NationStates Jolt Archive

Why would any woman decide to become christian?

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

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.

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:

Why would any woman decide to become christian?

You got me.

$20 says that theyre going to say your interperting it wrong, which is funny because many of those are not open to interpertation, or those verses dont count.

You got me.

$20 says that theyre going to say your interperting it wrong, which is funny because many of those are not open to interpertation, or those verses dont count.

No bet

Very few people actually choose to be Christians. It is something they are born into, and drilled into them everyday of their lives. It was chosen for them by their parents.

Why do you miss out Islamic and Jewish?

Why do you hate God?

Why do you miss out Islamic and Jewish?
I didn't
Why do you hate God?
Because he's a bastard ;)

Why do you miss out Islamic and Jewish?

Because there is enough threads about teh ebil moslams out there.


And, ok, Ill contribute to the jewish part:
To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." -Genesis 3:16

The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Say to the Israelites: 'A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. ' 3 On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. 4 Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. 5 If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding.
6 " 'When the days of her purification for a son or daughter are over, she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the tent of meeting a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering. [

7 He shall offer them before the LORD to make atonement for her, and then she will be ceremonially clean from her flow of blood. These are the regulations for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a girl.


8 If she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean."

-Leviticus Chapter 12: 1-8

If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.

-Deuteronomy 22:20-21:

Very few people actually choose to be Christians. It is something they are born into, and drilled into them everyday of their lives. It was chosen for them by their parents.

That doesn't mean that they have to remain christian, my wife was brought up roman catholic, now she isn't christian at all.
My point being, whether they were brought up christian or not, it is still a choice.

Because there is enough threads about teh ebil moslams out there, and some of those verses are OT verses, meaning it applies to Jews as well.

Actually, all those verses are NT...

Also, not all Christians believe in the infallibility of the writings of Paul, who contradicts himself multiple times, and other apostles.

Actually, all those verses are NT...

I know, note my edit;)

Also, not all Christians believe in the infallibility of the writings of Paul, who contradicts himself multiple times, and other apostles.

You got me.

$20 says that theyre going to say your interperting it wrong, which is funny because many of those are not open to interpertation, or those verses dont count.


Good thing you didnt take my bet, eh? :p

Too bad not all those verses are from Paul, huh?

Also, not all Christians believe in the infallibility of the writings of Paul, who contradicts himself multiple times, and other apostles.

You got me.

$20 says that theyre going to say your interperting it wrong, which is funny because many of those are not open to interpertation, or those verses dont count.

Bet you're wishing I had taken that bet, aren't ya?

Good thing you didnt take my bet, eh? :p

Too bad not all those verses are from Paul, huh?

LOL, we were doing the same thing at the same time...

Good thing you didnt take my bet, eh? :p

Too bad not all those verses are from Paul, huh?

Bet you're wishing I had taken that bet, aren't ya?


What... the fuck?

I never said anything about "interpretation", your interpretation was fine. Just because you interpret someone correctly does not make him infallible, do you know what that word means?

Also, if you read my post, you would have clearly seen the "and other apostles" in it, a.k.a I wasn't just talking about Paul.

Because Christians don't have to actually read the bible, they just go to church and drink wine or something.

Most modern religions have been pretty terrible to women, especially Islam.

What... the fuck?

I never said anything about "interpretation", your interpretation was fine. Just because you interpret someone correctly does not make him infallible, do you know what that word means?

You did however say it didnt count. Read the second part of my post.

Also, if you read my post, you would have clearly seen the "and other apostles" in it, a.k.a I wasn't just talking about Paul.

So, not only do you ignore the OT, and not only do you ignore Paul, but you also ignore the others too? Holy shit, what about the Bible, DO you believe?


How can you follow a religion that requires you to justify or ignore 75% of what it says?!?

You did however say it didnt count. Read the second part of my post.


No I didn't, that would imply that I think anything counts towards anything, as if it were an exception to the rule that the Bible is generally infallible.


So, not only do you ignore the OT, and not only do you ignore Paul, but you also ignore the others too? Holy shit, what about the Bible, DO you believe?


None, it's all a pile of nonsense to me.


How can you follow a religion that requires you to justify or ignore 75% of what it says?!?

It's funny that you assume I'm religious when I am in fact an atheist.

What... the fuck?

I never said anything about "interpretation", your interpretation was fine. Just because you interpret someone correctly does not make him infallible, do you know what that word means?

Also, if you read my post, you would have clearly seen the "and other apostles" in it, a.k.a I wasn't just talking about Paul.
For the WTF see KoL's response.
You did however say it didnt count. Read the second part of my post.



So, not only do you ignore the OT, and not only do you ignore Paul, but you also ignore the others too? Holy shit, what about the Bible, DO you believe?


How can you follow a religion that requires you to justify or ignore 75% of what it says?!?

As far as 'interpretation' of course my 'interpretation' is fine, I didn't do any, I posted passages from the Bible word for word.

For the women being silent part, its context. There were lots of women at the time of the early chruch who were being very disruptive during the meetings. They were causing problems because they wanted to talk to their husbands but women and men sat in diffrent parts of the halls, and so they would often shout across during the service about family things which disrupted the services.

For the women being subsurviant to men in marriage parts, you've ignored the parts about how the men are ment to behave. It isn't a universal logic, women should treet men like that if the men treet them like the Bible commands them to, and vice versa. Both sides need to obey the rules.

For the women being silent part, its context. There were lots of women at the time of the early chruch who were being very disruptive during the meetings. They were causing problems because they wanted to talk to their husbands but women and men sat in diffrent parts of the halls, and so they would often shout across during the service about family things which disrupted the services.
Ah, its just that women don't know when to shut up...
For the women being subsurviant to men in marriage parts, you've ignored the parts about how the men are ment to behave. It isn't a universal logic, women should treet men like that if the men treet them like the Bible commands them to, and vice versa. Both sides need to obey the rules.

So, because it says that men should treat women kindly, it's a given that women should then be subservient to men?

For the WTF see KoL's response.


It's not a very reliable response, since he assumes I'm religious.


As far as 'interpretation' of course my 'interpretation' is fine, I didn't do any, I posted passages from the Bible word for word.

I meant that the English Bible you use seems to have an accurate translation.

It's not a very reliable response, since he assumes I'm religious.



I meant that the English Bible you use seems to have an accurate translation.

As did I based on your response here

Because Christians don't have to actually read the bible, they just go to church and drink wine or something.

That's Catholicism. That ritual is part of Holy Communion (Mass), and I believe is part of the Eucharist.

That's Catholicism. That ritual is part of Holy Communion (Mass), and I believe is part of the Eucharist.Oh, sorry.

By the way I'm not saying that all Christians don't read the bible, but I have a hard time believing that many of them pay close attention.

As did I based on your response here

Why?

So what I'm getting out of this is that God is into BDSM, and wants women to be good little submissives... I'm so for that. Maybe I do like this God guy a little after all.

Why do you miss out Islamic and Jewish?

Also, not all Christians believe in the infallibility of the writings of Paul, who contradicts himself multiple times, and other apostles.

Why?

The first 2 quotes just gave me the impression that you were christian...

So what I'm getting out of this is that God is into BDSM, and wants women to be good little submissives... I'm so for that. Maybe I do like this God guy a little after all.

LOL

By the way I'm not saying that all Christians don't read the bible, but I have a hard time believing that many of them pay close attention.

As do I...

The first 2 quotes just gave me the impression that you were christian...

I don't understand why the first quote would give you that judgement at all, as for the second quote: don't assume that just because someone isn't agreeing with someones negative assessment on Christianity, that makes him a Christian.

I don't understand why the first quote would understand at all,

It was an implied defense of christianity...

as for the second quote: don't assume that just because someone isn't agreeing with someones negative assessment on Christianity, that makes him a Christian.

What negative assessment?

Because you don't have to live as people did at the time NT was written to be a Christian. As you have demonstrated when you take the scripture out of context it doesn't make sense any more. To understand the scripture you must first understand the society, culture and time it was written in, the author and the intended audience. The texts in the Bible where written for people in their own time, not for modern people in modern society. At the time those verses where written they where just common sense and decency, nothing controversial or bad.

How do you follow a book that was not written for you but for people who lived a couple thousand years ago? Follow the spirit of the message rather than the letters, the big picture rather than details and realize that much of the Bible such as the creation story is not plain facts but symbolic stories with a deeper meaning.

Because you don't have to live as people did at the time NT was written to be a Christian. As you have demonstrated when you take the scripture out of context it doesn't make sense any more. To understand the scripture you must first understand the society, culture and time it was written in, the author and the intended audience. The texts in the Bible where written for people in their own time, not for modern people in modern society. At the time those verses where written they where just common sense and decency, nothing controversial or bad.

How do you follow a book that was not written for you but for people who lived a couple thousand years ago? Follow the spirit of the message rather than the letters, the big picture rather than details and realize that much of the Bible such as the creation story is not plain facts but symbolic stories with a deeper meaning.

How exactly did I take the scripture out of context?
And what would be the deeper meaning of women shouldn't speak in church and should be submissive to men?

Because you don't have to live as people did at the time NT was written to be a Christian. As you have demonstrated when you take the scripture out of context it doesn't make sense any more. To understand the scripture you must first understand the society, culture and time it was written in, the author and the intended audience. The texts in the Bible where written for people in their own time, not for modern people in modern society. At the time those verses where written they where just common sense and decency, nothing controversial or bad.

How do you follow a book that was not written for you but for people who lived a couple thousand years ago? Follow the spirit of the message rather than the letters, the big picture rather than details and realize that much of the Bible such as the creation story is not plain facts but symbolic stories with a deeper meaning.

Then explain the message and spirit of the messages, because they seem sexist to me, with little room for interpretation.

It was an implied defense of christianity...


Well then you got the wrong idea, I was saying that the Islamic and Jewish writings are just as sexist.


What negative assessment?

That being a christian makes you necessarily misogynistic.

Because you don't have to live as people did at the time NT was written to be a Christian. As you have demonstrated when you take the scripture out of context it doesn't make sense any more. To understand the scripture you must first understand the society, culture and time it was written in, the author and the intended audience. The texts in the Bible where written for people in their own time, not for modern people in modern society. At the time those verses where written they where just common sense and decency, nothing controversial or bad.

How do you follow a book that was not written for you but for people who lived a couple thousand years ago? Follow the spirit of the message rather than the letters, the big picture rather than details and realize that much of the Bible such as the creation story is not plain facts but symbolic stories with a deeper meaning.

heheh oops bit of a mistake there buddy . . .. so if its just a symbolic story then why in the hell r most christians vehemently opposed to homosexual marriage? why do the Islamics still treat women like dirt? why is it so important that creationism is taught in schools and why is every new scientific development that contradicts this "creation story" instantly attacked or repressed by the church?

