It circumscribeds us here. " Christians - and no doubt others- would argue that their faith (or rather that in which they have their faith) offers the way out. Differing as our views clearly are, I nonetheless thank you for entering into debate over this.[/p][/quote]You're welcome to the debate, I enjoy it. But it troubles me that you haven't answered a single one of my questions so it really doesn't count as a debate. I note that the in the 19 minutes since I posted I have received one thumbs down. Can you assure me that you didn't thumb me down rather than answering my questions? Pinza-C55
  • Score: -1

10:34am Wed 16 Jul 14

Seadog says...

Sorry - I'd switched off (literally) and gone to bed. No, I did not mark you down.
Sorry - I'd switched off (literally) and gone to bed. No, I did not mark you down. Seadog
  • Score: 3

11:10am Wed 16 Jul 14

HoofHearteds says...

Seadog wrote:
Sorry - I'd switched off (literally) and gone to bed. No, I did not mark you down.
Most do switch off. It's worrying how some try and win a point with desperation. This is usually the trait of the paranoid "did you thumb me down" LOL
[quote][p][bold]Seadog[/bold] wrote: Sorry - I'd switched off (literally) and gone to bed. No, I did not mark you down.[/p][/quote]Most do switch off. It's worrying how some try and win a point with desperation. This is usually the trait of the paranoid "did you thumb me down" LOL HoofHearteds
  • Score: 1

11:59am Wed 16 Jul 14

Pinza-C55 says...

HoofHearteds wrote:
Seadog wrote:
Sorry - I'd switched off (literally) and gone to bed. No, I did not mark you down.
Most do switch off. It's worrying how some try and win a point with desperation. This is usually the trait of the paranoid "did you thumb me down" LOL
Asking whether he had thumbed me down instead of answering my questions is a perfectly reasonable question. He has said he did not, and I accept his word.
You'll note that he has not received a thumbs down on his posts, nor have you. Nor have I thumbed my own post up.
If you wish to take up the debate where he left off, I am happy to continue.
[quote][p][bold]HoofHearteds[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Seadog[/bold] wrote: Sorry - I'd switched off (literally) and gone to bed. No, I did not mark you down.[/p][/quote]Most do switch off. It's worrying how some try and win a point with desperation. This is usually the trait of the paranoid "did you thumb me down" LOL[/p][/quote]Asking whether he had thumbed me down instead of answering my questions is a perfectly reasonable question. He has said he did not, and I accept his word. You'll note that he has not received a thumbs down on his posts, nor have you. Nor have I thumbed my own post up. If you wish to take up the debate where he left off, I am happy to continue. Pinza-C55
  • Score: -1

3:12pm Sat 19 Jul 14

Just_My_Twopenneth says...

This has somewhat gone a little 'off-topic' really.

Good that women can become bishops. It doesn't make sense that they cannot... after all we created equal in the eyes of God. Most religions seems to agree on that, obviously Islamic faith does not (as one of the largest religions), but that is rather a shame.

Less men are joining the church nowadays, so it is nice to see women taking the role.

BTW: I am male.
This has somewhat gone a little 'off-topic' really. Good that women can become bishops. It doesn't make sense that they cannot... after all we created equal in the eyes of God. Most religions seems to agree on that, obviously Islamic faith does not (as one of the largest religions), but that is rather a shame. Less men are joining the church nowadays, so it is nice to see women taking the role. BTW: I am male. Just_My_Twopenneth
  • Score: 2
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree