[Skybird]

Originally Posted by u crank

Judging a religion or for that matter any group by what they say or by what they hold as a doctrine while 'disregarding' what they actually do in practice will give you a distorted view of them.

Or a correct view that shows that they are distorting the holy texts they claim - wrongly - to base upon.

I'm not sure of which 'church' you are speaking about but I know of no non-fundamentalist Protestant denominations that suppress women.

Then you never have heared of the Catholic church, and have not read the Bible - both old and new testament. Even Jesus apparently was not at all in that all-embracing mood to unconditionally welcome the idea that women shall be equal in rights to men. Allthough by the standards of his time he was a revolutionary improvement in that regard, I give him that.

In fact some of the fundamentalist types would call these denominations 'too liberal'. So you cannot make that generalization. I do not know any women who attend church or profess to have faith in God who claim to be suppressed. Quite the opposite, many are leaders and teachers.

Show me a Catholic female Cardinal. Priests. Show me the Vatican allowing females equal rights in their hierarchy. Allowing them self-determination regarding whether or not they want to use contraceptives, may it be for preventing pregnancy, may it be condoms for protecting against AIDS. As I said somewhere above, some Catholic private schools in Britain just have forbidden their female students to get injections against cervical cancer.

Well Skybird I am a Christian but under the current definition of 'fundamentalist' I would fail completely.

You said that before in an early thread, and it ended ugly. I take you by what you express in opinions, not by what you claim you want to be understood as. And I see you not as that harmless secular guy you want me to believe. Niot the ultra-.hardcore fundamentlaist, but still: fundamentalism is on oyur list, without you being aware of it.

Not sure what a "Churchian" is. Is this a new sect?

I differ between Chrisztians in the meaning of truly listening and basing of the only authority Christians can have: the man whom they claled the Christ and what the four gospels claim he had said, and Christians in the meaning of being members of sects or the main churches, becaswue I think Jesus'Ä preaching sand the church have nothing in common. The chuich is not Christzian at all. It is what it is: the Church. Not "Christianity". If oyu think that si qujeer, then remeber from Isalam threads that I make the same distinction between Muslims truly basing on the basis of IKslamic dogma - the exmaple of Muhammad's lie, Quran, Sharia - and Muslioms who do not consequently lived by that and thus ion principle qualify for apostacy and thus: exceution, althought they stillc laim to be Muslims. On 24th December, the churches are crowded with people claiming to be Christians. I say most of them are not Christian at all. Most of these people are sentimental - and that is something different.

Yes, I guess we all have lots to learn about each other.

Really? Regarding what has been discussed between you and me, aren't things not already clear? We are very different, you and me.