You got me.

$20 says that theyre going to say your interperting it wrong, which is funny because many of those are not open to interpertation, or those verses dont count.

Yep. And it's kind of a slap in the face of their god, too, to say that he was wrong about those bits of the bible. I mean, after all, it is the word of god right? And if god is infallible why did he foul up writing his own damn book? Sheesh..

That being a christian makes you necessarily misogynistic.

Fixed: That Christianity is necessarily misogynistic. Nothing was said about individual Christians. In fact, it was noted that people seem to happily ignore certain bits of the Bible for whatever reasons.

Yep. And it's kind of a slap in the face of their god, too, to say that he was wrong about those bits of the bible. I mean, after all, it is the word of god right? And if god is infallible why did he foul up writing his own damn book? Sheesh..

He probably shouldn't have mixed LSD with ether... :D

Fixed: That Christianity is necessarily misogynistic. Nothing was said about individual Christians. In fact, it was noted that people seem to happily ignore certain bits of the Bible for whatever reasons.

Fine, but thats no different, since the Bible =/= Christianity.

So, because it says that men should treat women kindly, it's a given that women should then be subservient to men?

If you read the bible, its not merely kindly, its a lot more in depth than that. The husband is supposed to display the kind of love for his wife that Jesus displayed for all humanity. So yes kindly, deeply selfless, deeply understanding, deeply sensative, deeply strong and wise in assistance, deeply self sacrifical...I could be here a while. The point is if he doesn't apply himself to these things in some way, the woman isn't to be subserviant, and vice versa. It is a deep demand of both.

How exactly did I take the scripture out of context?
And what would be the deeper meaning of women shouldn't speak in church and should be submissive to men?
Sorry, the part about symbolic stories was off topic and not related to these quotes. It slipped into my comment on how to understand the Bible because I've seen a lot of topics here where symbolic parts of the Bible are taken literally.
Then explain the message and spirit of the messages, because they seem sexist to me, with little room for interpretation.
The message in context is that women at the time the message was written should behave as was appropriate at that time. The intended audience of a specific letter in the NT was a specific church that existed at that time and not modern Christians 2k years later.

If God would say those things today it would be sexist but if any of the countless modern religious literature is divinely inspired I'm sure it's message is more mature since humanity has matured somewhat and is ready for a more mature message. Humanity wasn't ready for Jesus's message as it was, they killed him. And you expect him to also explain that women should have modern rights like the right to vote in elections, 2k years ago?

Well it is possible that Jesus did intend Mary to be the first pope and Peter got the job only because people couldn't accept a female leader. They also tried to destroy the gospel of Mary because they couldn't accept divinely inspired scripture written by a woman. But that is just speculation.

First off, let me say that your argument against Christianity already has zero crediblity because you are already against the very notion of Christ's divine nature. Let me guess, you got all those snippets from an athiest website without looking at real scripture? If I'm wrong and you actually did read scripture, I suggest you read it again because if you actually READ scripture, it gives rigid rules for men as well before or after its rules for women. Aside from that, anyone who sees the Bible as just a giant list of rules is totally missing the point.

For instance, after the Bible says, "Wives submit to your husbands, etc." It says, "Husbands love your wives as your own body." and more to that effect. So despite the fact that men are supposed to be the top of the totem pole, they're supposed to treat their wives the same way they'd treat themselves. Not to mention, Christ preaches that leaders are to rule by serving... This includes husbands. Therefore, Paul's writing do not promote wife beating and sort of pushing them off into a corner like a dog as you seem to be claiming.

Keeping silence within the Church had to deal with how churches were set up during the time. Men sat in the front of the Church and women sat in the back, much like how Solomon/Herod's Temple(s) were set up. The problem was, women were in the back often times yelling, "Hey! I didn't hear that, could you speak up?"

Obviously that got a little distracting, so Paul said women should keep quiet so the teacher can finish his sermon and the men should answer any questions the women had afterwards.

You should get your head out of your ass and try actually READING scripture instead of just pulling snippets from websites, slapping it on a page, and making moronic claims. Of course, you are anti-Christian from the start so you're just looking for any little way to attack the Christian faith... Few people like a naysayer, but fewer still like naysayers who have baseless arguments. If you're trying to look smart, I suggest you do so out of the field of theology as this is all pretty basic stuff I'm telling you. In the end, no matter how academic I make this argument, I trust you're going to mock me simply on the basis that I am a Christian defending Christianity. My point is, learn all the facts about something before you rail on it, otherwise your arguments are totally bogus and have no academic standing.

I am not going to debate with you people, I just wanted to break up this anti-Christian lovefest with the cold, hard facts.

Fine, but thats no different, since the Bible =/= Christianity.

Oh really? And what is Christianity without the Bible?

Christianity draws its beliefs directly from the Bible. And like mentioned previously, since God is infallible, and he supposedly wrote the whole thing, that should necessarily mean that the Bible is the ultimate code one should follow. And since sexism seems to be a major part of that code, well, you can see why people think the religion itself is sexist.

Oh really? And what is Christianity without the Bible?

Christianity draws its beliefs directly from the Bible. And like mentioned previously, since God is infallible, and he supposedly wrote the whole thing, that should necessarily mean that the Bible is the ultimate code one should follow. And since sexism seems to be a major part of that code, well, you can see why people think the religion itself is sexist.

Here's your problem

He only wrote the whole thing, or more accurately influenced the writers of the Bible, according to the Bible. It's circular logic to say that God wrote the Bible because it says in the Bible that God wrote it.

Here's your problem

He only wrote the whole thing, or more accurately influenced the writers of the Bible, according to the Bible. It's circular logic to say that God wrote the Bible because it says in the Bible that God wrote it.

I am failing to understand your point. Of course I know it's circular logic. But this somehow delineates the Christian religion from the Bible how? If Christians believe that God wrote the Bible, then of course they need to believe it's infallible...

First off, let me say that your argument against Christianity already has zero crediblity because you are already against the very notion of Christ's divine nature. Let me guess, you got all those snippets from an athiest website without looking at real scripture? If I'm wrong and you actually did read scripture, I suggest you read it again because if you actually READ scripture, it gives rigid rules for men as well before or after its rules for women. Aside from that, anyone who sees the Bible as just a giant list of rules is totally missing the point.

For instance, after the Bible says, "Wives submit to your husbands, etc." It says, "Husbands love your wives as your own body." and more to that effect. So despite the fact that men are supposed to be the top of the totem pole, they're supposed to treat their wives the same way they'd treat themselves. Not to mention, Christ preaches that leaders are to rule by serving... This includes husbands. Therefore, Paul's writing do not promote wife beating and sort of pushing them off into a corner like a dog as you seem to be claiming.Are you arguing that it's ok for men to be told they need to dominate because men are instructed to be nice to their subordinates?

I know, totally like why would any woman become a Muslim? For real.

Oh, different yet same, I get it!

What amuses me is Christians who quote the Koran to say bad things about Islam, when their own Bible is so full of gunk.

And when I say amuses I actually mean bores.

The message in context is that women at the time the message was written should behave as was appropriate at that time. The intended audience of a specific letter in the NT was a specific church that existed at that time and not modern Christians 2k years later.

If God would say those things today it would be sexist but if any of the countless modern religious literature is divinely inspired I'm sure it's message is more mature since humanity has matured somewhat and is ready for a more mature message. Humanity wasn't ready for Jesus's message as it was, they killed him. And you expect him to also explain that women should have modern rights like the right to vote in elections, 2k years ago?

Well it is possible that Jesus did intend Mary to be the first pope and Peter got the job only because people couldn't accept a female leader. They also tried to destroy the gospel of Mary because they couldn't accept divinely inspired scripture written by a woman. But that is just speculation.

Things like this confuse me so much...why would Jesus be willing to allow women to be suppressed for another 1900+ years just because the people "weren't ready." He's the son of God. If the message that needs to be brought is that "women are our equals" then I would expect this society's high watermark example of love and peace to say it regardless of the consequences. Furthermore, if parts of the bible are excluded due to political reasons (such as the apocryphal texts), how does one decide which count as divinely influenced and which count towards deranged loon who thinks he's talking to God?

If Christians believe that God wrote the Bible, then of course they need to believe it's infallible...

But this is a gross oversimplification of what Christians believe, which vary hugely. Some believe that God only had influence over the writers where it is the maxims behind each writing that should be important, and not the specifics, where it would be naive to treat the new testament as a law book (which makes sense, since you would end up with contradictory laws) as Jesus so clearly opposed legalism. Others think the opposite, and others assume that God had no part in the writing of the Bible at all. I don't see why you must assume that being a Christian forces you to believe that the Bible is the literal word of God.

Fine, but thats no different, since the Bible =/= Christianity.

Christianity is supposed to follow the new testament word by word, that's what it's based on isn't it? So if the New Testament says thou shalt be mysoginistic, then you should according to christianism. The funny thing is when they're gonna do their readings, they ignore these tiny bits as if they didn't exist.. I for one have been raised a catholic (don't consider myself one though), and in cathecism we studied the letters etc... Apparently we didn't do it deep enough, did we?
Plus, following Christian Catholic reasoning, if Peter wrote this(wich he did, 1Peter 3:1-5), Peter's supposed to be Jesus/God's representant down here, and if he says so it means that's God's advice as well... IMO it's all pretty screwed up.

First off, let me say that your argument against Christianity already has zero crediblity because you are already against the very notion of Christ's divine nature. Let me guess, you got all those snippets from an athiest website without looking at real scripture? If I'm wrong and you actually did read scripture, I suggest you read it again because if you actually READ scripture, it gives rigid rules for men as well before or after its rules for women. Aside from that, anyone who sees the Bible as just a giant list of rules is totally missing the point.

For instance, after the Bible says, "Wives submit to your husbands, etc." It says, "Husbands love your wives as your own body." and more to that effect. So despite the fact that men are supposed to be the top of the totem pole, they're supposed to treat their wives the same way they'd treat themselves. Not to mention, Christ preaches that leaders are to rule by serving... This includes husbands. Therefore, Paul's writing do not promote wife beating and sort of pushing them off into a corner like a dog as you seem to be claiming.

Keeping silence within the Church had to deal with how churches were set up during the time. Men sat in the front of the Church and women sat in the back, much like how Solomon/Herod's Temple(s) were set up. The problem was, women were in the back often times yelling, "Hey! I didn't hear that, could you speak up?"

Obviously that got a little distracting, so Paul said women should keep quiet so the teacher can finish his sermon and the men should answer any questions the women had afterwards.


