NationStates Jolt Archive

Link (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html)

Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible
By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent

THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.

The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible.

“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture.

The document is timely, coming as it does amid the rise of the religious Right, in particular in the US.

Some Christians want a literal interpretation of the story of creation, as told in Genesis, taught alongside Darwin’s theory of evolution in schools, believing “intelligent design” to be an equally plausible theory of how the world began.

But the first 11 chapters of Genesis, in which two different and at times conflicting stories of creation are told, are among those that this country’s Catholic bishops insist cannot be “historical”. At most, they say, they may contain “historical traces”.

The document shows how far the Catholic Church has come since the 17th century, when Galileo was condemned as a heretic for flouting a near-universal belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible by advocating the Copernican view of the solar system. Only a century ago, Pope Pius X condemned Modernist Catholic scholars who adapted historical-critical methods of analysing ancient literature to the Bible.

In the document, the bishops acknowledge their debt to biblical scholars. They say the Bible must be approached in the knowledge that it is “God’s word expressed in human language” and that proper acknowledgement should be given both to the word of God and its human dimensions.

They say the Church must offer the gospel in ways “appropriate to changing times, intelligible and attractive to our contemporaries”.

The Bible is true in passages relating to human salvation, they say, but continue: “We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters.”

They go on to condemn fundamentalism for its “intransigent intolerance” and to warn of “significant dangers” involved in a fundamentalist approach.

“Such an approach is dangerous, for example, when people of one nation or group see in the Bible a mandate for their own superiority, and even consider themselves permitted by the Bible to use violence against others.”

Of the notorious anti-Jewish curse in Matthew 27:25, “His blood be on us and on our children”, a passage used to justify centuries of anti-Semitism, the bishops say these and other words must never be used again as a pretext to treat Jewish people with contempt. Describing this passage as an example of dramatic exaggeration, the bishops say they have had “tragic consequences” in encouraging hatred and persecution. “The attitudes and language of first-century quarrels between Jews and Jewish Christians should never again be emulated in relations between Jews and Christians.”

As examples of passages not to be taken literally, the bishops cite the early chapters of Genesis, comparing them with early creation legends from other cultures, especially from the ancient East. The bishops say it is clear that the primary purpose of these chapters was to provide religious teaching and that they could not be described as historical writing.

Similarly, they refute the apocalyptic prophecies of Revelation, the last book of the Christian Bible, in which the writer describes the work of the risen Jesus, the death of the Beast and the wedding feast of Christ the Lamb.

The bishops say: “Such symbolic language must be respected for what it is, and is not to be interpreted literally. We should not expect to discover in this book details about the end of the world, about how many will be saved and about when the end will come.”

In their foreword to the teaching document, the two most senior Catholics of the land, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, Archbishop of Westminster, and Cardinal Keith O’Brien, Archbishop of St Andrew’s and Edinburgh, explain its context.

They say people today are searching for what is worthwhile, what has real value, what can be trusted and what is really true.

The new teaching has been issued as part of the 40th anniversary celebrations of Dei Verbum, the Second Vatican Council document explaining the place of Scripture in revelation. In the past 40 years, Catholics have learnt more than ever before to cherish the Bible. “We have rediscovered the Bible as a precious treasure, both ancient and ever new.”

A Christian charity is sending a film about the Christmas story to every primary school in Britain after hearing of a young boy who asked his teacher why Mary and Joseph had named their baby after a swear word. The Breakout Trust raised £200,000 to make the 30-minute animated film, It’s a Boy. Steve Legg, head of the charity, said: “There are over 12 million children in the UK and only 756,000 of them go to church regularly.

That leaves a staggering number who are probably not receiving basic Christian teaching.”

BELIEVE IT OR NOT

UNTRUE

Genesis ii, 21-22

So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man

Genesis iii, 16

God said to the woman [after she was beguiled by the serpent]: “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”

Matthew xxvii, 25

The words of the crowd: “His blood be on us and on our children.”

Revelation xix,20

And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had worked the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshipped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with brimstone.”

TRUE

Exodus iii, 14

God reveals himself to Moses as: “I am who I am.”

Leviticus xxvi,12

“I will be your God, and you shall be my people.”

Exodus xx,1-17

The Ten Commandments

Matthew v,7

The Sermon on the Mount

Mark viii,29

Peter declares Jesus to be the Christ

Luke i

The Virgin Birth

John xx,28

Proof of bodily resurrection
This intrigues me in a number of ways:

1) How will US creationists react to this? I must confess that I don't know of the denominational composition of the movement - will this declaration have a significant effect? Or is creationism more the preserve of Protestants?

2) Is this an exclusively British declaration? If so, is this a sign of a split from Rome? Alternatively, if this has papal blessing then why isn't this part of a global declaration? Having written that, I should point out that I haven't scoured the international media for news on this, so perhaps I've just misinterpreted the tone of the article, since it makes no real reference to the Church outside of the UK.

3) UNTRUE...

...Genesis ii, 21-22

So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man

Genesis iii, 16

God said to the woman [after she was beguiled by the serpent]: “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”

How significant is the above for Catholic women?

4) Roman Catholicism is unquestionably strong in the world at large, but in the UK its influence is pretty minimal. Is this declaration likely to have much of an effect in an increasingly secularised British society (excepting the Muslim community)?

I'd be interested in your thoughts.

Umm, the RCC has actually made this clear for a while now....

That sounds a little bit like "the falsifiable parts are not necessarily true, but most of the non-falsifiable parts are".

What about this Virgin Birth thing. Isn't that still debated amongst Bible scholars?

Link (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html)

This intrigues me in a number of ways:

1) How will US creationists react to this? I must confess that I don't know of the denominational composition of the movement - will this declaration have a significant effect? Or is creationism more the preserve of Protestants?

2) Is this an exclusively British declaration? If so, is this a sign of a split from Rome? Alternatively, if this has papal blessing then why isn't this part of a global declaration? Having written that, I should point out that I haven't scoured the international media for news on this, so perhaps I've just misinterpreted the tone of the article, since it makes no real reference to the Church outside of the UK.

3) UNTRUE...

...Genesis ii, 21-22

So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man

Genesis iii, 16

God said to the woman [after she was beguiled by the serpent]: “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”

How significant is the above for Catholic women?

4) Roman Catholicism is unquestionably strong in the world at large, but in the UK its influence is pretty minimal. Is this declaration likely to have much of an effect in an increasingly secularised British society (excepting the Muslim community)?

I'd be interested in your thoughts.
[ Cheers wildly, stomps feet and whistles! ] YES! OMG, this is great!

As any of you who have read my posts on religion here on General know, I have taken a great deal of flack from fundamentalists here in my own State, as well as from members of my own family, notably my ex, for saying that Genesis is an allegory and not to be taken literally. It's nice to know that such a notable authority as the Catholic Church now agrees with me! :D

There will be a decrease in the number of fundamentalists over the long run as a result of this. A hard core of fundamentalists will continue to insist that the universe was created in six days, and that it all happened about 10,000 years ago. There will be a rift between the Catholic Church and hard-core fundamentalists, who want to believe that every word of the Bible is to be taken as literal truth.

This news article was written in early October. Why haven't I heard of this before now? That would be major news. Were there any other news reports of this to confirm it?

This news article was written in early October. Why haven't I heard of this before now? That would be major news. Were there any other news reports of this to confirm it?
Because the RCC has actually declared this before? I think around the time John Paul II pardoned Galileo he made a statement like this...

Because the RCC has actually declared this before? I think around the time John Paul II pardoned Galileo he made a statement like this...
It seemed to take a while to filter through to RCC UK, I guess. As stated in the opening post, I wasn't aware of announcements outside of the UK, being as I am a complete ignoramus of all matters Catholic.

Oh, yeah, the Church doesn't take the Bible metaphors literally… quite like the Jews, in fact. The Church has thought this way for ages.

There will be a decrease in the number of fundamentalists over the long run as a result of this.
actually probably not as soon as you hoped, because most of the fundamentalists I know are protestant and don't give a flip what the catholic church says anyway.

Maybe I should join the Catholic church.... Nah, I'm still uncomfortable with the whole veneration of Mary thing.

Anyway, as an evangelical Christian I can say most of the other evangelical Christians I know take a litteral interpretation and I often get into debates with them about it. The creationist movement is almost entirely led by evangelicals and fundamentalists (the difference between these too groups isn't very clear). Niether are likely to take something the Roman Catholic Church says as authority.

The scientific evidence just seems to contradict the idea that humans didn't evolve. This would contradict the idea that Eve was made from Adam's rib. I don't see why they reject that God could have made childbirth painful on purpose though I suppose it is saying this because of the husband will rule over you part is politically incorrect.

Anyway, as an evangelical Christian I can say most of the other evangelical Christians I know take a litteral interpretation and I often get into debates with them about it. The creationist movement is almost entirely led by evangelicals and fundamentalists (the difference between these too groups isn't very clear). Niether are likely to take something the Roman Catholic Church says as authority.
there is a difference.


evangelical refers to Christians who evangelize. Evengelical refers to 1) Protestant Christians who spread the Christian Gospel as found in the biblical New Testament; 2) a denomination formed to distinguish a more liberal subset of Bible-believing evangelicals from conservative anti-modern fundamentalists in the 1940s and 1950s .

fundamentalists ususally believe the entire bible is to be taken literally.

I am evangelical but not a fundamentalist.

actually probably not as soon as you hoped, because most of the fundamentalists I know are protestant and don't give a flip what the catholic church says anyway.
Which is precisely why I said "in the long run." There has been considerable agreement between many fundamentalist churches and the Catholic Church on quite a number of issues for several years now. By parting company with the fundamentalist "true believers" on the issue of literal interpretation, the Catholic Church will alienate many fundamentalists who agree with them on other issues, abortion for example. The Catholic Church has considerable moral authority with many fundamentalists, and this sea-change will require the fundamentalists to either distance themselves from the Church or modify their views on "creationism," for example. This sets up a conundrum: if you agree with the Catholic Church, you call into question some of your most closely-held beliefs; if you part company with the Church on the "literalism" issue, you tend to isolate yourself even more and will become marginalized.

It will be highly interesting to see how this plays out. :)

Which is precisely why I said "in the long run." There has been considerable agreement between many fundamentalist churches and the Catholic Church on quite a number of issues for several years now. By parting company with the fundamentalist "true believers" on the issue of literal interpretation, the Catholic Church will alienate many fundamentalists who agree with them on other issues, abortion for example. The Catholic Church has considerable moral authority with many fundamentalists, and this sea-change will require the fundamentalists to either distance themselves from the Church or modify their views on "creationism," for example. This sets up a conundrum: if you agree with the Catholic Church, you call into question some of your most closely-held beliefs; if you part company with the Church on the "literalism" issue, you tend to isolate yourself even more and will become marginalized.

It will be highly interesting to see how this plays out. :)
fair enough.

fair enough.
Thank you. :)

There's another aspect to this which I find intriguing: many fundamentalists expect to be marginalized, indeed, even invite it. They base this position on many portions of the Bible which indicate that "true believers" will be "hated" by the world. They will take being marginalized as "proof" of their faith and devotion. It's a kind of "martyr complex redoux."

This story has already been posted and debated on this forum.

This story has already been posted and debated on this forum.
So? I didn't see it before, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. :p

Sadly, it was never the Roman Catholics that started all the mess.

This story has already been posted and debated on this forum.
At midnight? I never saw it.

At midnight? I never saw it.
it was, I debated in it, it went on for like 3 days, I wish I could find it and link to it, there was a pretty good discussion.

it was, I debated in it, it went on for like 3 days, I wish I could find it and link to it, there was a pretty good discussion.
I wish you could find it too. Can you re-post some of the discussion from the earlier thread on here, if you can remember it? :)

The Below Statement Is False
The Above Statement Is True


This has pretty much been the catholic method of teaching the population. Take my example. The below statement is false. But the Above statement is true. But that can't be since the below statement is still false.

Normally, that would leave people confused right? That's where the catholic church stepped in and expressed a dictatorship over people's minds. Sorry to all you Catholics, but you're not following "god".

You're following King Benedict XVI

Because the RCC has actually declared this before? I think around the time John Paul II pardoned Galileo he made a statement like this...

Yes, this is what I was taught -- and what the pastor at my friend's Lutheran-Reformed church says as well.


I suspect a lot (not all!!!) of the Fundies will be hissing about how Catholics are demonic and not true Christians again -- oh wait, still. ;)

The Below Statement Is False
The Above Statement Is True


This has pretty much been the catholic method of teaching the population. Take my example. The below statement is false. But the Above statement is true. But that can't be since the below statement is still false.

Normally, that would leave people confused right? That's where the catholic church stepped in and expressed a dictatorship over people's minds. Sorry to all you Catholics, but you're not following "god".

You're following King Benedict XVI

Examples directly connected to Catholic teaching, please?

I suspect a lot (not all!!!) of the Fundies will be hissing about how Catholics are demonic and not true Christians again -- oh wait, still. ;)
Sigh. Why is it so many people think they have some corner on the "truth market?" :(

Sigh. Why is it so many people think they have some corner on the "truth market?" :(

Wish I knew. Silly that for some, different=evil.

[ Cheers wildly, stomps feet and whistles! ] YES! OMG, this is great!

As any of you who have read my posts on religion here on General know, I have taken a great deal of flack from fundamentalists here in my own State, as well as from members of my own family, notably my ex, for saying that Genesis is an allegory and not to be taken literally. It's nice to know that such a notable authority as the Catholic Church now agrees with me! :D

There will be a decrease in the number of fundamentalists over the long run as a result of this. A hard core of fundamentalists will continue to insist that the universe was created in six days, and that it all happened about 10,000 years ago. There will be a rift between the Catholic Church and hard-core fundamentalists, who want to believe that every word of the Bible is to be taken as literal truth.

I only wish you were right, my friend... however, I suspect that MOST of the 'Creationist' movement is Southern Baptists and the like... and all the Southern Baptists I know, think that Catholics are willing servants of Satan.

I only wish you were right, my friend... however, I suspect that MOST of the 'Creationist' movement is Southern Baptists and the like... and all the Southern Baptists I know, think that Catholics are willing servants of Satan.
well, now you know a southern baptist that doesn't think that (me) and we are not the big creationists that you think we are. I think you are thinking of the primitive baptists, most of the southern baptists that I know are creationists only in the sense that we think God created the world not the literal 6 day creation.

I found the other discussion that I was refering to earlier (here is a link to the enitre thred)

I hope it works, if not I am technically inept so please forgive.;)


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=447992

well, now you know a southern baptist that doesn't think that (me) and we are not the big creationists that you think we are. I think you are thinking of the primitive baptists, most of the southern baptists that I know are creationists only in the sense that we think God created the world not the literal 6 day creation.

Maybe it's just the Southern Baptists in my area? That'd be a nice thought...

I'm in the top right corner of Georgia - where it meets both Carolinas - and, as far as I can tell, literal Creationism is LAW here.

Maybe it's just the Southern Baptists in my area? That'd be a nice thought...

I'm in the top right corner of Georgia - where it meets both Carolinas - and, as far as I can tell, literal Creationism is LAW here.
Being a member of the southern baptist convention doesn't mean you have
to buy in lock stock and barrell to everything that they believe (different than the catholic church) you are encouraged to seek out scripture and pray and make up your mind about what you feel is true, there may be just a lot more conservative than we are here (that is actually a scary thought) :eek:

Being a member of the southern baptist convention doesn't mean you have
to buy in lock stock and barrell to everything that they believe (different than the catholic church) you are encouraged to seek out scripture and pray and make up your mind about what you feel is true, there may be just a lot more conservative than we are here (that is actually a scary thought) :eek:

Well, I don't know... I was never a Southern Baptist. I do recall hearing Jimmy Carter saying in an interview, that he finally got sick of the Southern Baptist Convention when they changed the official language to assert that women ARE subservient to men, and removed the text that said all scripture should be considered THROUGH the example of Jesus.

Effectively, it seems, some Baptists missed the whole 'Jesus-rails-against-the-Pharisees' part.

My wife was a Southern Baptist, earlier in life... and they certainly did NOT promote a "seek out scripture and pray and make up your mind about what you feel is true" attitude in this part of the state. They were to believe what the preacher said, or they were to leave.

I visited churches here a few times, too - after I moved here... I stopped going when I heard the preacher giving what he obviously thought was a declaration of understanding... that Muslims are only Muslims because they don't know any better...

Well, I don't know... I was never a Southern Baptist. I do recall hearing Jimmy Carter saying in an interview, that he finally got sick of the Southern Baptist Convention when they changed the official language to assert that women ARE subservient to men, and removed the text that said all scripture should be considered THROUGH the example of Jesus.

