Making the case for organized religion

[Rach1370]

For you Rach to clear up this "church" thing, than before you get mad at me, look it up for yourself, or do something unheard of, ask Jesus, He will never lie to you.

Church

Was never a building with pastors and priests, that was the old wine, now we have the new wine, face to face with God,

In all His Love

I'm not mad, I'm frustrated. Frustrated that you are saying things almost outright, then denying you are saying them. You say you are not calling people who "attend church" unsaved, and yet you refer to us in such ways that clearly show you percieve us in this light.
Witness:

"or do something unheard of, ask Jesus"

If it is 'unheard' of me asking something of Jesus....of talking to him at all, because assuredly to ever begin talking to Jesus as Saviour and Lord, I need to 'ask' him for forgiveness of my sins....then clearly you don't think Jesus IS my Saviour.

People who rely on twisting words, sentences and meanings to slip under radars and dodge accusations from others, are poor conversationalists, and really don't bring any weight to their arguments.

You've shown zero biblical proof against THE Church meeting together. Whether its in a building, a house, a shed or a paddock....the bible is hardly against it. In fact, reading through Acts and then all of Pauls books, I find it highly ridiculous that you feel you have a case against it.

Actually...let's consider your argument against gathering together to praise and worship so far:
Firstly, when you made a comment that made no sense when considered against the topic at hand, you replied:

Of course it doesnt, why should it, why should the things of God make sense to man

Of course, marvellous. And of course, a brilliant argument against believers coming together. Why couldn't I see it before??

Then, even though you frequently post bible verses (although most of the time they don't seem appropriate to the conversation at hand, but of course, us foolish mortals can't understand it like you can, right? 'Cause you and God are tight), when others argue against your position using bible verses, you say:

Interesting isnt it, how one can speak to a non believer about the things of God without mentioning the bible, but christans wont even listen to you if you dont quote it. again it seems the Holy Spirirt has being relegated like Christ Aand God to a lower status than mens religion.

Now we're supposed to believe that we can show non-believers the 'good news' without actually showing them what God says....and that should a Christian ask you to show, biblically, that your ideas are backed up by what God says and commands, we are, in fact, bowing to mans religion and putting the Trinity at the bottom of the ladder. Sure...that makes sense. Christians who want to faithfully follow what God says are of course putting him last!!

So....if I can at all follow you.....No one will be able to determine your posts, because they only make sense to God. That we must leave the bible out, unless you are using it, but then when we respond in like, using scripture verses, we are somehow embracing mans religion and bumping our Father, Spirit and Saviour down the line to unimportant.

And you wonder why I don't take you seriously??

But wait....there's more! Somehow in all that baffling argument, there seems to be no proof against Christians gathering together....that the members of THE Church (the one body of Christ) arranging to meet together to worship.

So...I'll await with bated breath to see what awesome bit of logical will come next.....

 

[Selene]

I am treading on dangerous ground, and I realize that. The problem Vale, is that you are not the only Catholic that exists. I like you, and I believe you have a sound mind. However, those three myths as you call them exist and folks like me have to combat them with Bible. Vale, there are Catholics out there that believe that....

In other words, when someone says, "The church is not a building", for a long time, the Catholic Church was preaching it was and there are still folks that believe that.

This is incorrect. First of all, the Catholic Church never taught that the Church is a building. It is not even in our catechism. It was the American dictionary that defined "church" as a building. See the weblink below on Dictionary.com.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/church?s=t

The Catholic Church did not invent the dictionary nor had any say in its definition of "church" found in the dictionary. So, you don't need to combat the Catholic Church with the Bible regarding the word "Church". The Catechisms of the Catholic Church have always interpreted the word "Church" correctly. Perhaps, the problem lies in the dictionary's interpretation.

When someone complains that "Mary didn't die for my sins" and yet millions are praying the rosary and saying "Hail Mary!" 15 times then throwing in 1-3 "Praise Jesus!" Well.... Our doubt is justified!

Secondly, Catholics are fully aware that Mary did not die for anyone's sins. And we don't say Hail Mary 15 times. We say it 10 times. And it's certainly not equated with "Praise Jesus." We know the difference between the two. I don't know how your doubt is justified when it is so obvious that "Hail" is not the same as "Praise" The Angel Gabriel said "Hail Mary." Hail means "Greetings". (See Luke 1:28). It does not mean "Praise."

