The son of one of the leading families in your synagogue is married to a woman rabbi. We now call him the "rebetzin" (Yiddish for wife of a rabbi). He is a big, bearded fellow.

That said, I have met male and female rabbis and while there are more male than female rabbis (and among the orthodox rabbis are, with very few exceptions, always male) I never saw a difference in spiritual leadership. There is a difference between orthodox and reform rabbis and their respective styles, but there is little difference between reform male and female rabbis.

G-d possibly gave man and woman distinct innate abilities but He also gave all of us the ability to learn. And while a man cannot learn how to give birth, I am sure a woman can learn Jewish law and be a legitimate judge because no special male qualities are needed to know the law.

Perhaps this applies to Christianity, perhaps it doesn't. It is true that Jewish priesthood is exclusively male. But then it was created at a time when almost everything was exclusively male, for the simple reason that women had a high risk of not surviving child birth and were thus simply not suitable for any career that would take longer than a few years.

God gave men and women different roles.  They are equal but different.  According to his word and his choosing he chose men to be the leaders of their families both in a physical and spiritual sense.  When we reverse or go outside the parameters God has for us (no matter what it is) it's not the best.  It's not His way but our way. 

In the garden after the fall it was predicted (by God himself) that Eve's desire would be to rule over her husband.  So no surprise there.  It's been happening since the beginning of time.  Are you familiar with Miriam and what happened to her when she grumbled against the leadership of her brother Moses? 

Women have great roles to play in the ministry no doubt.  I love to learn and teach scriptures (as you probably know) but I also realize it's not in my best interest or in the interest of those around me that I become the head of a church.  It's in direct defiance of what God has ordered.  Not only is it clear teaching in both the OT and NT the examples are plenty that the leaders have according to God's purpose and plan been men.  I think women, who tend to be more verbal and communicative tend to push men aside and when that happens quite often men let them.  Usually men have to be prodded to lead and when they do and understand the whole concept behind it they make better leaders in the churches.  The very worse churches I've ever been in are usually run by women with very little strong male leadership.  The men might be there but they are not leading like they should be. 

This has nothing to do with culture as some say because it was from the beginning when no culture had yet been formed.  Paul addresses this in his letter to Timothy (2:13).  Adam was responsible for the headship of his family and that's why it's said that thru one man sin entered in and thru yet another this sin was forgiven even though it was Eve who first sinned. 

So Chrisitianity and Jewish History is quite on the same page with this topic.  But both, in modern days,  have turned away from God's ideal and gone in the opposite direction exactly as predicted in Genesis 3. 

Did she want her stuff back?

@ Nitro...it didn't look that way.  Actually she was so excited that I had some knowledge about authors, preachers, etc that she was trying to get me to buy more stuff, but that was before she got a bit huffy with me.  I actually bought the most stuff from her sale that day, but she was asking way too much for her many boxes of CD's. 

The Adam and Eve story is far too complicated for a quick discussion like this. I have yet to learn so much before I can analyse it. It's too old and I haven't yet read about all the Sumerien legends it is based on. (Yes, the Bible tells the truth, but that doesn't mean that the stories were't already known before the Torah was given to Moses.)

Some things I did find/figure out and that I want to list here since they might be of interest and since I enjoy listing things:

1. "Eden" comes to us from the Hebrew, as we all know. In Hebrew the word is spelt Ayin Dalet Nun. It does not start with a vowel or a glottal stop (like "Adam") but with a pharyngeal fricative, a consonant that doesn't exist in European languages and was usually transliterated as either "g" or as a vowel. In Hebrew the word means "pleasure" or "delight".

2. According to Wikipedia the word derives from a Semitic root Dalet Nun (DN) which allegedly means "abundant", but I could not find such a root in Hebrew or Aramaic and nor am I aware of a general mechanism of adding an Ayin to a root to create another word. There are letters that do that (Alef, Shin, He etc.) but Ayin is not among them as far as I know.