Effectively, it seems, some Baptists missed the whole 'Jesus-rails-against-the-Pharisees' part.

My wife was a Southern Baptist, earlier in life... and they certainly did NOT promote a "seek out scripture and pray and make up your mind about what you feel is true" attitude in this part of the state. They were to believe what the preacher said, or they were to leave.

I visited churches here a few times, too - after I moved here... I stopped going when I heard the preacher giving what he obviously thought was a declaration of understanding... that Muslims are only Muslims because they don't know any better...

a) women are to be subservient to men.

b) I wouldn't be part of any church that didn't want me to check things out for myself, God gave me a brain to use, not to blindly believe what a "preacher" said. but that could be the part of me that believes that no one speaks for God but God.

Ask Catholics how lock, stock and barrel they are on the topic of birth control. ;)

a) women are to be subservient to men.

b) I wouldn't be part of any church that didn't want me to check things out for myself, God gave me a brain to use, not to blindly believe what a "preacher" said. but that could be the part of me that believes that no one speaks for God but God.

Amen to that. ;)
I don't necessarily disagree with the idea of having a preacher, or someone who can tell you some of their ideas on what is in the Bible... because, let's face it, that's one helluva confusing book. :P But to say that you MUST believe what they tell you is wrong... not that the Church has ever had a problem with telling people what to do. :P

a) women are to be subservient to men.


Is that your belief? Your genuine belief?

I mean, you are free to believe what you wish, obviously... and I'd fight to protect that right. For me, I can't buy into any scheme that legitimises the ownership of one person, by another.


b) I wouldn't be part of any church that didn't want me to check things out for myself, God gave me a brain to use, not to blindly believe what a "preacher" said. but that could be the part of me that believes that no one speaks for God but God.

I totally understand this sentiment. However, you might not be fully appreciating how thoroughly entrenched such beliefs can be in this kind of backwater. Or how much someone might suffer, around here, if he/she 'opted out' of their church.

Wow! All I can say is, "About Goddamned time!" Next... The Baptists! :p

Ask Catholics how lock, stock and barrel they are on the topic of birth control. ;)
oh yeah, I was speaking about the Catholic church, not Catholics, I have tons of problems with the church that I don't seem to have with my Catholic friends.;)

Is that your belief? Your genuine belief?

I mean, you are free to believe what you wish, obviously... and I'd fight to protect that right. For me, I can't buy into any scheme that legitimises the ownership of one person, by another.
my husband doesn't own me, I submit to him because I want to. I think a lot of people misunderstand the situation, and it doesn't help that a lot of men over the years have taken scripture out of context to make thier wives "behave".



I totally understand this sentiment. However, you might not be fully appreciating how thoroughly entrenched such beliefs can be in this kind of backwater. Or how much someone might suffer, around here, if he/she 'opted out' of their church.
I understand completely (well, maybe not but pretty close) I got kicked out of church for listening to secular music once, that's right. kicked out. They told me I was no longer welcome, and took my name off the roll. I really didn't want to be in a church like that either, they couldn't find one single scrap of scripture (even one taken out of context) that supported thier veiw on the matter. I have seen that type of church, and believe me you are better off finding a new one.

Wow! All I can say is, "About Goddamned time!" Next... The Baptists! :p
geez! what is everyone's big problem with baptists today? okay, what did we do to you?

Is that your belief? Your genuine belief?

I mean, you are free to believe what you wish, obviously... and I'd fight to protect that right. For me, I can't buy into any scheme that legitimises the ownership of one person, by another. "Subservient to" does not mean ownership… and in actual fact, is a rather poor choice of words.

Ask Catholics how lock, stock and barrel they are on the topic of birth control. Heretics!

geez! what is everyone's big problem with baptists today? okay, what did we do to you?
I grew up as a Southern Baptist, and got saved and baptised around twelve (when I was old enough to understand it). I went to youth group several times a week as a young adolescent and was active in a lot of chrch activities.
I grew weary of the whole scene by the time I was 15, and had converted to Buddhism by 16. I've never, ever regretted leaving the Christian lifestyle behind.

my husband doesn't own me, I submit to him because I want to. I think a lot of people misunderstand the situation, and it doesn't help that a lot of men over the years have taken scripture out of context to make thier wives "behave".


Well, if I were being cynical, I might say that not ALL forms of ownership automatically involve locks and keys... and that, sometimes being raised into ownership is enough of a cage.

Whichever - do you not accept that not all women are inferior to men? That is certainly the way Paul (ah, my good friend...) tells it.


I understand completely (well, maybe not but pretty close) I got kicked out of church for listening to secular music once, that's right. kicked out. They told me I was no longer welcome, and took my name off the roll. I really didn't want to be in a church like that either, they couldn't find one single scrap of scripture (even one taken out of context) that supported thier veiw on the matter. I have seen that type of church, and believe me you are better off finding a new one.

Oh, for me, it is no concern... Godless Heathen and jolly glad of it. I dislike the fact that my wife has had such a hard time with her faith, or that my daughter is being raised in such an environment.

This was posted in a thread a few weeks ago. You can look up responses there.

This intrigues me in a number of ways:

1) How will US creationists react to this? I must confess that I don't know of the denominational composition of the movement - will this declaration have a significant effect? Or is creationism more the preserve of Protestants?

2) Is this an exclusively British declaration? If so, is this a sign of a split from Rome? Alternatively, if this has papal blessing then why isn't this part of a global declaration? Having written that, I should point out that I haven't scoured the international media for news on this, so perhaps I've just misinterpreted the tone of the article, since it makes no real reference to the Church outside of the UK.
The Catholic Church has always recognized non-literal interpretation in their teachings. Their traditions are based in such symbolism.

3) [i]UNTRUE... *snip*
The writer or the article misrepresents these declarations as 'untrue'. It is clear from what the UK ministers say in the article that they are are talking about non-literal interpretations rather than faslehoods.

"Subservient to" does not mean ownership… and in actual fact, is a rather poor choice of words.


Which words? Subservient? Ownership?

I would say that ownership would be the only honest and logical reading of the scripture.

It says (Ephesians 5:22-4)"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord... For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body... Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing".

The wife must 'submit' (surrender to the authority and will) of her husband, on 'every thing'. The husband is, to the wife, as God is to the church.

So - not only does the scripture call for effective slavery, but effective slavery to a 'god' figure.

I grew up as a Southern Baptist, and got saved and baptised around twelve (when I was old enough to understand it). I went to youth group several times a week as a young adolescent and was active in a lot of chrch activities.
I grew weary of the whole scene by the time I was 15, and had converted to Buddhism by 16. I've never, ever regretted leaving the Christian lifestyle behind.
why did you grow weary? someone disappoint you?

Which words? Subservient? Ownership?

I would say that ownership would be the only honest and logical reading of the scripture.

It says (Ephesians 5:22-4)"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord... For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body... Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing".

The wife must 'submit' (surrender to the authority and will) of her husband, on 'every thing'. The husband is, to the wife, as God is to the church.

So - not only does the scripture call for effective slavery, but effective slavery to a 'god' figure. What most people forget is the passage immediately afterwards telling husbands not to treat their wives as a master would treat his slave.

Whichever - do you not accept that not all women are inferior to men? That is certainly the way Paul (ah, my good friend...) tells it.
I do not accept that any women are inferior to men just because they are women.

There are many verses that state that men and women are equal but have different roles, especially in a marriage.

If my husband ever told me that I was inferior to him, I might just have to submit to my violent side.;)

Well, if I were being cynical, I might say that not ALL forms of ownership automatically involve locks and keys... and that, sometimes being raised into ownership is enough of a cage.

Whichever - do you not accept that not all women are inferior to men? That is certainly the way Paul (ah, my good friend...) tells it.
The subservience here is finding a place according a role. We all place ourselves in relation to others --husband, wife, father, son or daughter, boss, employee, customer, advisor, etc. These roles center us, not just in the society, but in the immediate circumstances, so that we might enact what is needed to move the circumstances along. The subservience is part of the role that the person chooses to adopt. For example, I am subservient to my bosses at work --I seriously couldn't get by at my job without placing myself in this role.

I grew weary of the whole scene by the time I was 15, and had converted to Buddhism by 16.
I have the body of a God....Buddha! :D

I do not accept that any women are inferior to men just because they are women.

There are many verses that state that men and women are equal but have different roles, especially in a marriage.

If my husband ever told me that I was inferior to him, I might just have to submit to my violent side.;)

Your husband doesn't need to say it, it is tacitly accepted. If you submit in all things, if your husbands is, to you, as Christ is to the church, then you are inferior, implicitly.

Your husband doesn't need to say it, it is tacitly accepted. If you submit in all things, if your husbands is, to you, as Christ is to the church, then you are inferior, implicitly. Do we consider a private an inferior human being to a corporal?

No, thought not. In the military structure they have different roles.

The subservience here is finding a place according a role. We all place ourselves in relation to others --husband, wife, father, son or daughter, boss, employee, customer, advisor, etc. These roles center us, not just in the society, but in the immediate circumstances, so that we might enact what is needed to move the circumstances along. The subservience is part of the role that the person chooses to adopt. For example, I am subservient to my bosses at work --I seriously couldn't get by at my job without placing myself in this role.

I also have to accept authority at work, however, I am not 'subservient in all things' to my boss... nor would I be. Such a situation is ridiculous.

I certainly do not consider my boss to be as far above me, as 'god' is removed from the church.

Do we consider a private an inferior human being to a corporal?

No, thought not. In the military structure they have different roles.

Bad example, surely... after all, the corporal can order the private to surrender his life on a whim.

So - thinking about it, yes - the private IS defined as an inferior human, by that role.

I also have to accept authority at work, however, I am not 'subservient in all things' to my boss... nor would I be. Such a situation is ridiculous.

I certainly do not consider my boss to be as far above me, as 'god' is removed from the church.
Accepting authority is a different matter; that is a circumstance apart from will, one that must be accepted. I am talking about willingly adopting a certain position in relation to another.

EDIT: The difference in circumstances/relationships is the difference between fate and destiny.

I also have to accept authority at work, however, I am not 'subservient in all things' to my boss... nor would I be. Such a situation is ridiculous.

I certainly do not consider my boss to be as far above me, as 'god' is removed from the church. Didn't Christ come as a servant?

Didn't Christ come as a servant?

Who to? Certainly not his earthly charges.

Accepting authority is a different matter; that is a circumstance apart from will, one that must be accepted. I am talking about willingly adopting a certain position in relation to another.

EDIT: The difference in circumstances/relationships is the difference between fate and destiny.

I don't see a difference:

I accept authority: My boss says hit myself on the head with a hammer, I do it - accepting authority = subservience.

My will is to submit to my boss in all things: My boss says hit myself on the head with a hammer, I do it - willing adoption = subservience.

Whichever way, absolute deferral of authority or will, is slavery.

Your husband doesn't need to say it, it is tacitly accepted. If you submit in all things, if your husbands is, to you, as Christ is to the church, then you are inferior, implicitly.
I don't think she is inferior to me. You can't drive a car with two steering wheels and two people wanting to go in different directions. It only makes sense for one person to be "behind the wheel". If neither one of us submitted to the other, it would be harder to get anywhere, or get anything done. The decision to join together in marriage included the discovery that we had the same final destination in mind. As the husband, I am ultimately responsible for wether or not we get there. So not only am I in charge (not superior) I have a greater responsibility. There was some movie where there was a comment about how this guy didn't fail to salute a superior officer, merely a higher ranking one. Higher rank and responsibility doesn't imply or mandate any level of superiority or inferiority to any party involved.

For anyone who doesn't already know, Smunkeeville and I have been married for roughly 5 years now.

I don't see a difference:

I accept authority: My boss says hit myself on the head with a hammer, I do it - accepting authority = subservience.

My will is to submit to my boss in all things: My boss says hit myself on the head with a hammer, I do it - willing adoption = subservience.

Whichever way, absolute deferral of authority or will, is slavery.
It's not 'obeying what they say', I'm talking about the relationship itself. In any relationship one is either subservient or dominant at any given time, usually alternating quickly back and forth between the two to achieve some balance (politeness is a good example). For the 'woman subservient to man' she would more often defer to him, as a customer more often defers to a store employee, but that's not necessarily obedience (it certainly can be in some situations). It is putting oneself in a place in relation to the other.

It's not 'obeying what they say', I'm talking about the relationship itself. In any relationship one is either subservient or dominant at any given time, usually alternating quickly back and forth between the two to achieve some balance (politeness is a good example). For the 'woman subservient to man' she would more often defer to him, as a customer more often defers to a store employee, but that's not necessarily obedience (it certainly can be in some situations). It is putting oneself in a place in relation to the other.

That also doesn't even begin to address the point I made, and the references I showed.

I don't think she is inferior to me. You can't drive a car with two steering wheels and two people wanting to go in different directions. It only makes sense for one person to be "behind the wheel". If neither one of us submitted to the other, it would be harder to get anywhere, or get anything done. The decision to join together in marriage included the discovery that we had the same final destination in mind. As the husband, I am ultimately responsible for wether or not we get there. So not only am I in charge (not superior) I have a greater responsibility. There was some movie where there was a comment about how this guy didn't fail to salute a superior officer, merely a higher ranking one. Higher rank and responsibility doesn't imply or mandate any level of superiority or inferiority to any party involved.

For anyone who doesn't already know, Smunkeeville and I have been married for roughly 5 years now.

It is all very well to describe a car... but it has no real bearing... since there is no reason why you SHOULD parallel a marriage to a vessel steered by one person... I would argue that a better parallel would have been some kind of sailboat, that actually requires cooperation between two (or more) people for it's steering. Neither must 'defer' to the other, neither must 'submit in ALL THINGS' to the other.

You admit that you both had the same destination in mind when you married - a sentiment I heartily condone. So - surely, it doesn't matter which person is 'behind the wheel', even in your 'car' allegory.

And yet, here we get to the heart of the matter: "As the husband, I am ultimately responsible for wether or not we get there".

Is this not hubris? Is this not claiming that you are better suited to the job of ensuring your familial success, than your wife? What if you had never arrived on the scene - she ahs seemed like a strong, confident woman in debate - are you seriously suggesting she couldn't have made it without you?

Since you have the same destination in mind - how about she take over control? If your concern is division, you've already addressed that. If your issue is 'steering' - how are you any better suited than she?

You are also failing to address Ephesians. The wife MUST submit in ALL THINGS to her husband. He is to be as God is to the church, to her.

How is this paralleled in the situation you claim?

That also doesn't even begin to address the point I made, and the references I showed.
That's because the point you made was a tangent to the point I made, which is what I stuck to.

You admit that you both had the same destination in mind when you married - a sentiment I heartily condone. So - surely, it doesn't matter which person is 'behind the wheel', even in your 'car' allegory.

And yet, here we get to the heart of the matter: "As the husband, I am ultimately responsible for wether or not we get there".

Is this not hubris? Is this not claiming that you are better suited to the job of ensuring your familial success, than your wife? What if you had never arrived on the scene - she ahs seemed like a strong, confident woman in debate - are you seriously suggesting she couldn't have made it without you?
Of course, I could have made it without him, I chose not to. I could very well "take over the steering wheel" and be responsible for where the family goes. The reason I don't is because, I don't want to, I have no desire to be the "leader" in my family. It is not scriptural, and even though I know that I would be fine on my own, if for example my husband died. I choose out of love to submit to him.

would he love me if I didn't? absolutely.
would we still be going in the same direction? sure


You are also failing to address Ephesians. The wife MUST submit in ALL THINGS to her husband. He is to be as God is to the church, to her.
what exactly is your problem with me submiting in all things to my husband?
I can't forsee a situation where that would be a problem.

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.
For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Saviour.
Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Eph 5:22-24

In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
After all, no-one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church—for we are members of his body.
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. This is a profound mystery— but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. Eph5:28-33

if he lives up to his end of the bargain and loves me like he loves himself, I will always submit to him.

Of course, I could have made it without him, I chose not to. I could very well "take over the steering wheel" and be responsible for where the family goes. The reason I don't is because, I don't want to, I have no desire to be the "leader" in my family. It is not scriptural, and even though I know that I would be fine on my own, if for example my husband died. I choose out of love to submit to him.

would he love me if I didn't? absolutely.
would we still be going in the same direction? sure


what exactly is your problem with me submiting in all things to my husband?
I can't forsee a situation where that would be a problem.

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.
For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Saviour.
Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Eph 5:22-24

In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
After all, no-one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church—for we are members of his body.
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. This is a profound mystery— but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. Eph5:28-33

if he lives up to his end of the bargain and loves me like he loves himself, I will always submit to him.