This would seem to indicate that the Bible was written by the men who sat in the front and pushed the women to the back, rather than some divine being who was too pansy to push any progressive views on a culture.

heheh oops bit of a mistake there buddy . . .. so if its just a symbolic story then why in the hell r most christians vehemently opposed to homosexual marriage?
Because tradition and morality are important parts of religion it tends to be conservative. There are also many churches that are positive towards gay marriage though.
why do the Islamics still treat women like dirt?
Because most Islamic countries are not modern free democracies.
why is it so important that creationism is taught in schools and why is every new scientific development that contradicts this "creation story" instantly attacked or repressed by the church?
Because many Americans are either ignorant or idiots. ID is very rare here in Europe.

Science answers the question "how?" while religion answers the question "why?". If you think science answers the question "why?" you have misunderstood science and if you think religion answers the question "how?" you have misunderstood religion. Anyone who says science and religion contradicts have misunderstood at least one of them.

We're not arguing science vs religion.... We're arguing speciphically about texts found in the Bible. Wich is IMO what's wrong.... It just seems to prove to mehow preachers/pastors/priests manipulate the Bible and hide stuff that's in there just to make it look right. They like to pretend they don't exist.

But this is a gross oversimplification of what Christians believe, which vary hugely. Some believe that God only had influence over the writers where it is the maxims behind each writing that should be important, and not the specifics, where it would be naive to treat the new testament as a law book (which makes sense, since you would end up with contradictory laws) as Jesus so clearly opposed legalism. Others think the opposite, and others assume that God had no part in the writing of the Bible at all. I don't see why you must assume that being a Christian forces you to believe that the Bible is the literal word of God.

Then where and how do you delineate God's contribution vs. the writers' creative input. Everyone assumes the nice parts like "love thy neighbor" are what God really meant, but what if the nice parts were mistranslated from more brutal commands by god? We can't and don't know, and it negates the point of Christianity. Without the Bible, there is nothing to form the basis of Christian belief. It's that some people make logical missteps in thinking that you can only accept part of the Bible without causing some serious consistency problems. Imho.

Same goes for God had no part in writing it all. In which case, why should I even trust that this God is the one I should worship? Because some random guy told me he thinks it might be true..ish?

It's possible to believe in god without a holy book. It makes no sense to accept the Christian God without the Bible being literally true, though...

Very few people actually choose to be Christians. It is something they are born into, and drilled into them everyday of their lives. It was chosen for them by their parents.

Uh, no.

Then where and how do you delineate God's contribution vs. the writers' creative input.

Irrelevant, you'll have to ask the different Christian sects.


Everyone assumes the nice parts like "love thy neighbor" are what God really meant, but what if the nice parts were mistranslated from more brutal commands by god? We can't and don't know, and it negates the point of Christianity.

Also irrelevant, we're not talking about what type of interpretation is the most correct, merely that to be a Christian doesn't mean you have to have a literal interpretation, whether this raises problems or not.


Without the Bible, there is nothing to form the basis of Christian belief.

Not believing the Bible is literally the word of God does not negate its usage. Many would still use the books of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John to try and paint an accurate picture of what Jesus said.


It's that some people make logical missteps in thinking that you can only accept part of the Bible without causing some serious consistency problems. Imho.


If you accepted the whole of the Bible as literally true you would have much more serious consistency problems, since the Bible is not consistent.


Same goes for God had no part in writing it all. In which case, why should I even trust that this God is the one I should worship? Because some random guy told me he thinks it might be true..ish?


Again, this is a digression, Christians have various reasons, you'll have to ask them.


It's possible to believe in god without a holy book. It makes no sense to accept the Christian God without the Bible being literally true, though...

I partially agree with this.

Why would any woman decide to become christian?

Actually, all of those verses are cultural statements from the perspective of a 2000 yr dead society.

Also, none of those words come from Jesus, who is the greater authority on Christianity.

Perhaps they become Christian because of the desire for closeness with Jesus, and that no earthly torment, no matter how much it was made up by you could stop them. You must not have thought of that.

It makes no sense to accept the Christian God without the Bible being literally true, though...
why not? The Bible isn't a book, it's a lot of letters and writings bound together, surely if I bound together Harry Potter and a book about bugs, you couldn't take it as all or nothing, what if the part about bugs was non-fiction does it have to be untrue because Harry Potter is made up?

Why does a book have anything to do with God anyway? Why would you have to only accept God if the book is 100% true and literal? the two don't seem dependent on each other.

Why would any woman decide to become christian?

Would you consider someone a Christian if she/he believed in Jesus, that there is a God, and an afterlife with Heaven/Hell?

How exactly did I take the scripture out of context?
And what would be the deeper meaning of women shouldn't speak in church and should be submissive to men?

So when a person quotes Kuran verses they are a bigot and the verses are out of context. When someone quotes from the Bible however....


I see what your game is.

Ah, its just that women don't know when to shut up...

You're arguing against this universal law?

:p

(Joking, in case someone tries to get offended.)

Irrelevant, you'll have to ask the different Christian sects.

And in almost any case, that distinction would have to be ultimately arbitrary.

Also irrelevant, we're not talking about what type of interpretation is the most correct, merely that to be a Christian doesn't mean you have to have a literal interpretation, whether this raises problems or not.

Of course you can be a Christian...but it still raises serious logical consistencies issues. I mean, after all, we all sin according to scripture. So it seems natural to me that Christians rejecting the rigid definition in the bible are just sinning, right?

Not believing the Bible is literally the word of God does not negate its usage. Many would still use the books of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John to try and paint an accurate picture of what Jesus said.

Why would you trust it then? There's barely any physical or archaelogical evidence indicating the existence of Christ, except maybe a few vague/unclear references that we can't even confirm to be referring to the same Jesus.

If you accepted the whole of the Bible as literally true you would have much more serious consistency problems, since the Bible is not consistent.

Of course, and that's why I think the religion is false. And if parts of the Bible are inconsistent wrong, it brings up the whole debate about whether or not God wrote it. And if God's infallible and made those mistakes, well, there goes your idea of an infallible god. And then that brings up why believe the bible at all to begin with that I was discussing earlier.

Again, this is a digression, Christians have various reasons, you'll have to ask them.

Which is irrelevant to the validity of said reasons. The distinctions are ultimately arbitrary. If we don't know god, then making guesses about him is pretty useless since we can't even test what "god" exactly is.

I also have to add that due to this thread I have missed my computer science class. Damn you internets!

Why does a book have anything to do with God anyway? Why would you have to only accept God if the book is 100% true and literal? the two don't seem dependent on each other.

well, like I said earlier, it's possible to believe in a god without a holy book. but if you're going out of your way to specifically say "I believe in the Christian god" then it seems to me you should follow the things that the Christian god told you to do. And if you can't be sure that he told you to do that, then how do you know the Christian god is the true one, or that there's only one god?

First off, let me say that your argument against Christianity already has zero crediblity because you are already against the very notion of Christ's divine nature.

So non-Christians cant critisize your religion? Bull.

Let me guess, you got all those snippets from an athiest website without looking at real scripture?

Wrong, I got my mine from my Bible.

If I'm wrong and you actually did read scripture, I suggest you read it again because if you actually READ scripture, it gives rigid rules for men as well before or after its rules for women. Aside from that, anyone who sees the Bible as just a giant list of rules is totally missing the point.

I dont recall the Bible ever telling men to shut up and do what theyre told.

For instance, after the Bible says, "Wives submit to your husbands, etc." It says, "Husbands love your wives as your own body." and more to that effect.


So, wives do what your husbands say. Husbands, please dont beat your wives...still sexist bud.

So despite the fact that men are supposed to be the top of the totem pole, they're supposed to treat their wives the same way they'd treat themselves. Not to mention, Christ preaches that leaders are to rule by serving... This includes husbands.

Ok, so you admit that the Bible says the husband is in charge and is the natural leader. That is very sexist kiddo.

You should get your head out of your ass and try actually READING scripture instead of just pulling snippets from websites, slapping it on a page, and making moronic claims.

I promise you I am far more Bible literate than you. Ive read it cover to cover. Have you?

Of course, you are anti-Christian from the start so you're just looking for any little way to attack the Christian faith... Few people like a naysayer, but fewer still like naysayers who have baseless arguments. If you're trying to look smart, I suggest you do so out of the field of theology as this is all pretty basic stuff I'm telling you.

Youre the one looking like an idiot.

In the end, no matter how academic I make this argument,

Theres nothing academic about your arguement.

I trust you're going to mock me simply on the basis that I am a Christian defending Christianity.

First thing youve gotten right so far.

My point is, learn all the facts about something before you rail on it,

Physician, heal thy self

otherwise your arguments are totally bogus and have no academic standing.

Physician, heal thy self

I am not going to debate with you people, I just wanted to break up this anti-Christian lovefest with the cold, hard facts.

I see no cold hard facts, just delusional ramblings.


I also like how you ignored my post about stoning non virigins to death. Well done.

So when a person quotes Kuran verses they are a bigot and the verses are out of context. When someone quotes from the Bible however....


I see what your game is.

Our game is that all Abrahamic religions are shit.


Drop your persecution complex please.


ps- Please try and spel Koran/ Qur'an right.

What amuses me is Christians who quote the Koran to say bad things about Islam, when their own Bible is so full of gunk.

And when I say amuses I actually mean bores.

No, you dont understand. Jesus was the Prince of Peace (TM). Anything anti-Christian is just ebil liberal secular progressive communist lies.

Islam however is a religion of brown people and the enemy of Christianity, therefore inherantly ebil.

The Muslims treat their woman soooo much better. Same with the Jews. So the thing is, if you are a woman just don't even bother to become religious.

That is the solution that you are presenting.

That is the solution that you are presenting.

Not abrahamic religious anyway.


Theres always Hinduism, Buddhism, various pagan religions...


You know that there are more than 3 religions in the world, right?

No, you dont understand. Jesus was the Prince of Peace (TM). Anything anti-Christian is just ebil liberal secular progressive communist lies.

Islam however is a religion of brown people and the enemy of Christianity, therefore inherantly ebil.

It's most amusing when fundamentalists from both sides go at it.

Fundamentalist Christian: Muslims are enemies of Christianity.

Fundamentalist Muslim: Christians are enemies of Allah.

Fundie Christian: You muslim apologetic, I'm sick and tired of you liberal secularists and your bullshit

Fundie Muslim: Yea well...wait what?

heheh oops bit of a mistake there buddy . . .. so if its just a symbolic story then why in the hell r most christians vehemently opposed to homosexual marriage? why do the Islamics still treat women like dirt? why is it so important that creationism is taught in schools and why is every new scientific development that contradicts this "creation story" instantly attacked or repressed by the church?

"Most" Christians aren't "vehemently" opposed to homosexual marriage. Even if "most" were, that wouldn't change the symbolic nature of the stories.