 

[mjrhealth]

You cant see because you choose not to see. The catholics say they have the only way and all else is wrong, they have there doctrines there rules their churches their priests and so on, they wil not go to an anglican church, for they have their doctrines their rules their priests their churches and they preach a differnet gospel, and an anglican wont go to a 7th day church, guess why, even the so called christian churches cant agree with one another all claim their church their doctrines are right and all else is wrong, some even have their own bibles with little changes that line up with their doctrines, and than profess they all woship the same God, how can that be, is Christ divided, no so it must be man and his doctrines, since a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand so mens religion must fall, it is not builtr on a sound foundation but myths and fables, dont be there when it falls.

In all His love

 

[FHII]

This is incorrect. First of all, the Catholic Church never taught that the Church is a building. It is not even in our catechism. It was the American dictionary that defined "church" as a building. See the weblink below on Dictionary.com.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/church?s=t

The Catholic Church did not invent the dictionary nor had any say in its definition of "church" found in the dictionary. So, you don't need to combat the Catholic Church with the Bible regarding the word "Church". The Catechisms of the Catholic Church have always interpreted the word "Church" correctly. Perhaps, the problem lies in the dictionary's interpretation.


Secondly, Catholics are fully aware that Mary did not die for anyone's sins. And we don't say Hail Mary 15 times. We say it 10 times. And it's certainly not equated with "Praise Jesus." We know the difference between the two. I don't know how your doubt is justified when it is so obvious that "Hail" is not the same as "Praise" The Angel Gabriel said "Hail Mary." Hail means "Greetings". (See Luke 1:28). It does not mean "Praise."

Selene, regardless of what is truth and what isn't, these are the things out there and it's coming from Catholics themselves. I might have to back up a bit on the church/building part, but I was thinking of the practice of selling indulgences in order to build the bascillica in Rome.

 

[Rach1370]

You cant see because you choose not to see. The catholics say they have the only way and all else is wrong, they have there doctrines there rules their churches their priests and so on, they wil not go to an anglican church, for they have their doctrines their rules their priests their churches and they preach a differnet gospel, and an anglican wont go to a 7th day church, guess why, even the so called christian churches cant agree with one another all claim their church their doctrines are right and all else is wrong, some even have their own bibles with little changes that line up with their doctrines, and than profess they all woship the same God, how can that be, is Christ divided, no so it must be man and his doctrines, since a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand so mens religion must fall, it is not builtr on a sound foundation but myths and fables, dont be there when it falls.

In all His love

And still no biblical proof....

 

[mjrhealth]

Mat_7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
Mat_7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Mat_7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Mat_12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

lets see, murder, child abuse, selling salvation at a price, murder of the Jews, witchcraft, would you like me to go on???

Mat_10:26 Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known.

God is not blind.

In all His love

 

[Rach1370]

You know, that scripture could be applied to some 'churches' (gatherings) who are not really there for Jesus, but for themselves...and their fruit reflects that. But most likely it's a verse that applies to individuals within those gatherings who attend 'church' but are not part of The Church.
Overall, it is not telling us that gathering together with other believers is wrong.
You will not find a verse in scripture that says that...it's simply not there.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Selene, regardless of what is truth and what isn't, these are the things out there and it's coming from Catholics themselves. I might have to back up a bit on the church/building part, but I was thinking of the practice of selling indulgences in order to build the bascillica in Rome.

FHII, you're claims are based on anecdotal evidence that we're supposed to accept at face value, not actual Catholic Church teaching. I think you know it's not a fair standard of proof as to what Catholics believe. None of the devout Catholics I know believe anything you're claiming, but I too am using an anecdote that proves nothing. I could cite some outlandish teachings among Protestants such as "name it, claim it" and "holy laughter", not to mention the numerous Protestants who have claimed to know when Jesus will return, not the least of which is Harold Camping. It would be equally unjust for me to characterize these as typical Protestant beliefs.

But my higher point is that we are supposed to be "children of light" as the Bible calls us, seeking out truth and shining brightly in the darkness. It's ok to disagree with other Christian faiths such as the Catholic Church, but don't calumniate us because that's not becoming of a Christian in any denomination.