All well and good, and I'm happy that you are happy.

It wouldn't work for me - I neither want to own another person, or could happily own another person for their wishes.

I certainly couldn't do it just to satisfy the constraints laid down by a distant author, 2000 years earlier... but that's me. I'm sure it works for you.

It's interesting to me, that you stated as one of your reasons "It is not scriptural"... like I said, not all ownership involves locks and keys.

I didn't even read this all. The Spirit of God wrote those through man. SIMPLE.

An Enormous step in the wrong direction, Mr Vatican. You cut out and affirmed bits that were supposed to be considered backstory or interpretative commentary, thus perpetuating the myths that the Old Testament is supposed to be a moral guideline and the New a statement of Divine Inspiration for whatever the heck we want to get away with.

Seriously, just come out and say "It's Human. The Old Testament is how Judaism perceived their God, Matthew, Mark and Luke did their best to give an historical account of Jesus, while Paul and John apply a perspective to the events that we happen to agree with." You'll get much more respect for admitting that than quietly rubbing out the bits that don't happen to work at this precise minute.

Bad example, surely... after all, the corporal can order the private to surrender his life on a whim.

So - thinking about it, yes - the private IS defined as an inferior human, by that role.
Oh bullshit! :headbang:

Umm, the RCC has actually made this clear for a while now....
Beat me to it.

All well and good, and I'm happy that you are happy.

It wouldn't work for me - I neither want to own another person, or could happily own another person for their wishes.

I certainly couldn't do it just to satisfy the constraints laid down by a distant author, 2000 years earlier... but that's me. I'm sure it works for you.

It's interesting to me, that you stated as one of your reasons "It is not scriptural"... like I said, not all ownership involves locks and keys.
how many times do I have to say it, my husband doesn't own me, nobody owns me. why is that so hard to understand?

there is a difference.


evangelical refers to Christians who evangelize. Evengelical refers to 1) Protestant Christians who spread the Christian Gospel as found in the biblical New Testament; 2) a denomination formed to distinguish a more liberal subset of Bible-believing evangelicals from conservative anti-modern fundamentalists in the 1940s and 1950s .

fundamentalists ususally believe the entire bible is to be taken literally.

I am evangelical but not a fundamentalist.

Thats sort of how I took it to be too, but so many people use the two interchangably and didn't want to get in a debate about it.

Since I believe in evolution I don't think I'd be very well accepted into a fundamentalist church, but evangelical churchs accept me just fine (even though most probably disagree with me). I'm not saying fundamentalists churches would ban me, I'm just saying they would all tell me my salvation was at risk and that they would pray for me (I've gotten this response from them).

Oh bullshit! :headbang:

Well, that's an excellent answer.

Please allow me to respond....

Which part, exactly, is 'bullshit', as you so elequently parried?

Does a private have a right to leave the field of combat, for example, without express sanction from his superior?

When faced with trenches and machineguns, is it the choice of the private, or the corporal, as to whether they are going to attempt to take those emplacements?

how many times do I have to say it, my husband doesn't own me, nobody owns me. why is that so hard to understand?

I understand fine. That just doesn't mean I agree. And, the fact that you 'allow' him to exert superiority does not change it.

You say he doesn't own you. You say you submit to him, because your code of laws says that is right.

I say your code of laws gives him ownership of you.

I understand fine. That just doesn't mean I agree. And, the fact that you 'allow' him to exert superiority does not change it.

You say he doesn't own you. You say you submit to him, because your code of laws says that is right.

I say your code of laws gives him ownership of you.
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this. I can't explain it any clearer that just because I choose to submit to him, doesn't make him superior to me in any way at all, nor does it mean that he own's me. I am a human, I can make my own choices and I choose to submit. I could change my mind tomorrow and it wouldn't make a difference at all in my marriage, because my husband loves me and is more interested in my well being then exerting some imagined power over my life.

Well, that's an excellent answer.

Please allow me to respond....

Which part, exactly, is 'bullshit', as you so elequently parried?

Does a private have a right to leave the field of combat, for example, without express sanction from his superior?

When faced with trenches and machineguns, is it the choice of the private, or the corporal, as to whether they are going to attempt to take those emplacements?
This ...

"Bad example, surely... after all, the corporal can order the private to surrender his life on a whim. So - thinking about it, yes - the private IS defined as an inferior human, by that role."

... is bullshit. Any superior non-commisioned or commisioned officer who ordered his subordinate to "surrender his life on a whim" would be subject to court martial. Subordinate =/= inferior; roles and hierarchy are necessary to preserve order and discipline. Simply because someone is, at the present time, subordinate to another in a chain of command does not mean they are in any way "inferior" to the others above them.

I suspect you're being facetious about this entire thing.

Subordinate =/= inferior; roles and hierarchy are necessary to preserve order and discipline. Simply because someone is, at the present time, subordinate to another in a chain of command does not mean they are in any way "inferior" to the others above them.
and once again the wise Eutrusca explains beautifully.

thank you. ;)

and once again the wise Eutrusca explains beautifully.

thank you. ;)
Heh! You're welcome, nice lady. I had intended to address the issue of submission in a Biblical marriage, but discovered that the response to the military issue was sufficient for both. :)

oh yeah, I was speaking about the Catholic church, not Catholics, I have tons of problems with the church that I don't seem to have with my Catholic friends.;)
Yeah after that priest fiasco I have not been able to set foot neer the building nore have the motive to interact with the clergy

But have no issues with individuals

actually probably not as soon as you hoped, because most of the fundamentalists I know are protestant and don't give a flip what the catholic church says anyway.


One person's opinion, etc. etc. Ever heard of false prophets and false teachings? And towards the "End Times" these false prophets and false teachings would increase. Men can try and disprove and distort GOD, Jesus and the Holy Scripture all they want, the weak and feable minded will accept these new perverted statements as truths, the rest of us will not. ;)

One person's opinion, etc. etc. Ever heard of false prophets and false teachings? And towards the "End Times" these false prophets and false teachings would increase. Men can try and disprove and distort GOD, Jesus and the Holy Scripture all they want, the weak and feable minded will accept these new perverted statements as truths, the rest of us will not. ;)
Though that always brings into question is it you that is being "week minded" by sticking with tradition rather then revling in the glory of the true lord

Well, that's an excellent answer.

Please allow me to respond....

Which part, exactly, is 'bullshit', as you so elequently parried?

Does a private have a right to leave the field of combat, for example, without express sanction from his superior?

When faced with trenches and machineguns, is it the choice of the private, or the corporal, as to whether they are going to attempt to take those emplacements?
It's not about rights. Regardless of rights, he chooses his role in accordance with his duty. That does not make him inferior, just the opposite; loyality and discipline are not faults.

I understand fine. That just doesn't mean I agree. And, the fact that you 'allow' him to exert superiority does not change it.

You say he doesn't own you. You say you submit to him, because your code of laws says that is right.

I say your code of laws gives him ownership of you.
The dominance here is not superiority, nor an assertion of it. We're talking about the active and the passive, not BDSM.
:)

I'm just curious: what do your sources say about the native translation of those passages in the Bible?

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this. I can't explain it any clearer that just because I choose to submit to him, doesn't make him superior to me in any way at all, nor does it mean that he own's me. I am a human, I can make my own choices and I choose to submit. I could change my mind tomorrow and it wouldn't make a difference at all in my marriage, because my husband loves me and is more interested in my well being then exerting some imagined power over my life.

And yet... you took his name, no doubt? You must understand the significance of that action, yes?

I believe you are accepting of an implicit ownership, because I believe you have been conditioned to accept it. Because it IS (still) implicit in our society.

Of course, the church has altered scripture a little, where it suited... to try to allay the wrath of women. Do they allow you to talk in your church? They shouldn't, of course... it isn't scriptural for a woman to speak in a church. Indeed, if she has a question, she should ask her husband, so he can explain it to her in terms she would understand.

This ...

"Bad example, surely... after all, the corporal can order the private to surrender his life on a whim. So - thinking about it, yes - the private IS defined as an inferior human, by that role."

... is bullshit. Any superior non-commisioned or commisioned officer who ordered his subordinate to "surrender his life on a whim" would be subject to court martial. Subordinate =/= inferior; roles and hierarchy are necessary to preserve order and discipline. Simply because someone is, at the present time, subordinate to another in a chain of command does not mean they are in any way "inferior" to the others above them.

I suspect you're being facetious about this entire thing.

Now it's my turn to call 'bullshit'.

An officer can instruct a man to perform a maneuveur... even if there is risk... indeed HIGH risk... that that maneuveur might prove fatal.

The private, so ordered, is compelled to perform that maneuveur, even if there is risk.

Thus - the 'superior' officer (I'm sure you heard that phrase before, right?) literally CAN order his subordinates to 'surrender their lives' on a whim.

And - if the Private objects - he can be punished.

If he, for example, leaves the battlefield he can be punished... not just for NOT surrendering his life, but ALSO for simply not staying... he becomes absent without an official sanction.

I'm not sure about how strict they are on this nowadays, with our soft modern armies... but they used to SHOOT people for that.

So... bullshit, my friend. BULL. SHIT.

And yet... you took his name, no doubt? You must understand the significance of that action, yes?

I believe you are accepting of an implicit ownership, because I believe you have been conditioned to accept it. Because it IS (still) implicit in our society.

Of course, the church has altered scripture a little, where it suited... to try to allay the wrath of women. Do they allow you to talk in your church? They shouldn't, of course... it isn't scriptural for a woman to speak in a church. Indeed, if she has a question, she should ask her husband, so he can explain it to her in terms she would understand.
I did accept his name, mainly because I liked it better than my maiden name.


I am familiar with the scripture that you are speaking of, and it was written by paul (whom you have said in posts elsewhere doesn't have any authority in your eyes) but more importantly it was in a letter written to a specific church about a specific problem at that specific time.

you seem to be just as good as pulling things out of context and tweaking them to fit your idea of "what the Bible says" just like you accuse everyone else of doing.

The dominance here is not superiority, nor an assertion of it. We're talking about the active and the passive, not BDSM.
:)

I'm just curious: what do your sources say about the native translation of those passages in the Bible?

Hey, don't be disrespecting BDSM, it's a perfectly valid life choice. :)

The Native translations are a little.... eclectic?

Looking at Ephesians 5:22:

First - the word we translate as wives, is more commonly translated as 'women'... meaning ANY women. (virgins, wives, old maids)... although it CAN be translated as 'wife, or betrothed'. Even in the Bible, the word is more often translated as 'woman' than 'wife'.

Second - the word we translate as submit... isn't really a domestic term, at all... it is SPECIFICALLY a Greek military term... the best way to define it would be to envision a soldier marshalling his troops.

When used colloquially, it basically means 'voluntary surrender'... as in, when jobs are handed out, being the person who accepts the task.

Third - the word translated as 'husband', is FAR more commonly translated (3 to 1) in the scripture, as 'man'.

It CAN mean husband, or it can just mean male human... it can even be used (as we do now) to mean all of humanity... 'man'kind.

Fourth - an interesting one. The word 'Kurios' is used to mean 'the Lord'... and this IS reasonable, since it is used again for the same purpose later in Ephesians 5.

However, it IS worth noting that the word Kurios can ALSO be translated directly as "He to whom a person or thing belongs".

It is an enigmatic verse... you can translate it as "wives, surrender yourselves to your husband, as (you would to) God"...

Or, you can translate it as "women, accept the burdens to yourself, of men... as it is to them that you belong"...

Or - almost anywhere in between the two.

I did accept his name, mainly because I liked it better than my maiden name.

I am familiar with the scripture that you are speaking of, and it was written by paul (whom you have said in posts elsewhere doesn't have any authority in your eyes) but more importantly it was in a letter written to a specific church about a specific problem at that specific time.

you seem to be just as good as pulling things out of context and tweaking them to fit your idea of "what the Bible says" just like you accuse everyone else of doing.

Yes - as you say, it was written by Paul. But then, aren't we basically talking Pauline doctrine here? Are you not accepting some of Paul, but not all?

By the way - it isn't that Paul has no authority, it is more that he is pure commentary. I consider Paul only as relevent as, say... Tacitus, or Josephus.

I'm not really 'pulling things' out of the Bible and 'tweaking them'... I am just pulling a consistent message from the Pauline doctrine. And... when do I accuse everyone else of doing that?

Now it's my turn to call 'bullshit'.

An officer can instruct a man to perform a maneuveur... even if there is risk... indeed HIGH risk... that that maneuveur might prove fatal.

The private, so ordered, is compelled to perform that maneuveur, even if there is risk.

Thus - the 'superior' officer (I'm sure you heard that phrase before, right?) literally CAN order his subordinates to 'surrender their lives' on a whim.

And - if the Private objects - he can be punished.

If he, for example, leaves the battlefield he can be punished... not just for NOT surrendering his life, but ALSO for simply not staying... he becomes absent without an official sanction.

I'm not sure about how strict they are on this nowadays, with our soft modern armies... but they used to SHOOT people for that.

So... bullshit, my friend. BULL. SHIT.
You apparently suffer from a lack of understanding ( being charitable ) of how the military is intended to function.

Hey, don't be disrespecting BDSM, it's a perfectly valid life choice. :)

The Native translations are a little.... eclectic?

Looking at Ephesians 5:22:

It is an enigmatic verse... you can translate it as "wives, surrender yourselves to your husband, as (you would to) God"...

Or, you can translate it as "women, accept the burdens to yourself, of men... as it is to them that you belong"...

Or - almost anywhere in between the two.
Or not ...

"Wives, be subject ( be submissive and adapt yourselves ) to your own husbands as [ a service ] to the Lord." - The Amplified Bible, Expanded Edition, 1987

For those of you not familiar with this version of the Bible, the compilers have taken every denotation and connotation of the original Hebrew and Greek and translated it literally into English. Every possible English interpretation of the original language in which each passage was written is presented for the reader's edification.

You apparently suffer from a lack of understanding ( being charitable ) of how the military is intended to function.

Very charitable of you.

ANd, of course, everything ALWAYS functions exactly how it is supposed to, doesn't it.... of course, that means the Prison Abuse in Iraq really WAS sanctioned at the highest levels....

So - which part of the situation did I misunderstand? Or are you going to dodge with hollow rhetoric, again?

Or not ...

"Wives, be subject ( be submissive and adapt yourselves ) to your own husbands as [ a service ] to the Lord." - The Amplified Bible, Expanded Edition, 1987

For those of you not familiar with this version of the Bible, the compilers have taken every denotation and connotation of the original Hebrew and Greek and translated it literally into English. Every possible English interpretation of the original language in which each passage was written is presented for the reader's edification.

Rubbish.

Plain, straight up... rubbish.

The compilers may have selected most suitable references, or most likely meanings. They assuredly have NOT translated EVERY POSSIBLE interpretation... unless your Bible is in several thousand volumes.

You are either misinformed, or misrepresenting.

Rubbish.

Plain, straight up... rubbish.

The compilers may have selected most suitable references, or most likely meanings. They assuredly have NOT translated EVERY POSSIBLE interpretation... unless your Bible is in several thousand volumes.

You are either misinformed, or misrepresenting.
Just think of it

If every third word has lets say 3 different possible meanings


How many fucking different translations that makes in something the size of the bible lol

Yes - as you say, it was written by Paul. But then, aren't we basically talking Pauline doctrine here? Are you not accepting some of Paul, but not all?

By the way - it isn't that Paul has no authority, it is more that he is pure commentary. I consider Paul only as relevent as, say... Tacitus, or Josephus.

I'm not really 'pulling things' out of the Bible and 'tweaking them'... I am just pulling a consistent message from the Pauline doctrine. And... when do I accuse everyone else of doing that?
I have already discussed Paul (and the Bible) in another thred that I remember you being on, I am sure you must have read about how I study the Bible
here is my very oversimplified explaination of how I study the Bible
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9881206&postcount=658

Some of the things Paul said apply to me, some are his opinion, and some are just letters to churches with specific problems.
you can't take anything in the Bible at face value

you have to go and find out the who, what, when, where, why, and how.

Just think of it

If every third word has lets say 3 different possible meanings


How many fucking different translations that makes in something the size of the bible lol

He has ignored (or the translation team has misinformed him to the effect) that Hebrew, for example, is a MUCH more textured language than mere English. Our modern language - while VERY versatile - is a 'technical' langauge (like Latin) in comparison.

ANd, yet... even in OUR language, one word can have literally dozens of meanings (one only has to thing about simple words like 'had'... and how many times you use it).