They're not "Islamics", they're Muslim.

Which church are you referencing? Few denominations actively attack and repress new scientific developments. Most Christians actually support evolutionary theory.

I'm not even a Christian, I can't believe I have to defend this.

Well then you got the wrong idea, I was saying that the Islamic and Jewish writings are just as sexist.

Fair enough, and from what I do know about them I agree.

That being a christian makes you necessarily misogynistic.

Didn't say that, or mean to imply it, christianity is a misogynistic religion though.

The Muslims treat their woman soooo much better. Same with the Jews. So the thing is, if you are a woman just don't even bother to become religious.

That is the solution that you are presenting.

I actually think that would be a good solution for humanity, overall. However, I'd settle for moderate religionists, who although they befuddle me with their adherence to a religion that contradicts some of their core values, still in the end do the right thing and show tolerance, acceptance, and good will for and to others.

I promise you I am far more Bible literate than you. Ive read it cover to cover. Have you?



and i suppose you are for homosexuality?

It's most amusing when fundamentalists from both sides go at it.

Fundamentalist Christian: Muslims are enemies of Christianity.

Fundamentalist Muslim: Christians are enemies of Allah.

Fundie Christian: You muslim apologetic, I'm sick and tired of you liberal secularists and your bullshit

Fundie Muslim: Yea well...wait what?

And the jews are on the sidelines thinking "No matter who wins, we're fucked."

Sorry, the part about symbolic stories was off topic and not related to these quotes. It slipped into my comment on how to understand the Bible because I've seen a lot of topics here where symbolic parts of the Bible are taken literally.

The message in context is that women at the time the message was written should behave as was appropriate at that time. The intended audience of a specific letter in the NT was a specific church that existed at that time and not modern Christians 2k years later.

If God would say those things today it would be sexist but if any of the countless modern religious literature is divinely inspired I'm sure it's message is more mature since humanity has matured somewhat and is ready for a more mature message. Humanity wasn't ready for Jesus's message as it was, they killed him. And you expect him to also explain that women should have modern rights like the right to vote in elections, 2k years ago?

Well it is possible that Jesus did intend Mary to be the first pope and Peter got the job only because people couldn't accept a female leader. They also tried to destroy the gospel of Mary because they couldn't accept divinely inspired scripture written by a woman. But that is just speculation.

So basically what you're saying is all the parts written for an audience thousands of years ago should be ignored?

OK, christians, feel free to ignore 100% of your holy book.

"Most" Christians aren't "vehemently" opposed to homosexual marriage. Even if "most" were, that wouldn't change the symbolic nature of the stories.

I guess it's an USA thing. After all, a large percentage of Americans oppose gay marriage. Go further south, and the numbers of people voting to ban it reach the 90%s.

Which church are you referencing? Few denominations actively attack and repress new scientific developments. Most Christians actually support evolutionary theory.

Sadly in America, it's only close to about 50-60% believe in evolution

So basically what you're saying is all the parts written for an audience thousands of years ago should be ignored?

OK, christians, feel free to ignore 100% of your holy book.

Exactly.



No arguement Christians can make to defend the Bible holds any water.


God damnit just own up to the fact that your religion is imperfect and not this peace loving, tolerant Godsend you pretend it is and move on with worshipping gawd.

Theres always Hinduism, Buddhism, various pagan religions...

Didn't you read any of the threads about how Buddhism is a backwards feudalistic tool of oppression? Jeeez.

You know that there are more than 3 religions in the world, right?

It's funny, because I think many people do know, but other religions are always mentioned in a sort of after-thought. Like, "So you can eat beef and murder cows, or you can eat pork and murder pigs, or you can eat poultry and murder chickens. Oh, and there are some people who are vegetarians, but only like 5 and they don't really count."

Sadly in America, it's only close to about 50-60% believe in evolution

Last I saw it was even less. Try 30-40%

Last I saw it was even less. Try 30-40%

I think the issue with those numbers is it's based on "absolutely believing in evolution." It gets up a bit higher when you consider that many people believe in "theistic evolution." Actually, that's probably the most common belief up in the northeast, I think.

First off, let me say that your argument against Christianity already has zero crediblity because you are already against the very notion of Christ's divine nature. Let me guess, you got all those snippets from an athiest website without looking at real scripture? If I'm wrong and you actually did read scripture, I suggest you read it again because if you actually READ scripture, it gives rigid rules for men as well before or after its rules for women. Aside from that, anyone who sees the Bible as just a giant list of rules is totally missing the point.
I have read the bible cover to cover, and am aware that there are rules for how men should treat women, however at no point does the bible imply that men and women are equal, it makes it perfectly clear that women are inferior.
For instance, after the Bible says, "Wives submit to your husbands, etc." It says, "Husbands love your wives as your own body." and more to that effect. So despite the fact that men are supposed to be the top of the totem pole, they're supposed to treat their wives the same way they'd treat themselves. Not to mention, Christ preaches that leaders are to rule by serving... This includes husbands. Therefore, Paul's writing do not promote wife beating and sort of pushing them off into a corner like a dog as you seem to be claiming.
I never said that.
Keeping silence within the Church had to deal with how churches were set up during the time. Men sat in the front of the Church and women sat in the back, much like how Solomon/Herod's Temple(s) were set up. The problem was, women were in the back often times yelling, "Hey! I didn't hear that, could you speak up?" Obviously that got a little distracting, so Paul said women should keep quiet so the teacher can finish his sermon and the men should answer any questions the women had afterwards.
And obviously, the proper solution is for women to just shut up, and when they get home their man will tell them everything of importance... :rolleyes:
You should get your head out of your ass and try actually READING scripture instead of just pulling snippets from websites, slapping it on a page, and making moronic claims. Of course, you are anti-Christian from the start so you're just looking for any little way to attack the Christian faith... Few people like a naysayer, but fewer still like naysayers who have baseless arguments. If you're trying to look smart, I suggest you do so out of the field of theology as this is all pretty basic stuff I'm telling you. In the end, no matter how academic I make this argument, I trust you're going to mock me simply on the basis that I am a Christian defending Christianity. My point is, learn all the facts about something before you rail on it, otherwise your arguments are totally bogus and have no academic standing.
I merely asked a question, and provided the reasons for my question. I didn't "attack" christianity, now if you cannot handle your religion being questioned then it is you that have the problem, not me.
I am not going to debate with you people, I just wanted to break up this anti-Christian lovefest with the cold, hard facts.
You are not going to debate with us because you don't have the skills for it, in other words.

I guess it's an USA thing. After all, a large percentage of Americans oppose gay marriage. Go further south, and the numbers of people voting to ban it reach the 90%s.

Sadly in America, it's only close to about 50-60% believe in evolution

I am an American. Although I live in Northern California, so it sometimes feels like a different country.

Most of what I objected to was your wording. While a majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, the percentage fluctuates from about 50-60% depending on polls and the wording of the question, and not all of those people are Christian. Not all of those people vehemently oppose it, either--they just don't like it and think it isn't right, for a variety of reasons that are not all religious. I do not deny that this sucks, but it isn't quite as black and white an issue as it sometimes seems.

Are you arguing that it's ok for men to be told they need to dominate because men are instructed to be nice to their subordinates?

That is basically what he's saying, yes.

Oh, sorry.

By the way I'm not saying that all Christians don't read the bible, but I have a hard time believing that many of them pay close attention.

And maybe not all of us base our religion exclusively in Scripture?

It seems to me that, even in the canonical Scripture, Christ talks about believers having a personal connection with God. Why, then, would we base our religious beliefs entirely in writings of others - in a once (or more) removed connection with God?

Actually, all of those verses are cultural statements from the perspective of a 2000 yr dead society.

Also, none of those words come from Jesus, who is the greater authority on Christianity.

Jesus is god, yes? Therefore they did come from Jesus, at least according to the bible.

Perhaps they become Christian because of the desire for closeness with Jesus, and that no earthly torment, no matter how much it was made up by you could stop them. You must not have thought of that.

So it's appropriate for women to be second-class citizens to attain salvation?

and i suppose you are for homosexuality?

Umm....


Yes?


I think adults should be able to enter into the relationships they want, without the government or some demagogue telling them they cant.


You ask that question like I am somehow the one with the problem :rolleyes:

Just because I have read the Bible cover to cover doesnt mean I am Christian. Ive also read the Qur'an cover to cover (which is actually a far more entertaining, poetic read). I assure you I am neither Christian, Jewish, nor Muslim.

Would you consider someone a Christian if she/he believed in Jesus, that there is a God, and an afterlife with Heaven/Hell?

I'd have to go with yes.

So when a person quotes Kuran verses they are a bigot and the verses are out of context. When someone quotes from the Bible however....


I see what your game is.

When did I ever say that?

Show me the link to the post where I made that statement.

The Muslims treat their woman soooo much better. Same with the Jews. So the thing is, if you are a woman just don't even bother to become religious.

That is the solution that you are presenting.
No, \/this\/
Not abrahamic religious anyway.


Theres always Hinduism, Buddhism, various pagan religions...


You know that there are more than 3 religions in the world, right?

A husband is suppose to treat his wife like Jesus treats the church…

John 13
1Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end. 2During supper, when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him, 3Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going back to God, 4rose from supper. He laid aside his outer garments, and taking a towel, tied it around his waist. 5Then he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to wipe them with the towel that was wrapped around him. 6He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, "Lord, do you wash my feet?" 7 Jesus answered him, "What I am doing you do not understand now, but afterward you will understand." 8 Peter said to him, "You shall never wash my feet." Jesus answered him, "If I do not wash you, you have no share with me." 9Simon Peter said to him, "Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head!" 10Jesus said to him, "The one who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but is completely clean. And you are clean, but not every one of you." 11 For he knew who was to betray him; that was why he said, "Not all of you are clean."

12When he had washed their feet and put on his outer garments and resumed his place, he said to them, "Do you understand what I have done to you? 13 You call me Teacher and Lord, and you are right, for so I am. 14If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. 15For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you. 16Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. 17If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them.

So, evidently, a Husband is expected to be the servant to his wife, he is expected to give his life for her if the need should arise, and he should love her more than he loves himself. The husband will be held accountable if the family fails, not the wife. A bad husband is the one who shirks his responsibilities as the primary servant of the family. As Jesus served God's will, not his own, the Husband is to serve the families needs more than his own...

That doesn't mean that they have to remain christian, my wife was brought up roman catholic, now she isn't christian at all.
My point being, whether they were brought up christian or not, it is still a choice.

I understand that. You're talking to someone who comes from a whole family of apostates. But the choice to renounce all that you have ever known is not one that many people can make, especially when there are dozens of chanting voices telling them they will burn in Hell for disobedience to God should they even question it.

And maybe not all of us base our religion exclusively in Scripture?