You know, that scripture could be applied to some 'churches' (gatherings) who are not really there for Jesus, but for themselves...and their fruit reflects that. But most likely it's a verse that applies to individuals within those gatherings who attend 'church' but are not part of The Church.
Overall, it is not telling us that gathering together with other believers is wrong.
You will not find a verse in scripture that says that...it's simply not there.

There were thieves, embezzlers, and murderers among the apostles of Jesus. At no point in the history of the Church have we been unsullied by scandal. Your point is well taken.

 

[mjrhealth]

Not much to say.

Rev 3:15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
Rev 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
Rev 3:17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
Rev 3:18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.

In all His Love

 

[FHII]

FHII, you're claims are based on anecdotal evidence that we're supposed to accept at face value, not actual Catholic Church teaching. I think you know it's not a fair standard of proof as to what Catholics believe. None of the devout Catholics I know believe anything you're claiming, but I too am using an anecdote that proves nothing. I could cite some outlandish teachings among Protestants such as "name it, claim it" and "holy laughter", not to mention the numerous Protestants who have claimed to know when Jesus will return, not the least of which is Harold Camping. It would be equally unjust for me to characterize these as typical Protestant beliefs.

But my higher point is that we are supposed to be "children of light" as the Bible calls us, seeking out truth and shining brightly in the darkness. It's ok to disagree with other Christian faiths such as the Catholic Church, but don't calumniate us because that's not becoming of a Christian in any denomination.

There were thieves, embezzlers, and murderers among the apostles of Jesus. At no point in the history of the Church have we been unsullied by scandal. Your point is well taken.

1. I've debated some pretty devote Catholics that hold to their beliefs, which aren't the same as yours.
2. Yep... Protestants haves some pretty bizarre beliefs.... Here's the kicker.... They didn't get them all from the Catholic Church when they broke away! They came up with some new ones!

Vale.... You are dealing with a different individual. I go by the Bible. Lot's of folks say they do, but I analyze everything by that document, and I'm not the type who needs Biblical proof that it happened to make it so.... For example, music. Some say there is no precidence for music in the NT (they're wrong, of course) but I don't see a teaching that forbids it either.

And for the record... You seemed to have gotten all uptight when Marksman started talking.... I might be wrong, and I'm not going to scour the entire thread to find out.... But I don't recall him pointing out Catholics.... He presented a shoe and it fit. Then you took offense. I, on the other hand, I have called out Catholics and I won't do it again (Lord willing!). So did Marksman ever mention he was speaking about Catholics? I don't recall, and I might be wrong....

Vale, if we are going to have a conversation, speak to me as a Child of God, not as a Catholic.

I'm not even a Protestant.... That would give credence to the Catholic belief that they are the Mother Church, and I'm just protesting. Yea, I am.... But I was never a rebellious child of the Catholic Church. I am born of God.

Nuff said?

 

[JPPT1974]

I am a Southern Baptist. But really consider myself a Non-Denominational Christian. As really I speak as a Child of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Only Jesus is the judge and jury. And has the final say. As He is the Alpha and Omega. The Beginning and End! It is not about religion. But about Christ IMHO!

 

[marksman]

Which Christian denomination actually thinks the Church is a building? As for the pastors and priests, they are also part of the Church. They're members of the body of Christ. Priests existed in the New Testament. The Church is the body of Christ......in other words, people. It never had anything to do with a building.

I will say it again Selene. If you believe that teaching is ministry for men why do you spend so much time on here putting men right.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

1. I've debated some pretty devote Catholics that hold to their beliefs, which aren't the same as yours.
2. Yep... Protestants haves some pretty bizarre beliefs.... Here's the kicker.... They didn't get them all from the Catholic Church when they broke away! They came up with some new ones!

Vale.... You are dealing with a different individual. I go by the Bible. Lot's of folks say they do, but I analyze everything by that document, and I'm not the type who needs Biblical proof that it happened to make it so.... For example, music. Some say there is no precidence for music in the NT (they're wrong, of course) but I don't see a teaching that forbids it either.

And for the record... You seemed to have gotten all uptight when Marksman started talking.... I might be wrong, and I'm not going to scour the entire thread to find out.... But I don't recall him pointing out Catholics.... He presented a shoe and it fit. Then you took offense. I, on the other hand, I have called out Catholics and I won't do it again (Lord willing!). So did Marksman ever mention he was speaking about Catholics? I don't recall, and I might be wrong....