When you look at a language like Hebrew, with every word being comprised of several meanings (each symbol has it's OWN meaning - and the symbols themselves represent things)... and with things as complex as mathematical functions IN the language (so... for example, the 'value' of "child" is the SUM of "mother" and "father")... there are tens... dozens... maybe HUNDREDS of meanings to any given word in Hebrew.

And, THAT is only if you don't allow for colloquial use of language...

I have already discussed Paul (and the Bible) in another thred that I remember you being on, I am sure you must have read about how I study the Bible
here is my very oversimplified explaination of how I study the Bible
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9881206&postcount=658

Some of the things Paul said apply to me, some are his opinion, and some are just letters to churches with specific problems.
you can't take anything in the Bible at face value

you have to go and find out the who, what, when, where, why, and how.

Yes - I saw that post. I think it admirable that you apply discernment to the scripture. For me, if Jesus taught ONE object lesson, THAT was it.

I still wonder, though, why you accept Paul's version of female subjugation... it's much more a Pauline conception, than a Christian one, in my eyes.

Yes - I saw that post. I think it admirable that you apply discernment to the scripture. For me, if Jesus taught ONE object lesson, THAT was it.

I still wonder, though, why you accept Paul's version of female subjugation... it's much more a Pauline conception, than a Christian one, in my eyes.
I guess it just works out better for us, I am more comfortable in the role of respecting my husband because he respects me.

I have seen too many marriages break up because of selfish people who refuse to submit to eachother.

Basically, what the church is saying is that the Bibile is primarily a religious, not a scientic, manual. The theological truths are indeed true, but its purpose never was to explain science. As for history, the ancient Hebrews had a different way of looking at chronology than we do today, and the ancient authors wrote the Bible based upon the Hebrew method of chronology, which is nothing like modern chronology. Hence, the history is true, just not chronologically (by modern standards) accurate.

Despite this, most Catholic theology classes still teach that sin entered the world through Adam and Eve. However, rather than being actual historical figures, Adam and Eve may be just representations of all of mankind. The name "Adam" is, in fact, the Hebrew word for "man."

I guess it just works out better for us, I am more comfortable in the role of respecting my husband because he respects me.

I have seen too many marriages break up because of selfish people who refuse to submit to eachother.

I absolutely agree with the first part... but, I don't see how it even vaguely relates to the second.

I respect my wife. She respects me. I do not have any form of dominion over her, she has none over me. What we have, is mutuality, and equality.

I am taller... so I get stuff down off high shelves. She has breasts, so she nurses the baby. We each do what we are better at. And, THAT is my problem with the scenario you describe... it somehow suggests that there are things that men MUST be better at... the husband MUST be the 'head of the family' (which is already something of an illogical role to me...), and the woman MUST submit to his 'leadership'.

It's the kind of mechanism that has kept battered wives in broken homes for centuries....

Rubbish.

Plain, straight up... rubbish.

The compilers may have selected most suitable references, or most likely meanings. They assuredly have NOT translated EVERY POSSIBLE interpretation... unless your Bible is in several thousand volumes.

You are either misinformed, or misrepresenting.
( shrug ) I'm just lying through my teeth. Sue me. :rolleyes:

( shrug ) I'm just lying through my teeth. Sue me. :rolleyes:

Curious... is that an actual admission...?

It seems more likely you were misinformed or misread something, I'd have thought... but, whatever.

Oh... wait... is this 'sarcasm', to avoid having to deal with the ramifications of your argument not being as 'true' as it might have been?

I absolutely agree with the first part... but, I don't see how it even vaguely relates to the second.

I respect my wife. She respects me. I do not have any form of dominion over her, she has none over me. What we have, is mutuality, and equality. and my husband and I respect eachother. We are equal in every way, I choose to submit to him. I could be just as good at being the "leader" of the family but, that is his role. I don't want that role, I like my own.



It's the kind of mechanism that has kept battered wives in broken homes for centuries....
not really, a man that abuses his wife isn't living up to his end of the bargain.

Wives are to submit to thier husbands and husbands are to love thier wives as they love themselves. abuse, whether emotional, physical, or even abuse of his position in the family, is not at all acceptable.

Is this not hubris? Is this not claiming that you are better suited to the job of ensuring your familial success, than your wife? What if you had never arrived on the scene - she ahs seemed like a strong, confident woman in debate - are you seriously suggesting she couldn't have made it without you?

Since you have the same destination in mind - how about she take over control? If your concern is division, you've already addressed that. If your issue is 'steering' - how are you any better suited than she?

You are also failing to address Ephesians. The wife MUST submit in ALL THINGS to her husband. He is to be as God is to the church, to her.

You kind of answered your own question here. I am not better suited to be in charge, but directed by God to do so. If you want to ask him why he chose things to be that way, be my guest.

and my husband and I respect eachother. We are equal in every way, I choose to submit to him. I could be just as good at being the "leader" of the family but, that is his role. I don't want that role, I like my own.


Which is fine, if you are willing to be defined by your genitals. I want something more.


not really, a man that abuses his wife isn't living up to his end of the bargain.

Wives are to submit to thier husbands and husbands are to love thier wives as they love themselves. abuse, whether emotional, physical, or even abuse of his position in the family, is not at all acceptable.

However, it IS true, that the Biblical injunction for wives to submit to their husbands HAS been the mechanism that has kept battered wives 'imprisoned' for centuries.

Hell, that's what the preacher told my mother-in-law, when her sister was a victim of domestic violence... and that's just a few years ago.

However, it IS true, that the Biblical injunction for wives to submit to their husbands HAS been the mechanism that has kept battered wives 'imprisoned' for centuries. Oh, undoubtedly true. But explain to me how this is the fault of the text… I mean, the instructions for the husband are in the next sentence, what more could be done?
It's like blaming Jesus for the Crusades, or Engels for Mao.

Just think of it

If every third word has lets say 3 different possible meanings

How many fucking different translations that makes in something the size of the bible lol
Only each word, and/or phrase has the alterntive interpretations. They don't print a separate version of the entire Bible for each alternative phrase. Hellllohhhh! :rolleyes:

You kind of answered your own question here. I am not better suited to be in charge, but directed by God to do so. If you want to ask him why he chose things to be that way, be my guest.

Actually... directed by Paul to do so... which carries no weight, as far as I'm concerned.... since I don't recall him being considered Messiah, and I don't remember the story ending in his apotheosis...

On the other hand - if 'God' has literally directed you to do so, then it's all peachy. Pass the message around a little, though... he's apparently been fairly non-communicative the last two thousand years.

Not that I suspect it to be the case here... but I've met a lot of 'christian' men, who supported the 'wives must submit to their husbands' line because it gets dinner on the table at 7, and guarantees sex twice a week.

Personally, I don't really see how Paul's teaching fits with the example of the life of Jesus. Perhaps, that is why the Baptist Convention disliked that little clause so?

Oh, undoubtedly true. But explain to me how this is the fault of the text… I mean, the instructions for the husband are in the next sentence, what more could be done?
It's like blaming Jesus for the Crusades, or Engels for Mao.

Or Spenser for the Holocaust?

And, yet... doesn't Engels have some responsibility? Doesn't Spenser have some small part in the plan?

I think it is redundant to argue with a text, I am arguing with following the text... perhaps, arguing with the author.

Read in the context of OTHER Pauline ministry, the general vibe is anti-women... so it is hardly surprising that Ephesians 5 is so frequently taken as 'you made your bed, now lie in it'.

And, let's face it... the men get a gentle admonition to not play too mean, and the women get an asbolute command to serve their husbands every whim'... in all honesty, it's hardly equitable.

Only each word, and/or phrase has the alterntive interpretations. They don't print a separate version of the entire Bible for each alternative phrase. Hellllohhhh! :rolleyes:

So - literally, on the first page, Genesis 1:1 takes up half of the page?

Actually... directed by Paul to do so... which carries no weight, as far as I'm concerned.... since I don't recall him being considered Messiah, and I don't remember the story ending in his apotheosis...

Scripture is inspired by God. As far as Christians are concerned, the Bible is the word of God. The fact that Paul was the instrument of writing it down is irrelevent.

And, let's face it... the men get a gentle admonition to not play too mean, and the women get an asbolute command to serve their husbands every whim'... in all honesty, it's hardly equitable.
maybe that is where your problem lies, my husband doesn't have "whims", as a responsible and respectful man, I know that if he asked me to do something, it would be fully logical, not at all harmful to me, and best for the family.
He takes his responsibility seriously.

Scripture is inspired by God. As far as Christians are concerned, the Bible is the word of God. The fact that Paul was the instrument of writing it down is irrelevent.

Only if you accept the absolute innerancy of the Bible (which would, let's face it, be folly... since there are many contradictions).

If you accept that God inspired the work, but that each individual was merely human, and thus fallible - then the 'vessel' is VERY important.

And, when that vessel was dealing with a message given a long time ago, and far away...

Also - I might point out, MOST Christians accept that SOME of the Bible might be inaccurate. To claim that 'Christians' support your argument is, thus, flawed.

Finally - I believe the text states ALL scripture is inspired. And yet, so many Christians ignore the wisdom held in the Book of Enoch, the Bhagavad Gita, and the Koran...

maybe that is where your problem lies, my husband doesn't have "whims", as a responsible and respectful man, I know that if he asked me to do something, it would be fully logical, not at all harmful to me, and best for the family.
He takes his responsibility seriously.

1) I have a problem, now?

2) I wonder how you know for sure that your husband is infallible?

Only if you accept the absolute innerancy of the Bible (which would, let's face it, be folly... since there are many contradictions).

If you accept that God inspired the work, but that each individual was merely human, and thus fallible - then the 'vessel' is VERY important.

And, when that vessel was dealing with a message given a long time ago, and far away...

Also - I might point out, MOST Christians accept that SOME of the Bible might be inaccurate. To claim that 'Christians' support your argument is, thus, flawed.

Finally - I believe the text states ALL scripture is inspired. And yet, so many Christians ignore the wisdom held in the Book of Enoch, the Bhagavad Gita, and the Koran...
Sorry, I didn't realize you were just being silly.

1) I have a problem, now?
not your problem, but your problem with the idea of women submiting to thier husbands. sorry I misworded.

2) I wonder how you know for sure that your husband is infallible?
I know for sure that my husband is not infallible. I do know that in my entire experience with him thus far he has always put my needs, and the needs of the family as a whole in front of his own. That is why I trust him enough, to submit to him in all things, as he wouldn't ask me to do anything harmful.

Sorry, I didn't realize you were just being silly.

Really? Good technique, my friend...

So... where exactly was I being 'silly'?

I believe I have yet to lower myself to making such comments about you, by the way... I'd appreciate it if you could just debate, rather than be discourteous.

not your problem, but your problem with the idea of women submiting to thier husbands. sorry I misworded.


No offense taken. No blood, nothing broken.


I know for sure that my husband is not infallible. I do know that in my entire experience with him thus far he has always put my needs, and the needs of the family as a whole in front of his own. That is why I trust him enough, to submit to him in all things, as he wouldn't ask me to do anything harmful.

What you said was: "I know that if he asked me to do something, it would be fully logical, not at all harmful to me, and best for the family".

(Please forgive the editing of bold text, for emphasis).

You 'know' no such thing. You 'believe' it to be true... and yet, you surely admit that ALL humans are fallible? So - maybe you just 'hope'?

What you said was: "I know that if he asked me to do something, it would be fully logical, not at all harmful to me, and best for the family".

(Please forgive the editing of bold text, for emphasis).

You 'know' no such thing. You 'believe' it to be true... and yet, you surely admit that ALL humans are fallible? So - maybe you just 'hope'?
okay, I believe with a good amount of certainty that belief is well founded, that if he asked me to do something that it would be fully logical, and best for the family, and not in the least harmful for anyone involved.

Really? Good technique, my friend...

So... where exactly was I being 'silly'?

I believe I have yet to lower myself to making such comments about you, by the way... I'd appreciate it if you could just debate, rather than be discourteous.
I did not mean to be discourteous. I thought your making generalizations and stating "facts" with no backing was an attempt to illustrate that you were NOT in fact serious.

And yet... you took his name, no doubt? You must understand the significance of that action, yes?
The significance of anything is what is important to the individual. People, in modern times at least, take the name of the husband in order to form a family unit. It is not about ownership by any one individual in the unit.

Also - I might point out, MOST Christians accept that SOME of the Bible might be inaccurate. To claim that 'Christians' support your argument is, thus, flawed.
actually the statement that


Scripture is inspired by God. As far as Christians are concerned, the Bible is the word of God. The fact that Paul was the instrument of writing it down is irrelevent.

isn't really flawed, it is generally accepted by Christians that the Bible is the word of God, notice he didn't use an absolute (like All Christians) because that would have made the statement automatically untrue, the way it sits though it is true.

Even Christians who subscribe to the theory that the Bible does have contradictions and the like, still accept the book as a whole as " the word of God" but pick out places that are more symbolic than literal.

Looking at Ephesians 5:22:

First - the word we translate as wives, is more commonly translated as 'women'... meaning ANY women. (virgins, wives, old maids)... although it CAN be translated as 'wife, or betrothed'. Even in the Bible, the word is more often translated as 'woman' than 'wife'.

Second - the word we translate as submit... isn't really a domestic term, at all... it is SPECIFICALLY a Greek military term... the best way to define it would be to envision a soldier marshalling his troops.

When used colloquially, it basically means 'voluntary surrender'... as in, when jobs are handed out, being the person who accepts the task.

Third - the word translated as 'husband', is FAR more commonly translated (3 to 1) in the scripture, as 'man'.

It CAN mean husband, or it can just mean male human... it can even be used (as we do now) to mean all of humanity... 'man'kind.

Fourth - an interesting one. The word 'Kurios' is used to mean 'the Lord'... and this IS reasonable, since it is used again for the same purpose later in Ephesians 5.

However, it IS worth noting that the word Kurios can ALSO be translated directly as "He to whom a person or thing belongs".

It is an enigmatic verse... you can translate it as "wives, surrender yourselves to your husband, as (you would to) God"...

Or, you can translate it as "women, accept the burdens to yourself, of men... as it is to them that you belong"...

Or - almost anywhere in between the two.
See, I think that that phrase is significant - 'voluntary surrender'. That is what the Christ did in respect of God's plan for him, because of his love for him. It doesn't denote a role of slavery, but a willing sacrifice, a noble thing.

I'd do that for my fella.

Which is fine, if you are willing to be defined by your genitals. I want something more.
It occurs to me the importance of gender in the roles that the gods took in the lives of the people of those times. The masculine was the active force of creation (from impregnation to toiling the soil) and the feminine was the passive, receptive embodiment of love.

While it's true the activities associated with gender roles from those days may not be appropriate for today's families, the mythic images of the active and passive are still very much alive and respected (even though they may cross-gender in some families). There is nothing inherently ignoble about the submission referred to, and addressed to the 'wives'.

Not that I suspect it to be the case here... but I've met a lot of 'christian' men, who supported the 'wives must submit to their husbands' line because it gets dinner on the table at 7, and guarantees sex twice a week.
It is a shame, what concretization leads to.

What I find amazing is the number of people (especially Americans) that believe the Bible is literally true, when they belong to churches that do not teach that!!!!

In addition to the RCC, most major Protestant demoninations have embraced evolution and eschewed Biblical literalism.

not your problem, but your problem with the idea of women submiting to thier husbands. sorry I misworded.


I know for sure that my husband is not infallible. I do know that in my entire experience with him thus far he has always put my needs, and the needs of the family as a whole in front of his own. That is why I trust him enough, to submit to him in all things, as he wouldn't ask me to do anything harmful.
Hmmm and here I thought in the christian realm only god was infalible ... now there are humans that are infallable as well

Intresting

actually the statement that

{Scripture is inspired by God. As far as Christians are concerned, the Bible is the word of God. The fact that Paul was the instrument of writing it down is irrelevent}.

isn't really flawed, it is generally accepted by Christians that the Bible is the word of God, notice he didn't use an absolute (like All Christians) because that would have made the statement automatically untrue, the way it sits though it is true.

Even Christians who subscribe to the theory that the Bible does have contradictions and the like, still accept the book as a whole as " the word of God" but pick out places that are more symbolic than literal.

You only looked at half of what was said... first) that (generic) Christians believe the Bible to be the word of god (which is subtly different to being inspired BY god).... and... secondly) that the human writer (it being Paul, in this case) is irrelevent.

I would say that many more Christians (in my experience... obviously I don't KNOW) believe the Bible to be merely inspired, than the LITERAL word of god... and many more believe that the human transcribers were fallible, and less than perfect... than that the writer is irrelevent.