It seems to me that, even in the canonical Scripture, Christ talks about believers having a personal connection with God. Why, then, would we base our religious beliefs entirely in writings of others - in a once (or more) removed connection with God?

How are you sure that part where Christ talks about "believers having a personal connection with God" wasn't changed over a series of edits? At what point does one consider a verse to be true and from the mouth of god?

So, evidently, a Husband is expected to be the servant to his wife, he is expected to give his life for her if the need should arise, and he should love her more than he loves himself. The husband will be held accountable if the family fails, not the wife. A bad husband is the one who shirks his responsibilities as the primary servant of the family. As Jesus served God's will, not his own, the Husband is to serve the families needs more than his own...

But at no point does it say that the man needs to shut up and have his thinking done for him by a woman, which is what it does say about women.

So there, Baldy... ;)

How exactly did I take the scripture out of context?

You took it out of the society in which it was written and assume that anything said was supposed to come directly from God.

And what would be the deeper meaning of women shouldn't speak in church and should be submissive to men?

There isn't one. The society in which it was written felt that way, so it made it's way into sermons, letters, and rules.

50 years ago, it wouldn't have been odd to see segregation rules taught from the pulpit. Today, most churches teach acceptance of people from all ethnic backgrounds.


Then explain the message and spirit of the messages, because they seem sexist to me, with little room for interpretation.

Those passages aren't the message. They are the words of a preacher (or, if we go into the OT passages, multiple preachers) trying to understand the message and lead congregations down the right path. Subjugation of women was accepted in their society and their understanding of Christ's message was filtered through that lens just as a modern Christian's view of that message will be filtered through our own societal norms and experiences.

Hi. I'm a girl and I highly respect Christian women who live by the Bible and I respect their lives and their beliefs. In my high school's political radicalism class, we've had several Christian men talk to us and one Christian women who read us a couple of those quotes mentioned in the opening post of this thread.

Several times, Christians who have spoken to us speak from the heart and from their god, and every time their message has been clear. Every time I thought they made a whole lot of sense. EVERY TIME, at the end of the class, I'd think, If only this class were like twenty minutes longer, then I know I'd be converted.

Oh, except there was one Christian who believes that capitalism is evil. But he was a hippie.

Anywho, the Christian woman REALLY inspired me and although she's extremely radical, I still respect her beliefs. She started out in a very broken family and later converted to Christianity. Her speech actually made me question my views on life as a female. For example, I think, in marriage, it sounds perfectly right to submit myself to my husband. The husband should be the head of the family. I'm not even joking.

But I'm an atheist. I hesitate about the idea of right and wrong. I'm still looking for my place in life. I used to never want to get married, but now even my boyfriend has helped me consider it (unintentionally).

So, why wouldn't a woman even think about turning to Christianity -- or simply live by submission? Really, I believe that we are made to fuction differently from men, and men are so obviously built to be both stronger than us and in charge. Men have always been the workers. It's traditional. Plus, it's American and I completely believe in our core values which are in fact based on Christian values. That's what makes me really think about going to Christianity -- or at least living a very similar life (even though that could be immoral according to Christians).

I think that's all I wanted to say. My point is that it doesn't sound like a bad life. The Christian woman loves her life and her marriage is great. Of course, she only has sex when she wants kids, and I could never live by that!!!

You took it out of the society in which it was written and assume that anything said was supposed to come directly from God.



There isn't one. The society in which it was written felt that way, so it made it's way into sermons, letters, and rules.

50 years ago, it wouldn't have been odd to see segregation rules taught from the pulpit. Today, most churches teach acceptance of people from all ethnic backgrounds.



Those passages aren't the message. They are the words of a preacher (or, if we go into the OT passages, multiple preachers) trying to understand the message and lead congregations down the right path. Subjugation of women was accepted in their society and their understanding of Christ's message was filtered through that lens just as a modern Christian's view of that message will be filtered through our own societal norms and experiences.

So you agree with ignore everything written for a society that existed thousands of years ago?

Once again, great! Christians, throw out your bibles, they don't mean anything.

Anywho, the Christian woman REALLY inspired me and although she's extremely radical, I still respect her beliefs. She started out in a very broken family and later converted to Christianity. Her speech actually made me question my views on life as a female. For example, I think, in marriage, it sounds perfectly right to submit myself to my husband. The husband should be the head of the family. I'm not even joking.

So you think that the man should have final say, it shouldn't be an equal partnership between two people?

The husband should be the head of the family. I'm not even joking.

As every femanist cries out as one....


Youre ok with the idea of NOT being in an equal partnership?


You need some therapy sweetie.

Oh really? And what is Christianity without the Bible?

What was Christianity before the Bible was put together, I wonder?

Christianity draws its beliefs directly from the Bible.

Does it? I wonder what was going on in those centuries before a council put it together, then?

Are you saying that Christianity did not exist until the writings that were included in the Bible were collected and canonized?

And like mentioned previously, since God is infallible, and he supposedly wrote the whole thing,

God wrote the Bible? That's news to me. Here I thought it was ancient Jewish scholars, the followers of apostles, and Paul who wrote it. And it was collected and the particular writings that would be included were determined centuries later, generations removed from any of the writers.

So you think that the man should have final say, it shouldn't be an equal partnership between two people?
Ha, I beat you to it...
As every femanist cries out as one....


Youre ok with the idea of NOT being in an equal partnership?


You need some therapy sweetie.

God wrote the Bible? That's news to me. Here I thought it was ancient Jewish scholars, the followers of apostles, and Paul who wrote it. And it was collected and the particular writings that would be included were determined centuries later, generations removed from any of the writers.

Well, according to the bible, god wrote the bible...

What was Christianity before the Bible was put together, I wonder?

Ehh, just adds to why I think the religion is false.

So you think that the man should have final say, it shouldn't be an equal partnership between two people?

you think it's your business to dictate what's proper to people in their personal relationships?

you think it's your business to dictate what's proper to people in their personal relationships?

No, I just don't see why anyone would think that they are incapable of dealing with someone else as an equal, especially not based on something as arbitrary as gender differences.



I'll leave the dictating of whats proper in personal relationships to the Abrahamic religions.

you think it's your business to dictate what's proper to people in their personal relationships?

Last time I checked, asking questions and promoting discourse =/= dictating.

No, I just don't see why anyone would think that they are incapable of dealing with someone else as an equal, especially not based on something as arbitrary as gender differences.

because you don't understand something you think it's bad? what about people who live in dom/sub relationships not based on gender or religion? you have a problem with that?

because you don't understand something you think it's bad? what about people who live in dom/sub relationships not based on gender or religion? you have a problem with that?

I think any decision made for non-rational reasons is bad.

you think it's your business to dictate what's proper to people in their personal relationships?

Hey, if a woman is self loathing and doesnt think shes capable of being equal to a man, thats her psychological issue, not mine.

Otherwise:


I'll leave the dictating of whats proper in personal relationships to the Abrahamic religions.

Hey, if a woman is self loathing and doesnt think shes capable of being equal to a man, thats her psychological issue, not mine.

Otherwise:

:D

Christianity is supposed to follow the new testament word by word, that's what it's based on isn't it?

Nope.

Christianity is supposed to follow the guidance of Christ.

because you don't understand something you think it's bad? what about people who live in dom/sub relationships not based on gender or religion? you have a problem with that?

Oh, I understand why a woman might think shes not equal to a man, its called brainwashing.


But once again, Ill leave hating what we dont understand to followers of Abrahamic religions.

Several times, Christians who have spoken to us speak from the heart and from their god, and every time their message has been clear. Every time I thought they made a whole lot of sense. EVERY TIME, at the end of the class, I'd think, If only this class were like twenty minutes longer, then I know I'd be converted.So, if you hear people repeat the same thing for 20 more minutes, you become convinced of their argument? I don't get this, are you under hypnosis or something?

Oh, except there was one Christian who believes that capitalism is evil. But he was a hippie.They have Christian hippies now?!

Anywho, the Christian woman REALLY inspired me and although she's extremely radical, I still respect her beliefs. She started out in a very broken family and later converted to Christianity. Her speech actually made me question my views on life as a female. For example, I think, in marriage, it sounds perfectly right to submit myself to my husband. The husband should be the head of the family. I'm not even joking.

But I'm an atheist. I hesitate about the idea of right and wrong. I'm still looking for my place in life. I used to never want to get married, but now even my boyfriend has helped me consider it (unintentionally).

So, why wouldn't a woman even think about turning to Christianity -- or simply live by submission? Really, I believe that we are made to fuction differently from men, and men are so obviously built to be both stronger than us and in charge. Men have always been the workers. It's traditional. Plus, it's American and I completely believe in our core values which are in fact based on Christian values. That's what makes me really think about going to Christianity -- or at least living a very similar life (even though that could be immoral according to Christians).

I think that's all I wanted to say. My point is that it doesn't sound like a bad life. The Christian woman loves her life and her marriage is great. Of course, she only has sex when she wants kids, and I could never live by that!!!This is more evidence for my belief that women can be just as sexist as men in our society. I understand if you feel like you're a passive person and you want someone else to be in charge of everything. I bet that way of life would make some people happier than taking equal responsibility. But why jump to the conclusion that it's UNNATURAL for women to want EQUALITY? You are literally making me ill. What's best for you personally isn't what should be forced on everyone else.

To me, you sound lazy. I know this is a personal attack, and personal attacks can get in the way of real debates, but you have made this post all about your own life, so it makes sense for us to judge you as a person. You want to marry somebody who will do all the work for you, because men are "obviously" built to be in charge. And yet you aren't willing to make any of the sacrifices that are supposed to go along with that lifestyle, like your sex life and atheism. I'm not saying it's a good idea to sacrifice your freedoms, but if you want freedom, you should take responsibility for it instead of shouldering the inconveniences of your life such as actually making choices about money over to someone who was "built to be in charge."

I'm not going to even touch the American and Christian values comment. Fuck that.

I think any decision made for non-rational reasons is bad.
because you define what's rational? you aren't very tolerant of alternative lifestyles.
Oh, I understand why a woman might think shes not equal to a man, its called brainwashing.


But once again, Ill leave hating what we dont understand to followers of Abrahamic religions.

I know of entire communities of people who are not religious and not sexist who live in sub/dom relationships.

I think any decision made for non-rational reasons is bad.

Doing someone because one likes it that way is irrational? So it was bad for me to drink coke with my lunch instead of water today, because I just went with personal preference?

I know of entire communities of people who are not religious and not sexist who live in sub/dom relationships.Culturally enforced domination of one gender is the very definition of sexist.