3. Wikipedia also says that "Eden" might ultimately derive from Sumerian *edin (reconstructed word) which means "steppe" or "wilderness". I am myself not sure how this could be because as far as I know Sumerian didn't have pharyngeal consonants, which was a problem for speakers of the ancient Assyrian language who used the Sumerian syllabary. Hence Sumerian *edin really only matches two of three letters (like in English "Eaten" would partially match "Eden").

4. According to several sources I read the locations referred to in the story are the Shatt El-Arab region and the (then dry) part of the Persian Gulf closes to Iraq and Kuwait (Eden) and the Iranian steppe just north of it (outside Eden). Whether and how this is relevant I don't know yet but it would put the locations squarely into ancient Sumer and hence into Assyrian mythology (the Assyrians took their mythology from the Sumerians).

5. The oldest biblically stable (i.e. directly deducible from reading the Bible) location we have for the story as told in the Torah is Assyria (northern Iraq).

6. Both Adam's and Eve's ("Hava") names are much newer than the story. The real names of the protagonists cannot be found in the Bible. It is impossible for "Adam" and "Hava" to be their real names as those are Hebrew words from 3500 years ago and didn't exist in that form in Iraq, not in Assyrian ("Hava" at least) nor in Sumerian (which is a totally unrelated language).

While my faith does not allow women Priests/pastors, I really have no problem with them.

People want to pick and choose when it comes to the Bible.  They want to mold the church to their own sensibilities rather than what scripture dictates.  That's why there are so many non-denominational churches now.  There is a lot of confusion over tolerance vs acceptance.  I have a lot of tolerance for the lifestyles of others...I just don't have to accept it as right.  

I don't know how many times I've been approached to join "churches" that are described as "not religious but more of just a place to have a relationship with Jesus"...huh?  They have convenient service times like Saturday evenings for those who want to sleep in on Sunday morning or have kids that have sporting events.  I'm only 39 and I can't believe how much things have changed since I was a kid! Heck, I remember when EVERYONE wore their "Sunday best" to church...now anything goes.

exactly right on Jill.  This role of women in the church is a hotly debated topic today.  Unfortunately the debate has left the scriptures to resolve the issue as did the lady I spoke to at the garage sale.  We noticed her argument was entirely based on her opinion not the scriptures. Traditional doctrines are being done away, in this case, for radical feminism.   This is one of the "new" truths seeping into our churches and seminaries today.  Under the pressure of feminism biblical accuracy has been abandoned in favor of the culture. 

In many instances (this subject included) biblical passages are being culturally reinterpreted or ignored in favor of making the scriptures be what they want them to be to suit their own agendas. 

The ultimate source of these attacks is the archenemy of God.  His plan has been right from the beginning to overthrow God's plan and corrupt His plan for mankind.  "Did God really say" he asked Eve on that day in the Garden.  Satan's bag of tricks are the same old, same old...because they work so well.  He's still whispering in the ears of many these days. 

that's because it's now more about man than it is about God.  Sad.  We're seeing it too.  What better way to corrupt man than by using his own kids they would do anything for?  We ran smack into this when our kids were pre-teens/teens and had to make hard decisions to walk the talk.   You just brought up a memory for me.  I may write about this next now that you mentioned this. LOL 

First I have to ask you...how can your "faith" say one thing and you another?  What is faith to you?  Don't you mean to say "your religion?" 

I know you're coming from the RCC and this is one area especialy where I believe the RCC is right on.  Having a problem with them, woman leaders in the church, isn't the issue.  It's not about our acceptance of them that matters. Does God accept this?  The real question is do we accept what HE dictates or what man dictates? 

I say it all the time but the direct center of the bible (for good reason) is Psalm 118:8.  It's a good one to memorize. 

I agree. I just recently decided to go back to church and I have noticed how even a church has had to cope with today's cultural changes just to stay alive. The Catholic church I am attending not only has a book that allows people to follow what was chosen to be part of mass that day (for those too busy to know this stuff I guess) but they also created a section specially designed for people with children so they can attend church without disturbing those who i guess find childrens inability to stay still and quiet annoying. Throw in all the iPods, iPhones, smart phones and portable gaming devices and you basically get yourself a building full of people who most barely hear or pay attention to what the Priest says but thinks it's good enough that at least they went to church.