Note: there is a difference between word of God, and Word of God. Many Christians might subscribe to a title, if you will... the Bible IS the Word of God. However, less might believe it to be his literal words.

Also - note: I didn't say the post was untrue... just flawed. Saying something generic like "Christians believe" is a flawed premise to start with, because it implies unity where there may be none. It is doubly flawed in this case, because most of the Christian world seems to be outside the scope of the 'generally'... thus - it isn't really 'general'.

Hmmm and here I thought in the christian realm only god was infalible ... now there are humans that are infallable as well

Intresting
yeah.



I know for sure that my husband is not infallible. I do know that in my entire experience with him thus far he has always put my needs, and the needs of the family as a whole in front of his own. That is why I trust him enough, to submit to him in all things, as he wouldn't ask me to do anything harmful.

yeah.
Bah sorry the use of the double negitive through me off read it as "not faliable" sorry I was confused

What I find amazing is the number of people (especially Americans) that believe the Bible is literally true, when they belong to churches that do not teach that!!!!

In addition to the RCC, most major Protestant demoninations have embraced evolution and eschewed Biblical literalism.
Not everyone knows what "literally" means.

I would say that many more Christians (in my experience... obviously I don't KNOW) believe the Bible to be merely inspired, than the LITERAL word of god... and many more believe that the human transcribers were fallible, and less than perfect... than that the writer is irrelevent.
and he didn't say anything about himself or all christians believing that the Bible was to be taken literally in all cases. He said that it was inspired by God (which is what you just said right?)



Also - note: I didn't say the post was untrue... just flawed. Saying something generic like "Christians believe" is a flawed premise to start with, because it implies unity where there may be none. It is doubly flawed in this case, because most of the Christian world seems to be outside the scope of the 'generally'... thus - it isn't really 'general'.
and I was stating that it wasn't false (that specific statement) because he did not use an absolute (like saying ALL Christians believe.....) what you assume from what he said, isn't really his responsibility, it's yours.

Christians as a general rule do believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, otherwise it is just a book like "Lord of the Rings"

It occurs to me the importance of gender in the roles that the gods took in the lives of the people of those times. The masculine was the active force of creation (from impregnation to toiling the soil) and the feminine was the passive, receptive embodiment of love.

While it's true the activities associated with gender roles from those days may not be appropriate for today's families, the mythic images of the active and passive are still very much alive and respected (even though they may cross-gender in some families). There is nothing inherently ignoble about the submission referred to, and addressed to the 'wives'.


How curious. I have never considered the male to be the 'active' role in conception... and I'd argue that the evidence - even the mythical evidence - would support my view.

Tiamat was the creative force, subverted by a male force, for example.

The Hebrew scripture STARTS with a female creative force, although it is quickly hidden, especially in translation.

And, when one looks at Christianity, one sees that 'god' is entirely subverting... or subverted by... the feminine aspect.

Jesus is his own father, replacing the father in the equation.

Later, Jesus ALSO becomes his own mother (I mean, really... Chthonic gods, much) making himself 'reborn from a cave'.

He then goes on to bring 'rebirth' to the Church... to all mankind, even.

And yet - everyone listened to Paul..... who TOTALLY missed the point...

Not everyone knows what "literally" means.
"We litteraly have no ending to this sketch ... litteraly"

Bah sorry the use of the double negitive through me off read it as "not faliable" sorry I was confused
yeah, I realized that I could have worded things more clearly but decided to quote myself. sorry for the double negative, it does read completely opposite of what I meant.

yeah, I realized that I could have worded things more clearly but decided to quote myself. sorry for the double negative, it does read completely opposite of what I meant.
thats ok :) such things happen

why did you grow weary? someone disappoint you?
Sorry to reply so late Smunkee, but the reason is simple: The whole biblical story smacked of bullshit. The majority of the congregations I had attended (quite a few) were hypocrites and judgemental douchebags (did I mention they were mostly fake-assed hypocrites?). And I was pissed that I had been pressured (brainwashed) into believing all of that trype, lest I burn forever in a fiery underworld.

I discovered that if there was a God, he's an asshole and it would be necessary to abolish such an authoritarian freak. If this is the best he can do with creation, he sucks at his job and should be fired. I stopped making excuses for Him and his half-assed creation, and the veil sorta melted away right before my eyes. If this (let's face it) sick, cruel world can all be traced back to one "person", than this prick needs to be despised, not worshipped.

God just doesn't do a very good job. He never did. So I fired him and found something else. Not very complicated at all.

Sorry to reply so late Smunkee, but the reason is simple: The whole biblical story smacked of bullshit. The majority of the congregations I had attended (quite a few) were hypocrites and judgemental douchebags (did I mention they were mostly fake-assed hypocrites?). And I was pissed that I had been pressured (brainwashed) into believing all of that trype, lest I burn forever in a fiery underworld.

I discovered that if there was a God, he's an asshole and it would be necessary to abolish such an authoritarian freak. If this is the best he can do with creation, he sucks at his job and should be fired. I stopped making excuses for Him and his half-assed creation, and the veil sorta melted away right before my eyes. If this (let's face it) sick, cruel world can all be traced back to one "person", than this prick needs to be despised, not worshipped.

God just doesn't do a very good job. He never did. So I fired him and found something else. Not very complicated at all.
You sound like me on my angry day's lol

and he didn't say anything about himself or all christians believing that the Bible was to be taken literally in all cases. He said that it was inspired by God (which is what you just said right?)


Wow... sorry, but you've missed it twice, now.


and I was stating that it wasn't false (that specific statement) because he did not use an absolute (like saying ALL Christians believe.....) what you assume from what he said, isn't really his responsibility, it's yours.


He made a generalisation which is actually false, about a concept which I argue is flawed. He said "Christians" (which, unqualified, implies ALL, or generic)... and yet, I don't believe his assertion is born out.

Maybe SOME Christians agree with the premise EXACTLY as he set it... in which case, I'd argue that a generic "Christians" is untrue.


Christians as a general rule do believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, otherwise it is just a book like "Lord of the Rings"

Well, you are changing up what was said.... now you've added 'inspired' - which changes the context, somewhat. And, which was also one of the points I made.

Sorry to reply so late Smunkee, but the reason is simple: The whole biblical story smacked of bullshit. The majority of the congregations I had attended (quite a few) were hypocrites and judgemental douchebags (did I mention they were mostly fake-assed hypocrites?). And I was pissed that I had been pressured (brainwashed) into believing all of that trype, lest I burn forever in a fiery underworld.

I discovered that if there was a God, he's an asshole and it would be necessary to abolish such an authoritarian freak. If this is the best he can do with creation, he sucks at his job and should be fired. I stopped making excuses for Him and his half-assed creation, and the veil sorta melted away right before my eyes. If this (let's face it) sick, cruel world can all be traced back to one "person", than this prick needs to be despised, not worshipped.

God just doesn't do a very good job. He never did. So I fired him and found something else. Not very complicated at all.

it sounds like you are dissappointed with people and taking it out on God. It's okay, I did it for years too.

People didn't live up to your expectations, not God, blaming God for peoples actions doesn't really work in a world where he gave people free will.

not trying to reconvert you or anything, just something to think about.


"To hide behind a hypocrite, you must be smaller than they are"- anonymous

"blaming God for peoples actions doesn't really work in a world where he gave people free will".


THAT all rather depends on how you read Genesis. If you read what is written, without extrapolating, or adding bits to make it work, then God tricked Adam and Eve into mortality... there never was a 'free will' decision made in Eden.

Well, you are changing up what was said.... now you've added 'inspired' - which changes the context, somewhat. And, which was also one of the points I made.
how so?


Scripture is inspired by God. As far as Christians are concerned, the Bible is the word of God.


Christians as a general rule do believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, otherwise it is just a book like "Lord of the Rings"

Do you know of a Christian denomination that doesn't consider the Bible to be inspired by God?

If not, then how is what he said false?

THAT all rather depends on how you read Genesis. If you read what is written, without extrapolating, or adding bits to make it work, then God tricked Adam and Eve into mortality... there never was a 'free will' decision made in Eden.
that's interesting, please elaborate.

how so?

Do you know of a Christian denomination that doesn't consider the Bible to be inspired by God?

If not, then how is what he said false?

The difference is, the 'inspired word of god' allows for human error... it doesn't HAVE to be 'right' all the time.

On the other hand 'the word of god' allows for no such error... if it is God's word, it must be perfect... therefore, inerrant.

Thus - the addition of the word inspired, right there, changes the whole meaning of the phrase.

And, there you go again with the changing... MANY Christians don't accept the Bible as the absolute, literal Word of God... but still accept it as being a text INSPIRED by god.

Oh - and Christians are not clones. Belief is not uniformly delineated by 'denomination'. If 60% of Christians believe Satan is made of cheese, that doesn't automatically make them 'Seventh Day Devil-Cheesists'... just a general smattering of different denominations that seem to hold the same (somewhat bizarre) belief.

it sounds like you are dissappointed with people and taking it out on God. It's okay, I did it for years too.

People didn't live up to your expectations, not God, blaming God for peoples actions doesn't really work in a world where he gave people free will.

not trying to reconvert you or anything, just something to think about.


"To hide behind a hypocrite, you must be smaller than they are"- anonymous
Sorry, but you've missed the mark by a mile. My first step away from God (as I stated) was the discovery that the Word was just that-- Words.
Bullshit fairy tales written by men. Unbelievably superstitous and requiring an ongoing, deliberate lapse of common sense to "keep the faith".

Take Noah's Ark for instance. By middle school I began to suspect that Noah couldn't have packed two of EVERY species of mammal, insect, bird and reptile into a boat and then dropped off the marsupials in Australia, Pandas in Asia, etc. It's obviously a lie. And if that's a lie (or just a symbolic, overhyped, grossly exaggerated retelling of an actual event), then what else isn't accurate? If the universe wasn't created in 6 days, then why should I believe that the Jesus rose after death? It was a flimsy house of cards that fell apart for me far too quickly. Reminds me of that parable about the man who built his house on sand. The more I thought about it independantly, the more Christianity itself looked like that house the Bible spoke of.

The whole thing smacked of bullshit, plain and simple. The Christian crowd just gave me the impetus to leave, but I stopped believing long before they had anything to do with it.

You sound like me on my angry day's lol
You're right. I'm having one of "those" Mondays, UT. :D

The difference is, the 'inspired word of god' allows for human error... it doesn't HAVE to be 'right' all the time.

On the other hand 'the word of god' allows for no such error... if it is God's word, it must be perfect... therefore, inerrant.

Thus - the addition of the word inspired, right there, changes the whole meaning of the phrase.

And, there you go again with the changing... MANY Christians don't accept the Bible as the absolute, literal Word of God... but still accept it as being a text INSPIRED by god.

Oh - and Christians are not clones. Belief is not uniformly delineated by 'denomination'. If 60% of Christians believe Satan is made of cheese, that doesn't automatically make them 'Seventh Day Devil-Cheesists'... just a general smattering of different denominations that seem to hold the same (somewhat bizarre) belief.

okay did you not notice in Silly English Knights quote where he used the word inspired also, I didn't add that, it has been there the whole time.

He didn't say anything about a literal translation, and I think I am pretty safe saying that most Christians do see the Bible as a holy book, I never tried to say that they ALL believe in a literal interpretation, in fact I work very hard not to speak in absolutes because it annoys me.

I understand that just because the majority believe something that not all do, and if you would actually read my post you should get that.



Christians as a general rule do believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, otherwise it is just a book like "Lord of the Rings"

in general= generally
generally doesn't mean always, just most of the time.

Sorry, but you've missed the mark by a mile. My first step away from God (as I stated) was the discovery that the Word was just that-- Words.
Bullshit fairy tales written by men. Unbelievably superstitous and requiring an ongoing, deliberate lapse of common sense to "keep the faith".

Take Noah's Ark for instance. By middle school I began to suspect that Noah couldn't have packed two of EVERY species of mammal, insect, bird and reptile into a boat and then dropped off the marsupials in Australia, Pandas in Asia, etc. It's obviously a lie. And if that's a lie (or just a symbolic, overhyped, grossly exaggerated retelling of an actual event), then what else isn't accurate? If the universe wasn't created in 6 days, then why should I believe that the Jesus rose after death? It was a flimsy house of cards that fell apart for me far too quickly. Reminds me of that parable about the man who built his house on sand. The more I thought about it independantly, the more Christianity itself looked like that house the Bible spoke of.

The whole thing smacked of bullshit, plain and simple. The Christian crowd just gave me the impetus to leave, but I stopped believing long before they had anything to do with it.

fair enough, if you can't bring yourself to believe it, then you can't.

like I said I wasn't trying to reconvert you or anything, I just come into contact with a lot of people who are angry at people and take it out on God.

The difference is, the 'inspired word of god' allows for human error... it doesn't HAVE to be 'right' all the time.

On the other hand 'the word of god' allows for no such error... if it is God's word, it must be perfect... therefore, inerrant.

Thus - the addition of the word inspired, right there, changes the whole meaning of the phrase.

And, there you go again with the changing... MANY Christians don't accept the Bible as the absolute, literal Word of God... but still accept it as being a text INSPIRED by god.

Oh - and Christians are not clones. Belief is not uniformly delineated by 'denomination'. If 60% of Christians believe Satan is made of cheese, that doesn't automatically make them 'Seventh Day Devil-Cheesists'... just a general smattering of different denominations that seem to hold the same (somewhat bizarre) belief.

If "inspired" by God was good enough, then you should consider those "Left Behind" books as holy gospel. Not good enough, and a lazy explaination by Christians unable to effectively explain inconsistencies and rediculous biblical claims.

that's interesting, please elaborate.

Quite simple. Infact, let me retell it, in my own special way. (We can go through it again, with actual Bible quotes, if you wish.... but I'm sure you'll know all the rlevent references).

There is a creator.

He makes a garden, and in this garden he puts some animals, and two naked people.

The two naked people are blank slates... tabulae rasa? They have no conception of evil. They don't know what it is. They don't know how to do it. Hell, they wouldn't know it if they see it.

Everyone potters around doing what they do.

Every so often, God pops in and says 'hi'. On one of these occasions, he says "Don't eat the special mushrooms, kids".

So - our naked dimwits grow accustomed to each other, the company of animals (who, apparently, are ALL vegetarians... even the lions), and this one 'other' guy.

One morning, the cuter of the two dimwits is wandering by the mushrooms, when she hears a voice. It appears that a (suggestive, in mythological terms) serpent is talking to her.

She has no experience of talking serpents before. She KNOWS it's not the boy dimwit. Either it is an actual talking snake, or it might be that god guy, playing puppets. Either way, she has no reason to doubt it.

The voice says that she can eat the mushrooms after all, and it'll all be groovy. It says she will be like that god guy.

She has NO experience of evil. She CANNOT comprehend lies.

She has no external source of information to tell her WHO the serpent is.

She ONLY knows two talking entities, her bf, and his dad.

Consequently, she has no reason to mistrust the serpent, so she does what she ALWAYS does.... she obeys.

NOW, she can understand the difference between 'good' and 'evil'. Of course, she still has no reason to doubt the snake. Nobody has ever explained talking snakes to her, or where they feature in the heirarchy.

So, god takes away her special powers, and says it's going to hurt like hell when she has babies.

All because she did what she was told, and had no frame of reference to tell her not to, until it was too late.

That is NOT 'free will', that's trickery.

You're right. I'm having one of "those" Mondays, UT. :D
:) Thats ok often I get tired of arguing using all their premises and working within their frame work

Sometimes it just has to be said "if god did this by my standards he is a fucking jackass"

We let ourselfs always argue in their frame of refference rather then the one we are coming from

It can be fun but is often frustrating

Quite simple. Infact, let me retell it, in my own special way. (We can go through it again, with actual Bible quotes, if you wish.... but I'm sure you'll know all the rlevent references).

There is a creator.

He makes a garden, and in this garden he puts some animals, and two naked people.

The two naked people are blank slates... tabulae rasa? They have no conception of evil. They don't know what it is. They don't know how to do it. Hell, they wouldn't know it if they see it.

Everyone potters around doing what they do.

Every so often, God pops in and says 'hi'. On one of these occasions, he says "Don't eat the special mushrooms, kids".

So - our naked dimwits grow accustomed to each other, the company of animals (who, apparently, are ALL vegetarians... even the lions), and this one 'other' guy.

One morning, the cuter of the two dimwits is wandering by the mushrooms, when she hears a voice. It appears that a (suggestive, in mythological terms) serpent is talking to her.

She has no experience of talking serpents before. She KNOWS it's not the boy dimwit. Either it is an actual talking snake, or it might be that god guy, playing puppets. Either way, she has no reason to doubt it.