Remember that the social context in which these things were written were basically closer to cavemen times, when women NEED to stay home and cook and raise the few children who survive whatever disease or famine that occurs frequently- and they were good at what they did; when men NEED to be manly so they can fight off other men who are looking for resources to get for their family or community- and they were good at what they did. There simply was no time for romance or gender equality, unless you're rich.

So it's unfair to judge the apparent surface of those teachings by modern standards, because the true substance of those teachings are unchanging; they transcend time and social differences; those teachings were meant to make you happy and dignified, not to make you guilty or conceited about being wrong or being right; they are supposed to make things socially better, and it would make no sense to force them upon people who are unwilling to go by the scheme laid out for a supposed utopia.

because you don't understand something you think it's bad? what about people who live in dom/sub relationships not based on gender or religion? you have a problem with that?

What do you mean by "dum/sub" relationships anyway? As BDSM? Or as in an where one partner has thorough power over the other partner?

I ask this because a lot of what passes for dom/sub behavior is an act, and it is purely for catharsis. Real domination is a lot different, and has profoundly damaging effects on people.

I actually think that would be a good solution for humanity, overall. However, I'd settle for moderate religionists, who although they befuddle me with their adherence to a religion that contradicts some of their core values, still in the end do the right thing and show tolerance, acceptance, and good will for and to others.

Why do you think you get to define their religion?

I adhere to a religion. It doesn't contradict any of my core values because it is inextricably tied with my core values.

The only way you can make this determination is if you think that it is somehow up to you to define their religion - that you should define what Christianity means to them.

because you define what's rational? you aren't very tolerant of alternative lifestyles.


I know of entire communities of people who are not religious and not sexist who live in sub/dom relationships.

You obviously have no idea who you're talking to :rolleyes:

Culturally enforced domination of one gender is the very definition of sexist.
not culturally enforced, chosen, communities of people who have chosen a certain relationship dynamic.
What do you mean by "dum/sub" relationships anyway? As BDSM? Or as in an where one partner has thorough power over the other partner?
BDSM outside the bedroom.

I ask this because a lot of what passes for dom/sub behavior is an act, and it is purely for catharsis. Real domination is a lot different, and has profoundly damaging effects on people.
I think you are naive. There is a lot of grey area between kinky role play and actual abuse, a huge consensual grey area.

What do you mean by "dum/sub" relationships anyway? As BDSM? Or as in an where one partner has thorough power over the other partner?

I ask this because a lot of what passes for dom/sub behavior is an act, and it is purely for catharsis. Real domination is a lot different, and has profoundly damaging effects on people.

Exactly. In the communities shes refering to (I think) its a choice. If you truely believe its natural/inherant for one sex to control the other, you got issues.

Remember that the social context in which these things were written were basically closer to cavemen times, when women NEED to stay home and cook and raise the few children who survive whatever disease or famine that occurs frequently- and they were good at what they did; when men NEED to be manly so they can fight off other men who are looking for resources to get for their family or community- and they were good at what they did. There simply was no time for romance or gender equality, unless you're rich.

So it's unfair to judge the apparent surface of those teachings by modern standards, because the true substance of those teachings are unchanging; they transcend time and social differences; those teachings were meant to make you happy and dignified, not to make you guilty or conceited about being wrong or being right; they are supposed to make things socially better, and it would make no sense to force them upon people who are unwilling to go by the scheme laid out for a supposed utopia.

So its unfair for non-christians to judge christians based upon their beliefs, but it is okay for christians to judge non-christians based upon those same beliefs?

You obviously have no idea who you're talking to :rolleyes:

I'm talking to a person who has shown judgmental behavior towards others lifestyle choices, it seems that you are intolerant of others lifestyle choices.

So its unfair for non-christians to judge christians based upon their beliefs, but it is okay for christians to judge non-christians based upon those same beliefs?

Now youre getting it.

I'm talking to a person who has shown judgmental behavior towards others lifestyle choices, it seems that you are intolerant of others lifestyle choices.

Believing that one gender is inherently inferior to the other is not a lifestyle choice.

I'm talking to a person who has shown judgmental behavior towards others lifestyle choices, it seems that you are intolerant of others lifestyle choices.

I dont know where you are getting that from.


If you choose to be submissive because you just like it better that way, hey its your funeral. None of my business.


If you think its natural for one sex to control the other, we got poblems.

Is a woman who feels the need to be in an abusive relationship mentally disturbed in some way? Most psychologist would yes, yes she is. Does that make us intolerant? No.

Why do you think you get to define their religion?

I adhere to a religion. It doesn't contradict any of my core values because it is inextricably tied with my core values.

The only way you can make this determination is if you think that it is somehow up to you to define their religion - that you should define what Christianity means to them.

It makes no sense to me to adhere to a religion that promotes bigotry under the pretense ignoring some of bad parts of the Bible will make things all better. Without the bible, how do you define Christ? Without the bible how do you define the 10 commandments or any other major tenet of the religion?

I'm sorry, it just seems very odd to define Christianity completely outside of the core framework that created it.

not culturally enforced, chosen, communities of people who have chosen a certain relationship dynamic.I can see why one family would choose that, but why a whole community? Do they all band together or something?

I dont know where you are getting that from.


If you choose to be submissive because you just like it better that way, hey its your funeral. None of my business.


If you think its natural for one sex to control the other, we got poblems.

Is a woman who feels the need to be in an abusive relationship mentally disturbed in some way? Most psychologist would yes, yes she is. Does that make us intolerant? No.

Well I disapprove of the Abrahamic religions' treatment of women as inferior, so obviously I'm judgmental about lifestyle choices. :rolleyes:

Believing that one gender is inherently inferior to the other is not a lifestyle choice.
and I asked about people who do not make a decision to be in a sub/dom relationship based on gender, and you said it was "irrational" and therefore bad.
I dont know where you are getting that from.


If you choose to be submissive because you just like it better that way, hey its your funeral. None of my business.


If you think its natural for one sex to control the other, we got poblems.

Is a woman who feels the need to be in an abusive relationship mentally disturbed in some way? Most psychologist would yes, yes she is. Does that make us intolerant? No.
what if a man decides to be submissive? why would anyone feel the need to be abused? do relationships you wouldn't enter into automatically equal abuse?
I can see why one family would choose that, but why a whole community? Do they all band together or something?
a group of like minded people, not like a whole city of people.

Well I disapprove of the Abrahamic religions' treatment of women as inferior, so obviously I'm judgmental about lifestyle choices. :rolleyes:

Exactly. If you see a woman being beaten, you are intolerant if you intervene. Dur.



:rolleyes:

I dont know where you are getting that from.


If you choose to be submissive because you just like it better that way, hey its your funeral. None of my business.


If you think its natural for one sex to control the other, we got poblems.

Is a woman who feels the need to be in an abusive relationship mentally disturbed in some way? Most psychologist would yes, yes she is. Does that make us intolerant? No.

Just to be a pain... technically, it is natural for one sex to control another. Humans are just the wierd species that decided sexes should be equal.


NOTE: I'm all for tolerance of both sexes, all relgions, all orientations, races, etc, I'm just pointing this out as Devil's Advocate.

How are you sure that part where Christ talks about "believers having a personal connection with God" wasn't changed over a series of edits?

Because I have a personal connection with God.

And please define what you mean by "sure". Are we talking 100% knowledge type sure?

At what point does one consider a verse to be true and from the mouth of god?

No verse is "from the mouth of god", not directly. It was all written by human beings. Human beings can be inspired by God, but that inspiration is always filtered through our fallibilities.


So you agree with ignore everything written for a society that existed thousands of years ago?

Once again, great! Christians, throw out your bibles, they don't mean anything.

When you're willing to actually have a polite conversation and read what is written, instead of whatever you're looking for, let me know.


Ehh, just adds to why I think the religion is false.

You think the religion is false because it wasn't codified immediately?

I suppose every possible philosophical outlook must be false as well, then.

Also, any religious or philosophical precepts you have determined for your own life are false, unless you wrote them down and codified them immediately.

Well I disapprove of the Abrahamic religions' treatment of women as inferior, so obviously I'm judgmental about lifestyle choices. :rolleyes:

Exactly. If you see a woman being beaten, you are intolerant if you intervene. Dur.



:rolleyes:

strawman. strawman.

and I asked about people who do not make a decision to be in a sub/dom relationship based on gender, and you said it was "irrational" and therefore bad.

what if a man decides to be submissive? why would anyone feel the need to be abused? do relationships you wouldn't enter into automatically equal abuse?

Most of the people that go for Dom/Sub relationships* don't base it on gender they base it on what they enjoy.


* At least the ones I know

what if a man decides to be submissive? why would anyone feel the need to be abused?

Again, his funeral. If hes choosing too, good for him, whatever makes him happy. If he thinks its natural and inherant for men to be inferior, hes got issues.

do relationships you wouldn't enter into automatically equal abuse?

See, now your putting words in my mouth. There are women out there who need to be in physically or emotionally abusive relationships. Psychologists would say there is something psychologicaly wrong with them. So would I.

Liking to get smacked around in the bedroom is different from subconsciencely seeking out men who will beat you because you view it as a sign of strength.

Most of the people that go for Dom/Sub relationships* don't base it on gender they base it on what they enjoy.


* At least the ones I know

so are you okay with that?

No, I just don't see why anyone would think that they are incapable of dealing with someone else as an equal, especially not based on something as arbitrary as gender differences.

What makes you think that a woman (or man) who chooses to be submissive sees herself as incapable of being equal?

so are you okay with that?

Thats what we're getting at. Its a choice, which is fine.


It is not a belief that its natural and inherant for one gender to be better than the other. That is not fine.

Liking to get smacked around in the bedroom is different from subconsciencely seeking out men who will beat you because you view it as a sign of strength.
so is your argument that Christian women seek out men who will beat them?

strawman. strawman.

That is exactly what you based your assumption about my being opposed to alternative lifestyles on, so no, it is not a strawman.
It is not my fault if you have become to narrow minded to see what I have said clearly. I really had hoped for better from you Smunkee, I certainly know from past experience that you are capable of it.

I think you are naive. There is a lot of grey area between kinky role play and actual abuse, a huge consensual grey area.

I might be naive, but I don't care. I feel that the brightline between role play and actual abuse is the line between a non-coercive/manipulative relationship and a coercive and manipulative relationship.

so is your argument that Christian women seek out men who will beat them?

Jesus Christ now I know youre being willfully ignorant. I never said that. I never implied that.


The whole abuse thing is an example. Its not religious specific.

I can see why one family would choose that, but why a whole community? Do they all band together or something?

..they might be bound by strong ties...

Thats what we're getting at. Its a choice, which is fine.
so is religion. so is who you marry. so is what kind of relationship you have.
It is not a belief that its natural and inherant for one gender to be better than the other. That is not fine.
why not? because you don't agree? I know many Christians who see male and female as equal, I know very few that see it any other way. I know many Christians who choose to be in a sub/dom relationship, even while believing men and women are equal.

