Hacker News Reader

Comment by titanomachy | Hacker News Reader

Good point, I wonder if they are also slow to adopt social trends. If they're 50 years behind in technology, does that mean they're also just starting to consider women's liberation? The author seemed to interact only with men. Are the bishops who decide what technology to adopt also all men?

View on HN

Great points, it's virtually guaranteed that as in many other religious groups there is a notion of "protecting" women by taking such decisions away from them or restricting them from various roles. The southern baptist church in the us remains inordinately focused on limiting women's roles. Women shouldn't be priests, in some places they allow them, other places look askance at that.

That is just a matter of basic theological fidelity; the matter is spelled out very clearly in the Bible[0]. You can't just pick and mix which parts of it you'd like to selectively ignore and claim it's 'up to interpretation'.

[0] Timothy 2:11-12

And yet I dont know of a single Christian that follows the rules against wearing blended material garments laid out in Leviticus 19:19.

My parents are Deacons in their local church, and believe you me, they pick and choose which parts to interpret as allegory and which parts to interpret literally all the time.

That is part of the ritual law, something a follower/disciple of Jesus is not required to do. In fact as a follower of Jesus there are no rules other than 2. Love God and love others. Everything else flows from that as far as the instruction gave like Jesus did in his Sermon on the Mount.

Someone who has said, hey I declare that Jesus is my Lord and Savior, and truly believes it will of course do things. Not because they have to, but because they want to.

Please don't take HN threads into religious flamewar. We don't need to go to that hell here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

If so, it is the parent who ought to be flagged, not my comment.

I have not introduced a flamewar topic, nor was it an unrelated controversy or a generic tangent. The Christian concern over female priests common in the American South is not "inordinate," that was what I was responding to.

Oh please, then how do we have different sects of Christianity?

Some of the rules are rather vague, to the point where two reasonable-minded people could reach two different conclusions. The parts about female ordination are, to put it bluntly, not.

Then Ephesians 6:5-8 and Colossians 3:22 telling slaves to obey their masters is going to be a doozie to implement and defend.

Slavery as practiced in the ancient world was not the same institution as the chattel slavery in the European colonies, which is an entirely different moral gray area. It was more akin to our modern employment relationships if anything. And the following sounds like a reasonable expression of Christian morality, does it not?:

> 22 Employees, in all things obey those who are your employers on earth [lit. according to the flesh], not with external service [lit. eyeservice], as those who merely please men, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_antiquity

Reply on news.ycombinator.com