The voice says that she can eat the mushrooms after all, and it'll all be groovy. It says she will be like that god guy.

She has NO experience of evil. She CANNOT comprehend lies.

She has no external source of information to tell her WHO the serpent is.

She ONLY knows two talking entities, her bf, and his dad.

Consequently, she has no reason to mistrust the serpent, so she does what she ALWAYS does.... she obeys.

NOW, she can understand the difference between 'good' and 'evil'. Of course, she still has no reason to doubt the snake. Nobody has ever explained talking snakes to her, or where they feature in the heirarchy.

So, god takes away her special powers, and says it's going to hurt like hell when she has babies.

All because she did what she was told, and had no frame of reference to tell her not to, until it was too late.

That is NOT 'free will', that's trickery.

actually she did know something was up or she wouldn't have mentioned that God said not to eat it which led to the serpent twisting God's words into tricking her to eating it (I say trick, but actually not only did she willingly eat is she offered it to Adam who also questions her about how God said not to and then eats it anyway) They knew full well it was wrong or they wouldn't have tried to hide from God, I mean you have to be pretty desperate to try to hide from God.

Quite simple. Infact, let me retell it, in my own special way. (We can go through it again, with actual Bible quotes, if you wish.... but I'm sure you'll know all the rlevent references).

There is a creator.

He makes a garden, and in this garden he puts some animals, and two naked people.

The two naked people are blank slates... tabulae rasa? They have no conception of evil. They don't know what it is. They don't know how to do it. Hell, they wouldn't know it if they see it.

Everyone potters around doing what they do.

Every so often, God pops in and says 'hi'. On one of these occasions, he says "Don't eat the special mushrooms, kids".

So - our naked dimwits grow accustomed to each other, the company of animals (who, apparently, are ALL vegetarians... even the lions), and this one 'other' guy.

One morning, the cuter of the two dimwits is wandering by the mushrooms, when she hears a voice. It appears that a (suggestive, in mythological terms) serpent is talking to her.

She has no experience of talking serpents before. She KNOWS it's not the boy dimwit. Either it is an actual talking snake, or it might be that god guy, playing puppets. Either way, she has no reason to doubt it.

The voice says that she can eat the mushrooms after all, and it'll all be groovy. It says she will be like that god guy.

She has NO experience of evil. She CANNOT comprehend lies.

She has no external source of information to tell her WHO the serpent is.

She ONLY knows two talking entities, her bf, and his dad.

Consequently, she has no reason to mistrust the serpent, so she does what she ALWAYS does.... she obeys.

NOW, she can understand the difference between 'good' and 'evil'. Of course, she still has no reason to doubt the snake. Nobody has ever explained talking snakes to her, or where they feature in the heirarchy.

So, god takes away her special powers, and says it's going to hurt like hell when she has babies.

All because she did what she was told, and had no frame of reference to tell her not to, until it was too late.

That is NOT 'free will', that's trickery.
HeHE I got to save this "grovey" story lol

But I agree if they have no frame of refference (not knowing good and evil) they had no ability to know that listening to god was GOOD and listening to the snake is BAD

Because as stated they untill they ate of the tree had no knoledge of good and evil

actually she did know something was up or she wouldn't have mentioned that God said not to eat it which led to the serpent twisting God's words into tricking her to eating it (I say trick, but actually not only did she willingly eat is she offered it to Adam who also questions her about how God said not to and then eats it anyway) They knew full well it was wrong or they wouldn't have tried to hide from God, I mean you have to be pretty desperate to try to hide from God.
But how did they know it is wrong before they ate the apple?

To know that requires them to KNOW what good and evil is

so are you saying they had that knoledge before they ate of the apple?
And if so then what purpose did the apple serve? as they already knew good from evil

:) Thats ok often I get tired of arguing using all their premises and working within their frame work

Sometimes it just has to be said "if god did this by my standards he is a fucking jackass"

We let ourselfs always argue in their frame of refference rather then the one we are coming from

It can be fun but is often frustrating
Stop that! I think you're reading my mind today. :D

You really hit the nail on the head with the statement "We let ourselfs always argue in their frame of refference rather then the one we are coming from".
That is so. fucking. true. Everyone here on NS (for the most part) brings the ball into their court instead of holding onto their own ground.

I think it's an excellent reason to not belive in BGITS (big guy in the sky) because if this is his creation, than he sucks big donkey dick at his job.
And of course, it feels good saying it when you're sick of hearing the same tied revolving-door arguments for or against theism. ;)

Thanks for putting it into words so well.

Stop that! I think you're reading my mind today. :D

You really hit the nail on the head with the statement "We let ourselfs always argue in their frame of refference rather then the one we are coming from".
That is so. fucking. true. Everyone here on NS (for the most part) brings the ball into their court instead of holding onto their own ground.

I think it's an excellent reason to not belive in BGITS (big guy in the sky) because if this is his creation, than he sucks big donkey dick at his job.
And of course, it feels good saying it when you're sick of hearing the same tied revolving-door arguments for or against theism. ;)

Thanks for putting it into words so well.
Any time :)

While I enjoy the mental chalange of some clear biblical arguements I agree sometimes it ends up boiling down to "Ya know what from what I see this fucker does not deserve my time of day ... I will do my best working from what feels right to me and in the end he can either accept me or blow me"

actually she did know something was up or she wouldn't have mentioned that God said not to eat it which led to the serpent twisting God's words into tricking her to eating it (I say trick, but actually not only did she willingly eat is she offered it to Adam who also questions her about how God said not to and then eats it anyway) They knew full well it was wrong or they wouldn't have tried to hide from God, I mean you have to be pretty desperate to try to hide from God.
You're excusing God from being an asshole. Would it have been okay for your parents to doom you (and your children and their children forever) to a life of misery, pain and inevitable death simply because you did one little thing wrong as a child (with more social experience than Adam or Eve ever had up to that point)?

Would you worship your parents for that kind of cruelty? Would you grow up and decide for yourself that they were sick sadists? Would you teach your children to grovel before their devine douchbaggery?


"Ya know what from what I see this fucker does not deserve my time of day ... I will do my best working from what feels right to me and in the end he can either accept me or blow me"
Yup, that's where I'm coming from today.

You're excusing God from being an asshole. Would it have been okay for your parents to doom you (and your children and their children forever) to a life of misery, pain and inevitable death simply because you did one little thing wrong as a child (with more social experience than Adam or Eve ever had up to that point)?

Would you worship your parents for that kind of cruelty? Would you grow up and decide for yourself that they were sick sadists? Would you teach your children to grovel before their devine douchbaggery?
I wouldent ... but they are working from the frame of refference that god is always right therefor we should adjust our view of him to fit rather then going with a standard that we would feel about anyone else

Ya know what that feels wrong for me

And I need WAY more information then has been put forth by any of the world religions to justify me doing something that feels "wrong" to me

You can force action not belief

(another reason salvation by faith has always seemed like an asshole move)

okay did you not notice in Silly English Knights quote where he used the word inspired also, I didn't add that, it has been there the whole time.

He didn't say anything about a literal translation, and I think I am pretty safe saying that most Christians do see the Bible as a holy book, I never tried to say that they ALL believe in a literal interpretation, in fact I work very hard not to speak in absolutes because it annoys me.

I understand that just because the majority believe something that not all do, and if you would actually read my post you should get that.

in general= generally
generally doesn't mean always, just most of the time.

Okay... let's look, one more time, at what Knights typed:

"Scripture is inspired by God. As far as Christians are concerned, the Bible is the word of God. The fact that Paul was the instrument of writing it down is irrelevent".

Three seperate clauses, notice?

Scripture is inspired by God... not arguing this - there is actually a Bible verse that says so... in fact, that says ALL scripture is inspired.

SECOND CLAUSE: "As far as Christians are concerned, the Bible is the word of God". So - the text is no longer just suggested to a human copyist... it is now dictated verbatim.

THIRD CLAUSE: "The fact that Paul was the instrument of writing it down is irrelevent". Indeed - now the copyist has been utterly obviated. The words are now EXPLICITLY 'god' speaking. The penman has NO input on procedings.

This MUST be a 'literal' translation, unless God is either fallible, or prone to writing things that are not..... strictly... true.

Do ALL Christians believe the Bible is the literal, exact words of God? Hell, no... almost NONE of them do.

Do ALL Christians believe the Bible is 'true', but not necessarily God's PRECISE wording? Again... no... although more are likely to believe this than the first.

Do ALL Christians believe the Bible is spiritually true, whilst not necessarily being historically/scientifically true... and that God was the thought behind it, not the voice? Probably most do.

Do ALL Christians believe ANY one thing? Hard to be sure, probably not.

Do "Christians" believe any one thing? See the implicit suggestion of 'all' or, at least 'most', there?


Final pont: You said: "I understand that just because the majority believe something that not all do, and if you would actually read my post you should get that.... in general= generally..... generally doesn't mean always, just most of the time"

Where do you get 'majority' from? What is it you assert the 'majority' believes? Can you even support it?

Where do you get 'majority' from? What is it you assert the 'majority' believes? Can you even support it?
The majority of Christians not only believe that the Bible is a holy book but 60% believe it is completely accurate.

Six out of ten adults (60%) believe the Bible is “totally accurate in all of its teachings.” However, less than half (44%) strongly agree with that notion.
here (http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=160)

can you support your veiw that I am wrong when I say most Christians see the Bible as a holy book inspired by God?

You're excusing God from being an asshole. Would it have been okay for your parents to doom you (and your children and their children forever) to a life of misery, pain and inevitable death simply because you did one little thing wrong as a child (with more social experience than Adam or Eve ever had up to that point)?

Would you worship your parents for that kind of cruelty? Would you grow up and decide for yourself that they were sick sadists? Would you teach your children to grovel before their devine douchbaggery?
God is infailable, he can't be in the presence of sin, they sinned and were removed from his presence.

If God were really an asshole the gift of grace through His Son, would not be available.

actually she did know something was up or she wouldn't have mentioned that God said not to eat it which led to the serpent twisting God's words into tricking her to eating it (I say trick, but actually not only did she willingly eat is she offered it to Adam who also questions her about how God said not to and then eats it anyway) They knew full well it was wrong or they wouldn't have tried to hide from God, I mean you have to be pretty desperate to try to hide from God.

Of COURSE she would question the serpent.

She has a set of rules, and no reason to break them, and now one of them is conflicted. She has not been TOLD they can BE conflicted, so she questioned it.

She has not been told about lies, so she believes the response.

She then eats the fruit, because she has no reason, now, to believe she shouldn't.

She then offers it to her boyf, and explains to him, what was said to her.

She hasn't lied... and she still has no reason to suspect the serpent did. She still doesn't know who the serpent is.

They didn't know it was wrong, BEFORE they ate the fruit... they COULDN'T... that is what the fruit held... the knowledge of right and wrong.

Did they know it was wrong to eat the fruit AFTER they'd eaten the fruit? It doesn't say. It says they jumped in the bushes because they realised their bits were hanging out.


So - god engineered a test they couldn't pass, then punished them for not passing.

Of COURSE she would question the serpent.

She has a set of rules, and no reason to break them, and now one of them is conflicted. She has not been TOLD they can BE conflicted, so she questioned it.

She has not been told about lies, so she believes the response.

She then eats the fruit, because she has no reason, now, to believe she shouldn't.

She then offers it to her boyf, and explains to him, what was said to her.

She hasn't lied... and she still has no reason to suspect the serpent did. She still doesn't know who the serpent is.

They didn't know it was wrong, BEFORE they ate the fruit... they COULDN'T... that is what the fruit held... the knowledge of right and wrong.

Did they know it was wrong to eat the fruit AFTER they'd eaten the fruit? It doesn't say. It says they jumped in the bushes because they realised their bits were hanging out.


So - god engineered a test they couldn't pass, then punished them for not passing.

1 she did have reason to believe it was wrong to eat it, or she wouldn't have said anything at all, she would have just eaten it.
2 repeating a lie, even if you believe it to be true is still lying (email urban legends?)
3 The fact that she fully understood that God said not to eat of the fruit or she would die, and ate of it anyway proves to me that she could have passed the test, but didn't want to, she wanted the fruit instead.

The majority of Christians not only believe that the Bible is a holy book but 60% believe it is completely accurate.


here (http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=160)

can you support your veiw that I am wrong when I say most Christians see the Bible as a holy book inspired by God?

I'm going to look for sources.... I shall be back.

The numbers on your source just don't add up. How can six out of ten adults believe the bible to be completely accurate, and yet 6 out of ten believe Satan is symbolic?

I'm going to look for something a little more rigourous.

I'm going to look for sources.... I shall be back.

The numbers on your source just don't add up. How can six out of ten adults believe the bible to be completely accurate, and yet 6 out of ten believe Satan is symbolic?

I'm going to look for something a little more rigourous.
I wasn't actually trying to prove that the majority takes it as completely true so much as the majority believes it is inspired by God

I couldn't find good #s though so you look and we will see what you can come up with

God is infailable, he can't be in the presence of sin, they sinned and were removed from his presence.


So, God is not omnipresent?


If God were really an asshole the gift of grace through His Son, would not be available.

It's only available to those that will believe something that cannot be proved.

Hardly eaning himself customer service points.

I wasn't actually trying to prove that the majority takes it as completely true so much as the majority believes it is inspired by God

I couldn't find good #s though so you look and we will see what you can come up with

Well... the first site I found pulls up this... a big difference from the assertion that three-quarters of the world's population are Christians...

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

God is infailable, he can't be in the presence of sin, they sinned and were removed from his presence.

If God were really an asshole the gift of grace through His Son, would not be available.
Poppycock. If God ran the risk of ever abandoning his children, then he's an asshole (and is fallible as such, IMO). If I couldn't be in the same room as a sinner, I wouldn't go around creating creatures capable of it. That's irresponsible.
Speaking of fiction, you know who was the real monster in Frankenstein?
It was the doctor, the creator of that awful situation. God's a lot like Dr. F.
He was bored, and so he started jerking off thinking about how devine he was, and blew his wad into creation. We were clearly designed to entertain him, according to Genesis. This sick fuck created living creatures for his amusement. When the going got tough, he got going... right out of the picture. I guess that was a lot easier than getting his hands dirty and fixing his mistakes. Instead, the lazy fucker waited thousands of years to send his SON to do the dirty work for him, by dying an agonizing, bloody death nailed to wooden planks. What a pussy!

Infallibility is easy when you don't have to do anything yourself. Wouldn't wanna risk getting your ghostly hands dirty dealing with your own responsibility.

I don't buy the belief that his "gift" was enough to make up for the disaster he created. Too little, too late, God.
If this guy is infallible, than I'm a fucking saint.

1 she did have reason to believe it was wrong to eat it, or she wouldn't have said anything at all, she would have just eaten it.
2 repeating a lie, even if you believe it to be true is still lying (email urban legends?)
3 The fact that she fully understood that God said not to eat of the fruit or she would die, and ate of it anyway proves to me that she could have passed the test, but didn't want to, she wanted the fruit instead.

1) She was naive... not stupid. She couldn't understand a lie (NOT knowing good and evil)... but she could see that two things were not agreeing. So she asked.

2) So - you are saying, we deserved to be exiled from Eden, because a serpent and god conspired to make a trap that couldn't be escaped? She didn't know she was lied to - so SHE was honest, she simply repeated a mistruth... but there was no deliberate lying on her part.

3) She repeated what God had told her. She repeated the 'surely die' thing, and the serpent told her it was not true. She had no knowledge of evil, so she had no way to understand a lie. Thus - she MUST believe that the serpent was right.

And, of course, the serpent WAS right... he didn't REALLY lie to her, he just stretched the truth. He was right, she WOULD become as a god, to know good and evil. He was right, she would not SURELY die the day she ate it.

In fact, since they are exiled from the garden, and have a load of babies... it's a fair bet she DID survive the day.

So - perhaps the ONLY entity that lied, was God?

She couldn't have passed the test, UNLESS she understood lying... and she couldn't have understood lying, without eating the fruit... and she couldn't eat the fruit without failing the test.

How can you not see this?

Well... the first site I found pulls up this... a big difference from the assertion that three-quarters of the world's population are Christians...

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
I know I'm responding to myself...

Smunkee, the site you suggested appears to have made a fundamental mistake... it has mistaken "the World", for The United States... if the statistics on the CIA site are to be believed.

Your site claimed 77% Christian, 12% Atheist or agnostic and 11% 'other'... I think.

The CIA database gives US statistics as: 76% Christian (IF you include Catholics and Protestants as Christians), 10% no religion, and the remaining 14% 'other' (with MUslims, Jews and Mormons most represented)....