And what some women wear these days (no necessarily Catholic churchs only) I'm amazed most men even pay attention to the mass.

It's really not that complicated Leauki.  We tend to make things much more complicated than they really are don't we? 

God created, male and female.  He gave Adam, as head of his family orders as to what he was to do and not to do.  He created for him a helper, Eve, to help him in his keeping of the earth.  Satan, approached Eve, who was the weaker of the two to corrupt them both by turning them away from their Creator.  The example of Adam and Eve is still, in many ways applicable to us all. 

Paul, much later expounded on this in his letter to Timothy which I mentioned to you earlier. Eve, was not suitable, by nature, to assume the position of ultimate responsibility.  She was not created to be the head but the helper and when she stepped out from under the protection and headship of Adam she was very vulnerable and fell.  Adam, in turn, violated his leadership role and followed Eve.  This is a perversion of what God created.  It's backwards.  It's exactly what Satan intended.  The Fall resulted from violating God's appointed roles for man and woman leading to disobedience.  Adam bore more of the responsibility because he was put in leadership by God himself and failed in that role. 

Headship by man is God's design right from the beginning.  I can clearly see the wisdom of that design everytime I listen to a woman Pastor.  My meeting that lady at the garage sale only confirmed to me the wisdom of God's design even more clearly as her emotional tirade was made quite evident. 

As for religion at garage sales, I'm smart enough to avoid discussion with people face to face about religion, regardless where. Online is fine for me.

It's simple.

The Catholic Church has lots of rules that are simply that: church rules. They do not necessarily have any basis in scripture nor are they meant to have.

Good question, and I did not really want to get into a religious discussion as I have gotten in trouble on those forums before.  But I will answer this one and leave it at that.

First, I am aware that my faith is not the only faith.  My step father was not of my faith and married in another (not to my mother, but after the divorce) by a woman Pastor.  I thought she did an excellent job of the service.  So from a strictly logical perspective, I see woman as pastors not being a hindrance to faith leadership and fulfilment, regardless of what my faith states about their practice.

Second, there is a concept of "doubting in, doubting out".  Basically what that means is that a person can share a faith with others, but not be in lock step agreement on all the nuances of it.  There are central tenets that cannot be disagreed upon, and that is why they share the same faith, but there are others that can be.  And not only disagreed upon, but debated openly and vigorously.  In my faith, the Immaculate conception is a doubting out.  If you doubt it, you are not of my faith.  But the demographic make up of the priesthood is a doubting in.  We can debate it and still be of the same faith.  indeed, the restriction on woman priests/pastors was not always the case.  In an earlier period, there were woman Pastors/Priests.  It is more a modern qualification than a part of the creed of the church.

That is why I can believe woman can make good priests/pastors, and yet my faith forbids it.  They have their reasons, that I am free to disagree with, and I have mine.  I will tell you that my priest and I had a long discussion on this at one time.  We disagreed not on the rules, but on which one the church would change first - married priests or woman priests.  He thought the former and I the latter.  As he is more in the heirarchy than I, he is probably going to be right.  If so, I will lose 2 lottery tickets (our standard bet)  if we are both around to see either change.

Finally, knowing you were once Catholic, you also know that the RCC is not a strict constructionist of the bible.  The bible is the most important tome of the religion, but it is not the Creed of our faith (The Nicean and Apostle's Creed take those).  To us, the Bible is a history of our faith, but the creed is the expression of our faith. So we treat the bible differently than your faith does.  I dare say (other than the fact we have been in the past) that we would be hypocrites if we took a literal interpretation of the bible, and yet had women (and married) priests in the past.  Of all the Christian religions, only RCC predates the bible.  So how can our faith be based upon a document that had not be written?  it has to be based on something more.

And here I spent 15 minutes writing out a bunch of stuff, and you cut straight tothe heart of the matter.  One of the reasons I do enjoy your writing!