Vale, if we are going to have a conversation, speak to me as a Child of God, not as a Catholic.

I'm not even a Protestant.... That would give credence to the Catholic belief that they are the Mother Church, and I'm just protesting. Yea, I am.... But I was never a rebellious child of the Catholic Church. I am born of God.

Nuff said?

Ok. Let me enumerate my responses in sequence rather than break up your response, ok?

1. Your anecdote about what you've heard Catholics intimate are their beliefs is not a true reflection on what the Church teaches or even what most Catholics believe. The Catholic Church is not a democracy, nor does it operate by the theological anarchy consistent with Protestant denominations.

2. All Protestants (including the ones who say "I'm not even a protestant") say they go to the Bible. This is the problem. By mawkishly ceding authority to the Bible, you all become an authority unto yourselves. For it isn't the Bible, but rather your interpretation which are as variegated as a botanical garden, which form your opinions, none of which hold sway over anyone else's. You take comfort in the fact that you can find others who share your viewpoint, but religion, like science, isn't up to popular vote and truth isn't arrived at by consensus. Consensus gives a false appearance of truth but can be very much at variance with it. Look at all the scientists who agree on myths like evolution and global warming, for example.

3. Marksman is a big boy and can handle his own defense.

4. I speak as a Catholic for the aforementioned reason of you introducing strawman arguments to refute what you think Catholics believe. The three examples I gave of statements made by Protestants (the church is not a building, mary didn't die for my sins, I can confess my sins directly to God) are deliberate goads with catholic-seeking warheads. Or it could be the Orthodox. But let's be honest, nobody protests them, even though their beliefs are nearly identical to ours.

5. If you don't want to be viewed as a Protestant, then stop protesting. I know many Christians who aren't protestant. They are at peace with all their brothers and sisters in Christ, the kind of peace we should all be pursuing, and I fall short of that goal myself, allowing differences to embitter relations to my brothers and sisters. I think we need to apply a little more intellectual honesty. We know when we're making statements to goad people of other denominations, and the innocent act is just nauseating. I started this thread to highlight the accomplishments and benefits of systemized religion. If you want to discuss the church not being a building or the practice of plenary indulgences, then by all means start a conversation on it on a new thread and I'll be happy to hash it out.

I will say it again Selene. If you believe that teaching is ministry for men why do you spend so much time on here putting men right.

"Putting men right?" If you'll be so kind, please translate that into American or dumb it down a little because we're easily confused up-over here in the Northern hemisphere. :wacko:

 

[Selene]

I will say it again Selene. If you believe that teaching is ministry for men why do you spend so much time on here putting men right.

Huh?? I asked a question: Which Christian denomination actually considers "church" a building?" Your answer has nothing to do with the question.....unless you are accusing the Catholic Church of teaching that "church" means "building." I already stated that the Catholic Church has never taught that "church" meant building. As far as I know, the American dictionary is the one that defined it as a building. And the Catholic Church has nothing to do with the American dictionary.

 

[Rach1370]

I will say it again Selene. If you believe that teaching is ministry for men why do you spend so much time on here putting men right.

I'm sorry, but this is just disrespectful. I don't believe Selene has ever made a comment of how only men may 'be in ministry'....she was pointing out that AS priests or teachers, they ARE part of the Church. Biblically women are called into much ministry...home, family, children, younger women...but that is really beside the point here.
For you to pull this out....to put words in her mouth, is objectionable all in itself. But to put words there that are derogatory towards women....
I believe if we're following biblical morals on the subject, step up, be a 'man' and appologise for the clearly intended slight.
If this is the best rebuttle you can come up with on the subject at hand, just walk away....you got nothing.

 

[marksman]

I'm sorry, but this is just disrespectful. I don't believe Selene has ever made a comment of how only men may 'be in ministry'....she was pointing out that AS priests or teachers, they ARE part of the Church. Biblically women are called into much ministry...home, family, children, younger women...but that is really beside the point here.
For you to pull this out....to put words in her mouth, is objectionable all in itself. But to put words there that are derogatory towards women....
I believe if we're following biblical morals on the subject, step up, be a 'man' and appologise for the clearly intended slight.
If this is the best rebuttle you can come up with on the subject at hand, just walk away....you got nothing.

Here are some quotes of Selene in the thread "Female Pastors."