So - you are saying, we deserved to be exiled from Eden, because a serpent and god conspired to make a trap that couldn't be escaped?
That's really the question we're all asking him. We're not going to get a satisfactory answer because, despite any reasoning or common sense, he cannot say that yes indeed, we deserved it (that would be BS on those terms). He also can't say, no, we didn't deserve it (that would imply fallibility).

When faced with these dillemas of reason, a "good" Christian can only say that God is infallible, so even when he does something we consider wrong, he's always right. Kinda leaves a bad taste in your mouth, doesn't it?

(Don't take this the wrong way, Smunkee. You really do seem like a nice guy. I'll say something similar to a phrase I hear Christians use all the time... I don't hate the ignorant, just the ignorance. ;) )

What a rip-off! God goes to all that work making the Bible, and what does he get? A big fat smiley! Woohay! :) :) :) :) :)

Well... the first site I found pulls up this... a big difference from the assertion that three-quarters of the world's population are Christians...

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
I was not trying to prove how many were Christians but how many Christians accept the Bible as the inspired word of God. there is a difference

(Don't take this the wrong way, Smunkee. You really do seem like a nice guy. I'll say something similar to a phrase I hear Christians use all the time... I don't hate the ignorant, just the ignorance. ;) )

I thought it was 'Hate the sins, love the sinners' or something along those lines.

How curious. I have never considered the male to be the 'active' role in conception... and I'd argue that the evidence - even the mythical evidence - would support my view.

Tiamat was the creative force, subverted by a male force, for example.

The Hebrew scripture STARTS with a female creative force, although it is quickly hidden, especially in translation.

And, when one looks at Christianity, one sees that 'god' is entirely subverting... or subverted by... the feminine aspect.

Jesus is his own father, replacing the father in the equation.

Later, Jesus ALSO becomes his own mother (I mean, really... Chthonic gods, much) making himself 'reborn from a cave'.

He then goes on to bring 'rebirth' to the Church... to all mankind, even.

And yet - everyone listened to Paul..... who TOTALLY missed the point...
The difference between the feminine and masculine "creative force" is quite different, in that the feminine is her creation. Generation is from within, as a part of that creation, as opposed to God who is forever apart from his creation. The male's role is active in that it moves to create something from nothing, whereas with the feminine life is generated from eternal life. And participation in each god is different: for the person participating in the masculine, life around the "self" is manipulated; but for the other there is identification of self with life; they are both life and the manipulation.

Tiamat is the waters. Marduk is the masculine 'active' creative force in that story; he created life and humanity as his play-thing. You have to remember that the myths handed down to us today are the 'final versions' of a developing story, a development that stopped when they were written down. Tiamat's supplanting by Marduk was a later development in the evolution of the myth, at a time when revolutions in thought and social structure were happening within humanity. A new relationship was being built with the gods. The new myths do not replace the old, they just build on them. Hence, although she was 'eliminated', chopped in to little bits used to fertilize life on earth, the image of the mother lives on in Tiamat. Even post-death, she fashions life on earth passively.

I agree with what you refer to as the feminine imagry incorporated into God. In addition to your examples, he is seen as "apart from the universe" while still having a "hand" in immanent (and imminent) creation. The feminine image was removed, but the role that imagry played is still a necessary part of the mythos.

And, of course, the serpent WAS right... he didn't REALLY lie to her, he just stretched the truth. He was right, she WOULD become as a god, to know good and evil. He was right, she would not SURELY die the day she ate it.
actually she did die, just not immediatly, and God didn't say she would immediatly die anyway, he just said that for sure she would.

and she not only physically died, but spiritually died.

For the wages of sin is death. Romans 6:23

She sinned therfore she introduced death into her life. (both kinds)

I thought it was 'Hate the sins, love the sinners' or something along those lines.
That's why I said "similar". It was a play on words. ;)

That's really the question we're all asking him. We're not going to get a satisfactory answer because, despite any reasoning or common sense, he cannot say that yes indeed, we deserved it (that would be BS on those terms). He also can't say, no, we didn't deserve it (that would imply fallibility).

When faced with these dillemas of reason, a "good" Christian can only say that God is infallible, so even when he does something we consider wrong, he's always right. Kinda leaves a bad taste in your mouth, doesn't it?

(Don't take this the wrong way, Smunkee. You really do seem like a nice guy. I'll say something similar to a phrase I hear Christians use all the time... I don't hate the ignorant, just the ignorance. ;) )
can I take offense that you called me a guy when I am a woman?;)

I enjoy debating, I don't get mad (usually anyway) it will be nice having a polar oposite to talk to :)

can I take offense that you called me a guy when I am a woman?;)

I enjoy debating, I don't get mad (usually anyway) it will be nice having a polar oposite to talk to :)
Oh, I apologize (hard to tell from reading your posts). I totally agree about discussing things with people who have different opinions than I do. My best friend is a die-hard Christian (and a rare one, he's also a Libertarian, not Republican) and we discuss religion and ethics all of the time. We agree that I can be as up front about God as I wish, and he can do the same from the other angle. It's actually quite refreshing as I'm used to people making the sign of the cross at the mere mention of the phrase "God's an asshole". :D

Oh, I apologize (hard to tell from reading your posts). I totally agree about discussing things with people who have different opinions than I do. My best friend is a die-hard Christian (and a rare one, he's also a Libertarian, not Republican) and we discuss religion and ethics all of the time. We agree that I can be as up front about God as I wish, and he can do the same from the other angle. It's actually quite refreshing as I'm used to people making the sign of the cross at the mere mention of the phrase "God's an asshole". :D
yeah, I recently found out that most of the people on here assume I am a 40 year old man :( kinda sad, since I am a 23 year old woman ;) it's sorta funny I guess :p

anyway, I was raised in the church, saw my share of hypocrites, went through my own "God is an asshole" stage, even dabbled in LaVey satanism, and now I am back a big huge annoying Christian. I have kinda a weird veiw on the whole thing, I understand why people get hurt and get mad at God, and I can even agree that they have a right to think God is a jerk (and I have the right to disagree):p

yeah, I recently found out that most of the people on here assume I am a 40 year old man :( kinda sad, since I am a 23 year old woman ;) it's sorta funny I guess :p

anyway, I was raised in the church, saw my share of hypocrites, went through my own "God is an asshole" stage, even dabbled in LaVey satanism, and now I am back a big huge annoying Christian. I have kinda a weird veiw on the whole thing, I understand why people get hurt and get mad at God, and I can even agree that they have a right to think God is a jerk (and I have the right to disagree):p
Careful! All that sounds suspiciously like a ... Christian ... attitude! Tsk! :D

Careful! All that sounds suspiciously like a ... Christian ... attitude! Tsk! :D
I know. :eek: whatever will I do?:p

God is infailable, he can't be in the presence of sin, they sinned and were removed from his presence.

If God were really an asshole the gift of grace through His Son, would not be available.
Thats like saying because I I give you the chanse not to get suckerpunched that does not make me an asshole

The whole Idea that he has to suckerpunch you without your expressly following his directions to not get punched makes him an asshole

By my deffinition people should not inharently deserve to get suckerpunched ... again where me and christians differ

Thats like saying because I I give you the chanse not to get suckerpunched that does not make me an asshole

The whole Idea that he has to suckerpunch you without your expressly following his directions to not get punched makes him an asshole

By my deffinition people should not inharently deserve to get suckerpunched ... again where me and christians differ
yeah, but we do deserve to get suckerpunched, we chose a wrong action we have to follow through with the consequences. except, we have a way out, that we actually don't deserve at all.

yeah, but we do deserve to get suckerpunched, we chose a wrong action we have to follow through with the consequences. except, we have a way out, that we actually don't deserve at all.
What they are saying is that being tricked into taking the 'wrong' action was the suckerpunch. We are the one who took the suckerpunch. How is it that we deserve to have been tricked?

Blimey (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17162341-13762,00.html)

Evolution in the bible, says Vatican

From: By Martin Penner
November 07, 2005

THE Vatican has issued a stout defence of Charles Darwin, voicing strong criticism of Christian fundamentalists who reject his theory of evolution and interpret the biblical account of creation literally.

Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution were "perfectly compatible" if the Bible were read correctly.
His statement was a clear attack on creationist campaigners in the US, who see evolution and the Genesis account as mutually exclusive.

"The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim," he said at a Vatican press conference. He said the real message in Genesis was that "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator".

This idea was part of theology, Cardinal Poupard emphasised, while the precise details of how creation and the development of the species came about belonged to a different realm - science. Cardinal Poupard said that it was important for Catholic believers to know how science saw things so as to "understand things better".

His statements were interpreted in Italy as a rejection of the "intelligent design" view, which says the universe is so complex that some higher being must have designed every detail.

What they are saying is that being tricked into taking the 'wrong' action was the suckerpunch. We are the one who took the suckerpunch. How is it that we deserve to have been tricked?
I don't agree that we were tricked at all, God made very clear that the forbidden fruit was forbidden and Eve gave into her desire anyway.

yeah, but we do deserve to get suckerpunched, we chose a wrong action we have to follow through with the consequences. except, we have a way out, that we actually don't deserve at all.
Like I said that is a place we differ ... I find nothing wrong with being human ... being who I am.

But from your worldview we are inharently flawed and deserving of punishment by default

To me that would be awfully depressing (and was) to believe that for no other reason except our existance our default choice is eternal seperation of god unless otherwise specified (through something as stupid as salvation by faith)

Personaly that feels wrong to me

And its impossible to put your full faith (including the faith that it is infalible) into something that feels so wrong.

I don't agree that we were tricked at all, God made very clear that the forbidden fruit was forbidden and Eve gave into her desire anyway.
And how exactly did she know it was wrong to disobey god?

I don't agree that we were tricked at all, God made very clear that the forbidden fruit was forbidden and Eve gave into her desire anyway.

In fairness, I once checked that part of the bible out of curiosity. I didn't find a single hint to the fact that Eve new about what she was doing, as god had only told Adam...

And how exactly did she know it was wrong to disobey god?
she knew it was wrong to eat the fruit and new the consequences and did it anyway.

In fairness, I once checked that part of the bible out of curiosity. I didn't find a single hint to the fact that Eve new about what she was doing, as god had only told Adam...
and yet she repeated back to the serpent what God had said, she must have known.


Genisis 3:1-2
Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"
The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "

she knew it was wrong to eat the fruit and new the consequences and did it anyway.
So she already knew good and evil ... so what did the apple do for her again?

she knew it was wrong to eat the fruit and new the consequences and did it anyway.

Now, even if she knew that it was wrong to eat the fruit (which can be doubted), I would seriously question if she really knew about the consequences. In the bible (at least in the German version) the tree is called "tree of knowledge", implying that before the fruit was eaten, neither Adam nor Eve could have possibly know about the consequences, as they were still living in blissful ignorance.

So she already knew good and evil ... so what did the apple do for her again?
she "knew" of right and wrong, but didn't "know" as in had experienced evil until she ate of the fruit, then she knew evil from first hand experience, she had commited evil.

Now, even if she knew that it was wrong to eat the fruit (which can be doubted), I would seriously question if she really knew about the consequences. In the bible (at least in the German version) the tree is called "tree of knowledge", implying that before the fruit was eaten, neither Adam nor Eve could have possibly know about the consequences, as they were still living in blissful ignorance.
it is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in all of my Bibles. She absolutly knew the consequence was death, she said that very clearly.

she "knew" of right and wrong, but didn't "know" as in had experienced evil until she ate of the fruit, then she knew evil from first hand experience, she had commited evil.
So like I said she already knew of good and evil

The tree did nothing really

Intresting how people tie our fall into learning of good and evil when we already knew it

So like I said she already knew of good and evil

The tree did nothing really

Intresting how people tie our fall into learning of good and evil when we already knew it
Okay though there is a difference in knowing something as a concept and knowing something by experience.

Most people know the concept of God, but very few know God from experience.

To be completely truthful though, the whole "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" thing bothered me too, but for a different reason. (I call it my star wars reason)

Let's say up until this point Eve only knew the concept of evil but had only experienced good, why would she knowingly eat of a fruit that would cause her to experience evil? I mean if she knows the concept is that it leads to death, why eat of the fruit? It seems to me sometimes she didn't think this through (although standing on the outside it is easier to see things like that, when you are in it things don't make as much sense)

now you are wondering why I call it my Star Wars reason?

You know in Episode 1, where they talk about all the sith being dead? Then they meet Anakin and they are all happy that he is going to "balance the force", why would they want it balanced in the first place? It was unbalanced in thier favor, surely you think that Yoda in all of his wisdom could have figured that one out, but then again I was sitting on the outside, what I would have thought if I was Yoda, I will never know.

Okay though there is a difference in knowing something as a concept and knowing something by experience.

Most people know the concept of God, but very few know God from experience.

To be completely truthful though, the whole "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" thing bothered me too, but for a different reason. (I call it my star wars reason)

Let's say up until this point Eve only knew the concept of evil but had only experienced good, why would she knowingly eat of a fruit that would cause her to experience evil? I mean if she knows the concept is that it leads to death, why eat of the fruit? It seems to me sometimes she didn't think this through (although standing on the outside it is easier to see things like that, when you are in it things don't make as much sense)

now you are wondering why I call it my Star Wars reason?

You know in Episode 1, where they talk about all the sith being dead? Then they meet Anakin and they are all happy that he is going to "balance the force", why would they want it balanced in the first place? It was unbalanced in thier favor, surely you think that Yoda in all of his wisdom could have figured that one out, but then again I was sitting on the outside, what I would have thought if I was Yoda, I will never know.

(Nice starwars questioning)
As for the original

If eating the apple only imparts experiential knowledge why would they suddenly realize that they are both nude?

That section makes more sense if the tree imparted both experiential and definitive knowledge of good and evil but seems to fall short when you consider it only experiential.

(Nice starwars questioning)
As for the original

If eating the apple only imparts experiential knowledge why would they suddenly realize that they are both nude?

That section makes more sense if the tree imparted both experiential and definitive knowledge of good and evil but seems to fall short when you consider it only experiential.
interesting. you know what I really hate about you? you make me think :p
(I don't really hate it)

At least though you seem to be trying to make me think without attacking which is always nice;)

interesting. you know what I really hate about you? you make me think :p
(I don't really hate it)

At least though you seem to be trying to make me think without attacking which is always nice;)
No problem I like honest discourse ... why would we be on a forum like this if we did not like to examine others and our selfs

Same goes for you too ... having unquestionable faith is good and fine but it makes it real hard to debate or gain anything from it if the person is not willing to at least consider things from the other side.

Like we were saying earlier sometimes it gets frustrating because us atheists and such are always playing within the “bounds” of Christianity (using their premises) even though thats not the way we normally think
Its good mental challenge but it gets insanely annoying when others do not even make the attempt


Lol (I have forgotten where I was going with this but seemed too good to start over again)

(Nice starwars questioning)
As for the original

If eating the apple only imparts experiential knowledge why would they suddenly realize that they are both nude?

That section makes more sense if the tree imparted both experiential and definitive knowledge of good and evil but seems to fall short when you consider it only experiential.
Aye, and what relationship does nudity have to evil? Why should it cause shame?

Aye, and what relationship does nudity have to evil? Why should it cause shame?
It shouldn't. Note that prior to the incident with the "serpent," neither Adam nor Eve knew there was such a thing as either "nude" or "shame."

Aye, and what relationship does nudity have to evil? Why should it cause shame?
You cant have shame of doing something inappropriate unless you have the knowledge of what is right and wrong (and therefore knowing it is right and wrong for a situation)

If they did not know right from wrong they would not know nudity in certain situations is wrong or right

Or another way to argue it apple must have imparted more knowledge then simply experiencing wrong.

Aye, and what relationship does nudity have to evil? Why should it cause shame?
I have always had the mental picture (is that the right phrase?) anyway that Adam made up the naked excuse so that he wouldn't really have to tell God why he was hiding

*I have no scriptural backing for this at all, I just always get these weird thoughts in my head when reading Bible stories

Like when I read about Moses I can't help but laugh, I mean his big excuse to God for not wanting to go talk to pharoh is that he stutters when nervous.

I can see it in my head and it is hilarious, here is this guy talking to God

" I mean, I can talk to you just fine God, but the Pharoh, I mean he is like super big and scary and important, I don't think I could talk to him....."

I was not trying to prove how many were Christians but how many Christians accept the Bible as the inspired word of God. there is a difference

Missing the point again...

The site says three-quarters of the globe are Christian... which is patently not true, and is supported nowhere else, that I can find.