That is exactly what you based your assumption about my being opposed to alternative lifestyles on, so no, it is not a strawman.
It is not my fault if you have become to narrow minded to see what I have said clearly. I really had hoped for better from you Smunkee, I certainly know from past experience that you are capable of it.
you yourself said, that people who do not make decisions you think are rational are making bad decisions, therefore life choices that you personally would not make are bad. it sounds intolerant.

Jesus Christ now I know youre being willfully ignorant. I never said that. I never implied that.


The whole abuse thing is an example. Its not religious specific.

so, why are you bringing it up? I was asking for clarification.

why not? because you don't agree?

How about because its bloody stupid to think one gender is inherantly inferior to the other? If you think that, you have issues, and Im not backing down from that.

I know many Christians who see male and female as equal, I know very few that see it any other way. I know many Christians who choose to be in a sub/dom relationship, even while believing men and women are equal.

Great, good for them. As long as they dont believe one gender is inherantly inferior, and its the natural order for one to submit for one to the other we have no issues.

Why would any woman decide to become christian?
Most of the early converts, at least in Rome, were women, and I think the reason hasn't changed. Christianity, and I say this as a Christian, is a religion for the weak; it promotes meekness, kindness, and the promise that there will be a life better than the awful one you have on earth. Part of the reason Nietzsche argued against Christianity was for this very reason: it said to be "weak" was good.
I notice all of the verses you quoted were from letters. While the letters are not more wrong than other bits of the Bible, they are the ones most colored by the society of the time. It is important to realize that the Bible was not given by an angel in the form of golden plates, it was written by people who lived in a definite time and place.

How about because its bloody stupid to think one gender is inherantly inferior to the other? If you think that, you have issues, and Im not backing down from that.
I agree with you.

Great, good for them. As long as they dont believe one gender is inherantly inferior, and its the natural order for one to submit for one to the other we have no issues.
but if they did, why would it bother you so? lots of people believe stupid things.

you yourself said, that people who do not make decisions you think are rational are making bad decisions, therefore life choices that you personally would not make are bad. it sounds intolerant.

I think there's a difference between making a bad decision and having a bad life.

You think the religion is false because it wasn't codified immediately?

I suppose every possible philosophical outlook must be false as well, then.

Also, any religious or philosophical precepts you have determined for your own life are false, unless you wrote them down and codified them immediately.

What I was saying is I think that Christianity is false. It claims it's the one, true religion when it wasn't even around for most of mankind's existence, nor did it dominate the planet for a good amount of time either. How Christianity could be a religion to those not exposed to it seems odd to me. It's a mythology and ideology that someone doesn't come up with on their own very often. To me, it sounds like it's a creation of man rather than one by the divine.

I find it very interesting that everyone has assumed so far that Jesus preached a sexist and misogynist message. During biblical times, women in Judaic society were treated as property, like their Roman sisters. But Jesus did not treat women that way in the Gospels. In fact, he basically treted women as equals.

Here is a short and clear essay describing Jesus' behaviour to women in the Gospels:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/cfe_bibl.htm

Perhpas some women choose to be Christian because Jesus strove to overturn those very laws and cultural norms that are listed in the OP.

It makes no sense to me to adhere to a religion that promotes bigotry under the pretense ignoring some of bad parts of the Bible will make things all better.

That's just it. I don't adhere to a religion that promotes bigotry. In fact, bigotry is antithetical to my religious beliefs.

Without the bible, how do you define Christ?

Scripture (not necessarily just the canonized texts) is a starting point. But it is the personal connection with God that is really the defining factor.

Without the bible how do you define the 10 commandments or any other major tenet of the religion?

How do you define your own moral decisions?

The only real difference I see between what a believer does and what an atheist does in determining a moral compass is that a believer includes God in that process.

I'm sorry, it just seems very odd to define Christianity completely outside of the core framework that created it.

Once again, you are claiming that something put together centuries after the fact is the "core framework" and you leave me wondering why you are the arbiter of what the "core framework" of a religion is.

Unless you have started a religion, you don't get to decide what the "core framework" is.

but if they did, why would it bother you so? lots of people believe stupid things.

And I feel sorry for them and try to end those stupid beliefs.

That's just it. I don't adhere to a religion that promotes bigotry. In fact, bigotry is antithetical to my religious beliefs.

...

Scripture (not necessarily just the canonized texts) is a starting point. But it is the personal connection with God that is really the defining factor.



Do you consider yourself a Christian specifically? If so, why Christian and not any other belief system? Why believe in Christ? Why not just one god instead of a trinity? Etc etc.

I'd have to go with yes.

Then(assuming they believed in these things) I can't see why women wouldn't want to be Christian.

What I was saying is I think that Christianity is false.

....and you claimed that one of the reasons is that it went centuries without a codified text.

It claims it's the one, true religion when it wasn't even around for most of mankind's existence, nor did it dominate the planet for a good amount of time either. How Christianity could be a religion to those not exposed to it seems odd to me. It's a mythology and ideology that someone doesn't come up with on their own very often. To me, it sounds like it's a creation of man rather than one by the divine.

Interesting. You seem pretty convinced that the definition of Christianity you have in your head is the "one true" definition of Christianity and that anyone who doesn't adhere to your particular version of Christianity is somehow doing it wrong. Sounds rather similar to what you're complaining about here.

I do wonder, though, hos does a religion claim anything? Perhaps you mean that some Christians make that claim? Do you know for certain that you understand what they mean by it?

Do you consider yourself a Christian specifically?

Yes.

If so, why Christian and not any other belief system?

If we've got to put a label on it, that's the best one to use. I look for inspiration in many belief systems. I don't think any codified religion or denomination or, in fact, any human being actually has it all right. But the message of Christ is at the core.

Why believe in Christ?

Why not?

The question is a bit tongue-in-cheek, but not completely. It fits in with the guidance I believe I get from God.

Why not just one god instead of a trinity? Etc etc.

The trinity is one god.

But I really don't bother getting bogged down in the specifics of how God is put together. I think the Church as an organization spent far too much time arguing over logistics and far too little questioning themselves, forming their own relationships with God, and discovering how best to live their lives.

And I feel sorry for them and try to end those stupid beliefs.
so I suppose since you think this is right and good of you, that you applaud missionaries who are out trying to do the same thing for the same reasons?
I think there's a difference between making a bad decision and having a bad life.
and if there is? being intolerant of someone else's lifestyle choices while expecting them to be tolerant of yours, is hypocritical? no?

Why would any woman decide to become christian?

Stupidity. Next question!

But at no point does it say that the man needs to shut up and have his thinking done for him by a woman, which is what it does say about women.

So there, Baldy... ;)

ALL people are equal in Christ... Women or Men, Servant or Master... Equal in Christ.

Galatians 3:25-28
But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Do we all have the same equality on Earth? I think not. The poor are enslaved by their poverty, oppressors are enslaved by their excessive fervor for material rewards etc., none of us have been dealt the same cards.

Women are in charge of the household, not men. 1 Timothy 5:14, So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, manage their households.


A young man on his wedding day went to his grandfather for advice, wanting a long successful marriage like his grandfather had with his grandmother, and he asked him “Grandpa, what is the secret to a long happy marriage?”

And the Grandfather said, “As you know from the scripture son, a man is the master of his own household, and I tell you it’s true, but the secret is to rule your household wisely. Not to abuse your position over little things that would lead to bickering and unhappiness for your wife, but to save your authority for the important things only. Let your wife choose the little things and she will be happy and she will make you happy too. So when it comes to what house you should live it, let her pick it, it’s not important. And let her decide what church you should go to, let her pick one she’s comfortable in and it will be good for you too, when it comes to how many children you should have and where they should go to school, let her decide because you can decide the important things, let her decide where you should go on vacation and when it comes to your career or where you should work, let her tell you what she expects and you can save your authority for the important decisions that need to be made and you can put your foot down for them.”

Then the young man said, “Um, okay Grandpa, but tell me, if my wife is to decide all those things, what are the important decisions in life that I will have to decide on with the authority of the Man of he house?”

And the Grandfather thought for a moment and then said, “I don’t know boy, I haven’t come across any yet.”

:p

A young man on his wedding day went to his grandfather for advice, wanting a long successful marriage like his grandfather had with his grandmother, and he asked him “Grandpa, what is the secret to a long happy marriage?”

And the Grandfather said, “As you know from the scripture son, a man is the master of his own household, and I tell you it’s true, but the secret is to rule your household wisely. Not to abuse your position over little things that would lead to bickering and unhappiness for your wife, but to save your authority for the important things only. Let your wife choose the little things and she will be happy and she will make you happy too. So when it comes to what house you should live it, let her pick it, it’s not important. And let her decide what church you should go to, let her pick one she’s comfortable in and it will be good for you too, when it comes to how many children you should have and where they should go to school, let her decide because you can decide the important things, let her decide where you should go on vacation and when it comes to your career or where you should work, let her tell you what she expects and you can save your authority for the important decisions that need to be made and you can put your foot down for them.”

Then the young man said, “Um, okay Grandpa, but tell me, if my wife is to decide all those things, what are the important decisions in life that I will have to decide on with the authority of the Man of he house?”

And the Grandfather thought for a moment and then said, “I don’t know boy, I haven’t come across any yet.”

:p

LMAO

so are you okay with that?

Yes, if they have taken those roles because it is what they enjoy and not because they are sexist idiots; now since my experience is that they are not, I run on the assumption that it is true for all. If I was to encounter ones who do it for sexist (or other bigotted reasons) then no I wouldn't be ok with it.

Yes, if they have taken those roles because it is what they enjoy and not because they are sexist idiots; now since my experience is that they are not, I run on the assumption that it is true for all. If I was to encounter ones who do it for sexist (or other bigotted reasons) then no I wouldn't be ok with it.

since most of the Christians I know who are in sub/dom relationships aren't doing it for bigoted or sexist reasons, then I can assume they are doing it because they want to....right?

What makes you think that a woman (or man) who chooses to be submissive sees herself as incapable of being equal?

I don't, why would you ask me that? Please try and follow the discussion Dem.

Then(assuming they believed in these things) I can't see why women wouldn't want to be Christian.

The bible?

since most of the Christians I know who are in sub/dom relationships aren't doing it for bigoted or sexist reasons, then I can assume they are doing it because they want to....right?

If they are doing it based on the teachings of the bible then they are doing for sexist reasons.

If they are doing it based on the teachings of the bible then they are doing for sexist reasons.

how so?

So non-Christians cant critisize your religion? Bull.



Wrong, I got my mine from my Bible.



I dont recall the Bible ever telling men to shut up and do what theyre told.