Christ is the Good Shepherd, and He is the Head of the Church (which is His flock). Christ is also the High Priest, and Christ was a man. He is not a female. A female cannot take the position of a priest, pastor, bishop, or Head of the household.

Ministry belongs to all Christians......meaning that even a woman can preach the Gospel to non-Christians. But the position of priest belongs to the man because God has always called men to be priests in the Old Testament (See Numbers 3:3; 2 Chronicles 13:10). In the Old Testament, God only chose men to the office of priesthood, and in the New Testament, He chose only men to be His Apostles. In the family of God, Christ (who is a man) is the Head of the Church.....and Christ's representatives on earth who are called to take care of His entire flock (Church) are also men. Why? Because the wife represents the Church and the husband represents Christ (See Ephesians 5:23-32). Post 549

Christ chose only men to be Apostles. He did not choose any woman. 555

So, yes, a woman can lead and take care of a flock of sheep......that is "sheep" with wool and four legs.....but not be a pastor of a Church. 568

 

[[email protected]]

Everyone's heard it said that they have no problem with Christianity, but it's "organized religion" that they reject. Quite often it's really in roster with a series of excuses for not showing up for church on Sunday; be that as it may.

But my question is, are Christians really any good in the world without organized religion? On a small scale we can act within our own spheres to touch the lives of others and find ways to ameliorate our world and correct small injustices. But consider that missions in Africa and South America require churches to sponsor them. Consider how large charities like Samaritans Purse and Catholic Charities help countless people on a global scale with an apparatus and operating budget that circulates millions of dollars at a time. Consider how the Bible itself is a product of organized religion, made official as a canon by the 4th century councils of Rome and Hippo and how major doctrinal decisions were made in such councils as well.

Organized religion becomes a target by its sheer visible status. Churches don't hide, they are a shining city on a hill. So the downside of all the good that organized religion does is that the devil has an infrastructure against which to mount an assault. It becomes worse when the accusations are true, when church leaders fall into scandal and corruption compromises the mission of the Church. People don't remember when a church builds hospitals and schools in Haiti, but they sure remember the sex abuse scandals. The good we do is dismissed, ignored, and quickly forgotten and the bad we do has staying power in people's perception of "organized religion."

Yet the Church Militant by sheer preponderance considers the blessings of concerted efforts to spread the gospel of Christ and to help our fellow man worth whatever liabilities come with it. Maybe we should give organized religion a break. Criticism is easy, building something and being part of something that brings immense good to the world, well that's harder.

But worth it.

OK, so where did 'organized religion' come from?

There is little evidence for it in the pages of the New Testament ! All the examples we see of corporate worship in the Bible point to assemblies in homes or semi-public venues. Collections were taken to support those home style Christian worship groups when they fell upon hard times. And God blessed their endeavor for the most part...

So where did we get the idea that building projects, real estate development, satellite ministries and international religious figures with the admiration and idolization matching a rock star get it's start? With the Roman Emperor Constantine.

The watershed experience that broke the Biblical first century pattern was the acceptance of Christianity by the Roman Emperor Constantine. Before that time Christianity was anathema - forbidden and illegal. After Constantine's acceptance of it as a state religion, the priestly class experienced a surge in 'official' status. The religion became an institution rather than the living body of Christ its founder.

The American dream began partly as an expression of a desire to break away from state directed and regulated Christianity. Unfortunately the pendulum of American history seems to be swinging in the other direction these days. The idea of separation now sanctions persecution of Christians rather than elimination of government meddling in it.

The Bible does not indicate anywhere in its pages that Christians should participate in government modeled and regulated religion.

Neither does it specify that one must attend or join worship in a mega huge church with giant TV screens and idol worship of its leaders. The Bible doesn't even state that Christians should organize the building of massive stone cathedrals, religious real estate development or even participate in tithing. The temple of the body is the only structure we are to be cognizant of…..and far too many have let that temple go.


Self destruct in 10 seconds……nine…..eight…..seven…..six…..five…..four…..three….two….one….

fizzle……its dies not with a bang but a whimper…...

but that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

OK, so where did 'organized religion' come from?

There is little evidence for it in the pages of the New Testament ! All the examples we see of corporate worship in the Bible point to assemblies in homes or semi-public venues. Collections were taken to support those home style Christian worship groups when they fell upon hard times. And God blessed their endeavor for the most part...