Why am I going to trust THAT source, on statistics about anything?

actually she did die, just not immediatly, and God didn't say she would immediatly die anyway, he just said that for sure she would.

and she not only physically died, but spiritually died.

For the wages of sin is death. Romans 6:23

She sinned therfore she introduced death into her life. (both kinds)

Not immediately die, no... the same day - which is pretty close.

Genesis 2:17 "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die".

Spiritually died? I think you are forgetting which part of the scripture you are reading.... almost EVERYONE ended up in Tartarus in the Old Testament.

Unless you were 'translated', like Enoch... or immortal, like Melchisedec.

Not immediately die, no... the same day - which is pretty close.

Genesis 2:17 "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die".

Spiritually died? I think you are forgetting which part of the scripture you are reading.... almost EVERYONE ended up in Tartarus in the Old Testament.

Unless you were 'translated', like Enoch... or immortal, like Melchisedec.
I don't expect my translation to be perfect, no translation will ever be perfect. The general idea is that sin brings death, by sinning she was bringing the possibility of death into her life.

Missing the point again...

The site says three-quarters of the globe are Christian... which is patently not true, and is supported nowhere else, that I can find.

Why am I going to trust THAT source, on statistics about anything?
where does it say that 3/4 of the globe is Christian?

and yet she repeated back to the serpent what God had said, she must have known.

Genisis 3:1-2
Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"
The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "

Which is all quite funny... because God actually said it before Eve was even made...

Maybe that slipped his mind when he dictated it....

But, even so - the fact that she was given two contradictory stories, in no way implies that she knew one of them was 'true' and the other 'false'.

Indeed - if one looks at the precise wording of the serpent, he doesn't actually lie...

I don't expect my translation to be perfect, no translation will ever be perfect. The general idea is that sin brings death, by sinning she was bringing the possibility of death into her life.

No, the general idea is that God lied to her. He said she would die that day, and she didn't (Well, actually, he said Adam would die, if Adam ate it... she hadn't been made yet).

Plus - I don't see what her 'sin' is supposed to have been. So -basically, she was punished because 'god' arbitrarily decided to punish her.

Which is all quite funny... because God actually said it before Eve was even made...

Maybe that slipped his mind when he dictated it....

But, even so - the fact that she was given two contradictory stories, in no way implies that she knew one of them was 'true' and the other 'false'.

Indeed - if one looks at the precise wording of the serpent, he doesn't actually lie...
first he confuses her when he asks if God really said that they should not eat of any tree of the garden, then he lies when he tells her she would not die if she ate it.

No, the general idea is that God lied to her. He said she would die that day, and she didn't (Well, actually, he said Adam would die, if Adam ate it... she hadn't been made yet).

Plus - I don't see what her 'sin' is supposed to have been. So -basically, she was punished because 'god' arbitrarily decided to punish her.
she did know what God said, whether she heard it from God or not we don't know, but she did tell the serpent what God had said.

and maybe God didn't say that she would die that day, but that when she eats of the fruit that day she brings death upon herself, that is the major theme in the Bible, I don't expect to be able to take any small phrase literally if it negates the rest of the Bible, that is why I said that my translation may not be 100% correct in it's wording, you of all people should know that the original languages worked very different than ours do now.

Now, even if she knew that it was wrong to eat the fruit (which can be doubted), I would seriously question if she really knew about the consequences. In the bible (at least in the German version) the tree is called "tree of knowledge", implying that before the fruit was eaten, neither Adam nor Eve could have possibly know about the consequences, as they were still living in blissful ignorance.

In my German Luther, it is called the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil... well, that's how I translate "dem Baum der Erkenntnis des Guten und des Bösen"... and my other German Bible says "Baum der Erkenntnis des Guten und Bösen", also.

first he confuses her when he asks if God really said that they should not eat of any tree of the garden, then he lies when he tells her she would not die if she ate it.

"Shall not SURELY die", he says.... and that is true:

Remember WHY God exiled them from the garden?

Genesis 3:22 "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever".

So - the serpent DID NOT lie. They would not SURELY die, since they could live forever, if they just got the OTHER fruit.

she did know what God said, whether she heard it from God or not we don't know, but she did tell the serpent what God had said.

and maybe God didn't say that she would die that day, but that when she eats of the fruit that day she brings death upon herself, that is the major theme in the Bible, I don't expect to be able to take any small phrase literally if it negates the rest of the Bible, that is why I said that my translation may not be 100% correct in it's wording, you of all people should know that the original languages worked very different than ours do now.

Indeed, I do know that the Hebrew works very differently, which is why I am looking at the Hebrew, and only using the translation when it corresponds to the literal Hebrew meaning, or to a common translation practise.

And, again, I reiterate... EVERYONE in the Old Testament died, with a few exceptions... and NONE of them were granted any salvation or heavenly afterlife.

"Shall not SURELY die", he says.... and that is true:

Remember WHY God exiled them from the garden?

Genesis 3:22 "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever".

So - the serpent DID NOT lie. They would not SURELY die, since they could live forever, if they just got the OTHER fruit.
the other fruit, has many times been thought of as prophecy for Jesus.

and of courst the serpent did not die....... duh.

And, again, I reiterate... EVERYONE in the Old Testament died, with a few exceptions... and NONE of them were granted any salvation or heavenly afterlife.
that is highly debatable, it depends on what you believe about heaven, hell, the rapture, and the end of the world.

everyone so far (with a few exceptions) has died a physical death, we are talking about the spiritual side of life and death in Adam and Eve.

the other fruit, has many times been thought of as prophecy for Jesus.

and of courst the serpent did not die....... duh.

Huh? Who said anything about the serpent dying?

And why would the Tree of Life not be a genuine Tree? You accept the OTHER Tree as genuine, but you decide this one is a metaphor?

Why?

The Tree of Life is a common Hebrew concept (try looking into Kabbalah), and is ALSO referred to elsewhere in scripture... both in Proverbs and Revelation, for example.

and of courst the serpent did not die....... duh.

Why is that "duh"?

Surely you know that the serpent of Genesis is not necessarily Satan? After all, the ancient Hebrews didn't even believe in any type of "Satan" figure until after the Babylonian exile, and this story seems to have been around before then.

The interpretation that the serpent is Satan was added on well after the story was first told.


Aye, and what relationship does nudity have to evil? Why should it cause shame?
You cant have shame of doing something inappropriate unless you have the knowledge of what is right and wrong (and therefore knowing it is right and wrong for a situation)

If they did not know right from wrong they would not know nudity in certain situations is wrong or right

Or another way to argue it apple must have imparted more knowledge then simply experiencing wrong.

I tend to take it as a metaphor for humankind gaining knowledge and thus losing innocence. If we began to know what is right and what is wrong, we are responsible for those actions (whereas an animal which does not understand right from wrong is not truly responsible for what it does). As human beings gained knowledge, we were removed from that innocence - that lack of responsibility.

And, of course, since many societies have equated nudity with shame or wrongdoing (although, interestingly enough, Hebrew society placed the shame upon the person who saw the nudity, not upon the nude person - so it is interesting that Adam was ashamed of his own nudity), the realization of nudity was used to represent the realization of that loss of innocence.

Huh? Who said anything about the serpent dying?
I misread lie for die sorry, got allergy eyes today.

And why would the Tree of Life not be a genuine Tree? You accept the OTHER Tree as genuine, but you decide this one is a metaphor?
Why?
when exactly did I say that the other tree was genuine or that the entire story wasn't a metaphor? why do you assume that I take the entire Bible literally?

Umm, the RCC has actually made this clear for a while now....

Yes, I think Pope John Paul II was en evolutionary theist, was he not?

that is highly debatable, it depends on what you believe about heaven, hell, the rapture, and the end of the world.

everyone so far (with a few exceptions) has died a physical death, we are talking about the spiritual side of life and death in Adam and Eve.

Fine. Show me the scripture that says anything about heaven or hell, as afterlife for man, in the Old Testament?

The Hebrews did not believe in heaven or hell. They expected no afterlife. Which is WHY it is assumed that Enoch became an Angel - because the only company for god in the heavens, is the angelic host.

What you are party to, I'm afraid, is New Testament Revisionism. The same revisionism that tries to pretend that the Elohim in Genesis is really the Trinity. Adam and Eve died as everyone died. The lived, then died, and that was the end of it. Remember, the Old Testament is a Jewsih Holy book. Christians are just borrowing it. That doesn't give them the right to try to re-imagine what the Old Testament text MIGHT have meant.

I don't expect my translation to be perfect, no translation will ever be perfect. The general idea is that sin brings death, by sinning she was bringing the possibility of death into her life.
By eating the fruits of the garden, Adam and Eve kill them to sustain their own life; so the concept of death was not unknown to them.

Why is that "duh"?

Surely you know that the serpent of Genesis is not necessarily Satan? After all, the ancient Hebrews didn't even believe in any type of "Satan" figure until after the Babylonian exile, and this story seems to have been around before then.

The interpretation that the serpent is Satan was added on well after the story was first told.


Indeed. I seem to recall reading somewhere, that SOME Hebrews DID believe that an angel was speaking through the serpent... but THAT angel was "Sammael".

More likely (in purely objective terms) the Serpent is one of the dragon icons of Mesopotamian religion, repatriated....

I misread lie for die sorry, got allergy eyes today.


No problems.


when exactly did I say that the other tree was genuine or that the entire story wasn't a metaphor? why do you assume that I take the entire Bible literally?

If the other tree isn't real... then the serpent is metaphorical, and there is no reason to accept Adam and Eve, either....

So - if you write off ALL of the story - God choosing to punish people for free-will is ENTIRELY arbitrary, no?

Thus, I'm kind of forced to believe you accept the story as being fairly literal...

I tend to take it as a metaphor for humankind gaining knowledge and thus losing innocence. If we began to know what is right and what is wrong, we are responsible for those actions (whereas an animal which does not understand right from wrong is not truly responsible for what it does). As human beings gained knowledge, we were removed from that innocence - that lack of responsibility.
Yes. And that is a good interpretation, and if one accepts it then logically Adam and Eve cannot be held responsible for eating of the apple. They were innocent.

And once we give away the idea that the symbol is literally true, about 'sin', we can begin to look for the more significant 'spiritual' meaning in it.

And, of course, since many societies have equated nudity with shame or wrongdoing (although, interestingly enough, Hebrew society placed the shame upon the person who saw the nudity, not upon the nude person - so it is interesting that Adam was ashamed of his own nudity), the realization of nudity was used to represent the realization of that loss of innocence.
"Many" more societies haven't. I don't think numbers are a helpful argument here, since everyone from the Greeks and Romans to the Babylonians, pretty much all the cultures surrounding the Hebrews, had no such nudity stigma.

By eating the fruits of the garden, Adam and Eve kill them to sustain their own life; so the concept of death was not unknown to them.
no not the concept of death, but actual death they didn't know through experience.

If the other tree isn't real... then the serpent is metaphorical, and there is no reason to accept Adam and Eve, either....

So - if you write off ALL of the story - God choosing to punish people for free-will is ENTIRELY arbitrary, no?

Thus, I'm kind of forced to believe you accept the story as being fairly literal...

arbitrary- seemingly random or without reason or system. Dependent on a whim.

I don't see how the word arbitrary works here, the story of adam and eve explains exactly how and why we are punished for our sins, so understanding the story would take any question away as to why God is the way he is when it comes to sin, and therefor his punishments would not be arbitrary.

Fine. Show me the scripture that says anything about heaven or hell, as afterlife for man, in the Old Testament?

The Hebrews did not believe in heaven or hell. They expected no afterlife. Which is WHY it is assumed that Enoch became an Angel - because the only company for god in the heavens, is the angelic host.

What you are party to, I'm afraid, is New Testament Revisionism. The same revisionism that tries to pretend that the Elohim in Genesis is really the Trinity. Adam and Eve died as everyone died. The lived, then died, and that was the end of it. Remember, the Old Testament is a Jewsih Holy book. Christians are just borrowing it. That doesn't give them the right to try to re-imagine what the Old Testament text MIGHT have meant.
it doesn't. and you are mixing up what I believe with the fact that I said it is debated heavily what happened to the people in the old testament.


For example there is this (http://www.gotquestions.org/Old-Testament-believers.html)theory

Wow. Whoever's behind that website really needs to get out more.

Wow. Whoever's behind that website really needs to get out more.
and that was helpful how exactly?

The general idea is that sin brings death, by sinning she was bringing the possibility of death into her life.
By eating the fruits of the garden, Adam and Eve kill them to sustain their own life; so the concept of death was not unknown to them.
no not the concept of death, but actual death they didn't know through experience.
Then she didn't bring the possibility of death into her life, as that was always there, but actual death. Then it must be assumed she would live forever; but then, what was the Tree of Life for?

Besides, we all live without knowing the experience of death; that is what being alive is. So the apple gave her nothing that she didn't already have.

Then she didn't bring the possibility of death into her life, as that was always there, but actual death. Then it must be assumed she would live forever; but then, what was the Tree of Life for?

Besides, we all live without knowing the experience of death; that is what being alive is. So the apple gave her nothing that she didn't already have.
she knew the concept of death (that things could die) by sinning she brought death into her life, as we alll do. The tree of life, is imo Jesus, it is the gift of life when you deserve death.

she knew the concept of death (that things could die) by sinning she brought death into her life, as we alll do. The tree of life, is imo Jesus, it is the gift of life when you deserve death.
I deserve death. Like David, I have "shed much blood." That's why I don't think they let old soldiers into heaven. I keep hoping there's some special place where old soldiers go when they die, like maybe Valhalla. ;)

I deserve death. Like David, I have "shed much blood." That's why I don't think they let old soldiers into heaven. I keep hoping there's some special place where old soldiers go when they die, like maybe Valhalla. ;)
the sad thing is everyone deserves death. :(

arbitrary- seemingly random or without reason or system. Dependent on a whim.

I don't see how the word arbitrary works here, the story of adam and eve explains exactly how and why we are punished for our sins, so understanding the story would take any question away as to why God is the way he is when it comes to sin, and therefor his punishments would not be arbitrary.

I guess it comes down to a choice:

Either, the story of Adam and Eve, and the Trees of Knowledge and of Life, and the Serpent... is true...

In which case, the 'test' was faulty, and could never have been successfully passed. It was a trick - and thus, the punishment is arbitrary at best, and capricious at worst.

Or:

The story is not literally true... there were no literal Adam and Eve, no literal serpent, no literal trees...

In which case, we were made with free-will, and are punished if we exercise it... which makes choosing that punishment arbitrary, again.

it doesn't. and you are mixing up what I believe with the fact that I said it is debated heavily what happened to the people in the old testament.


For example there is this (http://www.gotquestions.org/Old-Testament-believers.html)theory

It's an interesting story. Completely unfounded, of course.

Saying that Sheol (I note, they ignore Tartarus) is the Hebrew version of Hades, and then using that to make assertions... is like saying "God" is the Christian version of Marduk, and then going on to discuss how "God" dissected Tiamat.

Also - I like the idea of the instant translation to an afterlife. Unfortunately, I don't see it as justified by scripture.

the sad thing is everyone deserves death. :(

No - everyone GETS death... we don't 'deserve' it, any mroe than we deserve life.

Or, did you just mean, according to your particular religion?

she knew the concept of death (that things could die) by sinning she brought death into her life, as we alll do. The tree of life, is imo Jesus, it is the gift of life when you deserve death.
...like Jesus? Forgivance for 'sin'?

No - everyone GETS death... we don't 'deserve' it, any mroe than we deserve life.

Or, did you just mean, according to your particular religion?
according to my particular religion
sorry I should have added that.

...like Jesus? Forgivance for 'sin'?
yup

Not quite what I envisaged when I started the thread, but since y'all seem to be doing so well... carry on.

As far as i Devout Catholic have known this is how it's been since Vatican II, Biblical Literalism is a protestant thing, that really came up in the 1500's, Catholics have always put faith in tradition as well. As long as i've talked with my uncle(A priest) about religion he's told me not everything is literal. Take Revelation for instance, most likely a commenty on the early days of the of the roman attacks on Christians.

Not quite what I envisaged when I started the thread, but since y'all seem to be doing so well... carry on.
I dunno, I was kind of done when I found out the Tree of Life was a substitute for the Son of God.

As far as i Devout Catholic have known this is how it's been since Vatican II, Biblical Literalism is a protestant thing, that really came up in the 1500's, Catholics have always put faith in tradition as well. As long as i've talked with my uncle(A priest) about religion he's told me not everything is literal. Take Revelation for instance, most likely a commenty on the early days of the of the roman attacks on Christians.
Actualy I have heard it compared to the LATE days and fall of rome ... not the early days

But please do compare it would be intresting