Well that's certainly a load. The very first ecumenical council was recorded in the book of Acts. Clear leadership was established and bequeathed to the fledgling church, apostles who were ordained as such by being directly commissioned by Jesus Christ. And they appointed successors. All this happened in the New Testament era. Moreover, Christians met in the temple before it was destroyed and also met in homes in other places where they suffered persecution and had to go into hiding. The geography of the New Testament covers Europe, Asia Minor, and Northern Africa, a large area that encompassed many emerging Christian traditions. Your argument is entirely incorrect.


So where did we get the idea that building projects, real estate development, satellite ministries and international religious figures with the admiration and idolization matching a rock star get it's start? With the Roman Emperor Constantine.

And yet, Emperor Constantine, in spite of his flaws, became a Christian and put an end to pitched persecutions. Attributing traditions to Constantine doesn't bear the same opprobrium as it would attributing them to a truly evil monster. But I'm sure that was the effect you were aiming for, yielding better results with a more ignorant audience.




The American dream began partly as an expression of a desire to break away from state directed and regulated Christianity. Unfortunately the pendulum of American history seems to be swinging in the other direction these days. The idea of separation now sanctions persecution of Christians rather than elimination of government meddling in it.

The Bible does not indicate anywhere in its pages that Christians should participate in government modeled and regulated religion.

Charities and churches having organization and infrastructure doesn't make them government. They don't have the power to create laws, commission police, imprison citizens, or conduct wars. To compare religions to governments based on an arbitrary criteria like the one you presented is like comparing a mule deer to a willow tree because they both drink water. Let's dispense with the silliness, shall we?

Neither does it specify that one must attend or join worship in a mega huge church with giant TV screens and idol worship of its leaders. The Bible doesn't even state that Christians should organize the building of massive stone cathedrals, religious real estate development or even participate in tithing. The temple of the body is the only structure we are to be cognizant of…..and far too many have let that temple go.

Here's what you don't seem to understand. The Bible documents a fledgling church. If you were to impose upon me the impossible task of finding the Christian Broadcasting Network in the Bible, I would impose upon you the equally impossible task of demonstrating the Bible intended to restrain the church to the moorings of its humble beginnings. Good luck with that.


In the process of building its pompous empire the protestant branch of Christianity has committed itself to the glorification of corporate worship rather than Christ. As a result the entire institution is in the process of self-destruction. Many books and articles have been written by scholarly men attesting to this fact. Christians with integrity are abandoning the protestant church because the protestant church has abandoned Jesus. It's just that simple.



Now we're just getting inane, aren't we? I find it difficult to have any conversation with somebody willing to indict with idolatry and personality worship any church, organization, or ministry that has gained popularity, clout, and global reach. Were you one of those imbeciles holding signs protesting Billy Graham as a false prophet at one of his crusades? Did you show up at a Promise Keepers event to protest and hold up signs maligning Coach McCartney? I remember going to one of these events, and we could clearly see that the sign castigating Coach McCartney was papered over the same sign protesting Billy Graham. I thought it was hilarious. Do you frequent jesus-is-savior.com? I think I got you all figured out.

 

[Dodo_David]

but that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...

Uh, where in the New Testament are choir lofts mentioned?

 

[justaname]

Here are some quotes of Selene in the thread "Female Pastors."

Christ is the Good Shepherd, and He is the Head of the Church (which is His flock). Christ is also the High Priest, and Christ was a man. He is not a female. A female cannot take the position of a priest, pastor, bishop, or Head of the household.

Ministry belongs to all Christians......meaning that even a woman can preach the Gospel to non-Christians. But the position of priest belongs to the man because God has always called men to be priests in the Old Testament (See Numbers 3:3; 2 Chronicles 13:10). In the Old Testament, God only chose men to the office of priesthood, and in the New Testament, He chose only men to be His Apostles. In the family of God, Christ (who is a man) is the Head of the Church.....and Christ's representatives on earth who are called to take care of His entire flock (Church) are also men. Why? Because the wife represents the Church and the husband represents Christ (See Ephesians 5:23-32). Post 549

Christ chose only men to be Apostles. He did not choose any woman. 555

So, yes, a woman can lead and take care of a flock of sheep......that is "sheep" with wool and four legs.....but not be a pastor of a Church. 568

What does this have to do with having a discussion on a public forum? The subject is organized religion, not female pastors.