So, wives do what your husbands say. Husbands, please dont beat your wives...still sexist bud.



Ok, so you admit that the Bible says the husband is in charge and is the natural leader. That is very sexist kiddo.



I promise you I am far more Bible literate than you. Ive read it cover to cover. Have you?



Youre the one looking like an idiot.



Theres nothing academic about your arguement.



First thing youve gotten right so far.



Physician, heal thy self



Physician, heal thy self



I see no cold hard facts, just delusional ramblings.


I also like how you ignored my post about stoning non virigins to death. Well done.

Reading the Bible does not constitute understanding it. As a Christian, yes, I have read the Bible cover-to-cover and study it daily. The simple fact is, you cannot get anything out of the Bible because you do not believe in the Bible. Your mind was made up before you even read the book. It would be like me, a devout Christian, writing a non-bias examination of Darwinism.. It simply cannot be done. Seeing as I hold majors in history and theology and I'm currently in grad school, I find it rather funny that you call me "kiddo" and think you know more than in this regard.

View the Bible as sexist if you like, but Christian women themselves would probably disagree with you. I'm not going to debate with you given your very sophomoric response. As for your expected witty retort, don't talk down to me like a child considering I'm two semesters away from getting my M.A.. I never talked to you like a child, I talked to you like an adult and I expect the same decency. My problems with you were as follows:

A. You had a clear bias

B. Your quotes were questionable.. From what I gather, you saw a snippet that adds to your argument but you ignored the context and just ran with it hoping that everyone would just agree with you.

C. "Why would any woman want to be a Christian?" Is not a very fair question considering everyone thinks differently. You asked this question to push an agenda against Christianity with the underlying thesis that Christian men and the Bible are sexist and that all women should be athiests because of that... This also smells of the argument that women only practice Christianity because the "evil patriarchs" throughout history forced them to... A brief study of the Church will show that this is clearly not the case. In fact, studies show that of the millions of Americans who attend church on Sunday, 61% of them are women. So, riddle me this: If more women are going to church than men, who really has more of a problem with the Bible and Christianity in general?

I'd also like to note that since most Christian denominations permit women to hold offices within the Church, I think you would be better suited to attack Islam for its record of sexism. Oh, right, that would be bigotry, so let's hate the Christians instead because somehow, that's not bigotry.

No, you dont understand. Jesus was the Prince of Peace (TM). Anything anti-Christian is just ebil liberal secular progressive communist lies.
They have Christian hippies now?!
It's funny that Jesus and his followers where the evil liberal progressive communist hippies of their time with the opposition against the traditional rules of the conservative Jewish priests and the believers sharing all their possessions with each other yet many Christians today are more like the conservative priests than like the hippie Jesus.

Now it's the Christians that are said to have an outdated conservative view on gender roles, Jesus would be spinning in his grave if he was still in it.
So basically what you're saying is all the parts written for an audience thousands of years ago should be ignored?

OK, christians, feel free to ignore 100% of your holy book.
So basically what you are saying is that any text not written to you personally should be ignored?

What I meant was when you read that God told Jonah to go to Nineveh you should not take it literally and go there yourself. This doesn't mean that there is nothing to learn from the texts though.

But at no point does it say that the man needs to shut up and have his thinking done for him by a woman, which is what it does say about women.


It doesn't say that women don't need to think, or anything like that. Don't insult without supporting. If you're going to make that kind of claim, be specific. If you read earlier in the thread, you'll see the being quiet thing was period specific.

I don't, why would you ask me that? Please try and follow the discussion Dem.

The point she was making is that submission does not nessecarly equal ineqaulity, and since submission is the big complaint your making that christianity does, she's just stuck a rather large thorn in your point.

how so?

Have you read the bible, if not allow me to direct you back to the OP

It doesn't say that women don't need to think, or anything like that. Don't insult without supporting. If you're going to make that kind of claim, be specific. If you read earlier in the thread, you'll see the being quiet thing was period specific.
It does say for women not to question (or at least not in church), no such restriction placed upon men.
The point she was making is that submission does not nessecarly equal ineqaulity, and since submission is the big complaint your making that christianity does, she's just stuck a rather large thorn in your point.
When a clear bias has been presented in the worth and rights of men and women, then it does (in this instance).

It's funny that Jesus and his followers where the evil liberal progressive communist hippies of their time with the opposition against the traditional rules of the conservative Jewish priests and the believers sharing all their possessions with each other yet many Christians today are more like the conservative priests than like the hippie Jesus.

Now it's the Christians that are said to have an outdated conservative view on gender roles, Jesus would be spinning in his grave if he was still in it.

So basically what you are saying is that any text not written to you personally should be ignored?

What I meant was when you read that God told Jonah to go to Nineveh you should not take it literally and go there yourself. This doesn't mean that there is nothing to learn from the texts though.

You were the one that said passages should be ignored because they were written for a different audience, shall I go back and pull up your quote?

The message in context is that women at the time the message was written should behave as was appropriate at that time. The intended audience of a specific letter in the NT was a specific church that existed at that time and not modern Christians 2k years later.

If God would say those things today it would be sexist but if any of the countless modern religious literature is divinely inspired I'm sure it's message is more mature since humanity has matured somewhat and is ready for a more mature message. Humanity wasn't ready for Jesus's message as it was, they killed him. And you expect him to also explain that women should have modern rights like the right to vote in elections, 2k years ago?

Well it is possible that Jesus did intend Mary to be the first pope and Peter got the job only because people couldn't accept a female leader. They also tried to destroy the gospel of Mary because they couldn't accept divinely inspired scripture written by a woman. But that is just speculation.

You were the one that said passages should be ignored because they were written for a different audience, shall I go back and pull up your quote?
What I meant was when you read that God told Jonah to go to Nineveh you should not take it literally and go there yourself. This doesn't mean that there is nothing to learn from the texts though.
I was trying to say "don't take it literally and personally" not "ignore it completely".

I was trying to say "don't take it literally and personally" not "ignore it completely".

But where exactly is the room for interpretation in any of those passages?
It pretty much is take it or leave it.

But where exactly is the room for interpretation in any of those passages?
It pretty much is take it or leave it.
Yes there is no room for interpretation, the letters are clearly divinely inspired advice on specific situations the specific churches the letters where written to where facing in the societies they where located in at the time the letters where written.

It is obviously not advice to you personally but it is possible that you could find some useful wisdom in the letters. Just make sure you research the situation around the letters so you can understand the meaning of the letters in relation to the context around them. Also understand the differences between that situation and your situation as a divinely inspired letter to you would have contained different advice because your situation is different.

Yes there is no room for interpretation, the letters are clearly divinely inspired advice on specific situations the specific churches the letters where written to where facing in the societies they where located in at the time the letters where written.

It is obviously not advice to you personally but it is possible that you could find some useful wisdom in the letters. Just make sure you research the situation around the letters so you can understand the meaning of the letters in relation to the context around them. Also understand the differences between that situation and your situation as a divinely inspired letter to you would have contained different advice because your situation is different.

And what would be the useful wisdom behind?
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

That's just it. I don't adhere to a religion that promotes bigotry. In fact, bigotry is antithetical to my religious beliefs.

Then you are not a christian...

Then you are not a christian...

no true scotsman

no true scotsman

its not a no true scotsman, she said she doesn't adhere to a religion which promotes bigotry, christianity promotes bigotry, thusly she isn't an adherent of christianity.

its not a no true scotsman, she said she doesn't adhere to a religion which promotes bigotry, christianity promotes bigotry, thusly she isn't an adherent of christianity.

NO TRUE SCOTSMAN.

NO TRUE SCOTSMAN.

Obviously you don't know what "No true Scotsman" is...

My statement is not a fallacy of equivocation.

Obviously you don't know what "No true Scotsman" is...

My statement is not a fallacy of equivocation.
No, I'd say she hit it squarely on the head.

No, I'd say she hit it squarely on the head.

Then show me where the fallacy is...

She said she doesn't adhere to a religion which promotes bigotry
Christianity promotes bigotry
Thusly she isn't an adherent of christianity.

Obviously you don't know what "No true Scotsman" is...

My statement is not a fallacy of equivocation.

your statement is a fallacy of saying that ALL christians must believe what you have decided that they believe. that is "no true scotsman"

Then show me where the fallacy is...
Christianity promotes bigotry.
Here.
See, true christianity promotes tolerance. Hence, anything that promotes bigotry can't be christian.
Isn't it fun?

your statement is a fallacy of saying that ALL christians must believe what you have decided that they believe. that is "no true scotsman"

I said nothing of the sort, you might want to work on your reading comprehension Ashmoria.

Here.
See, true christianity promotes tolerance. Hence, anything that promotes bigotry can't be christian.
Isn't it fun?

Can you provide proof for your claim?
I can and have for mine.

its not a no true scotsman, she said she doesn't adhere to a religion which promotes bigotry, christianity promotes bigotry, thusly she isn't an adherent of christianity.

I said nothing of the sort, you might want to work on your reading comprehension Ashmoria.

i guess you were writing in some kind of code that i dont understand.

i guess you were writing in some kind of code that i dont understand.

apparently

And what would be the useful wisdom behind?
Someone in here said the usefulness for the recipients of the letter was that they could conduct their sermons without being interrupted by the women in the back so perhaps "It's better to ask later than to interrupt the whole thing for everyone in a cinema or wherever there are a lot of people.".

Also my life is not such that every single sentence of every book in the Bible applies to it so I can't go through the Bible from cover to cover and apply every verse on it's own to my life. It's not hypocritical to pick and choose but because it's neither intended nor possible to follow every single verse.

Can you provide proof for your claim?
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", off the top of my head. The point is, you can find in the Bible proof for both claims and for many others. It just depends what are you looking for.

Then show me where the fallacy is...

She said she doesn't adhere to a religion which promotes bigotry
Christianity promotes bigotry
Thusly she isn't an adherent of christianity.
Right there bud. Oh, I know, I know what you're going to claim, but let me remind you that your central claim that somehow Christianity is this monolithic faith where everyone marches lockstep exists only in your mind as a nice strawman to target.

Right there bud. Oh, I know, I know what you're going to claim, but let me remind you that your central claim that somehow Christianity is this monolithic faith where everyone marches lockstep exists only in your mind as a nice strawman to target.

Talk about strawmen...

Why would any woman decide to become christian?

Who knows. Maybe the reason a woman becomes a Christian could lay in her society, her family or in an inherent desire to worship or fear.

Talk about strawmen...
Oh? I've read through this thread and any time someone has mentioned how and why there are different views in Christanity you've gone off about how they are really not Christains then because of X.

Yeah, strawman, you. With the No True Scotsman you're getting quite a collection. Are you trying for the whole set per chance?

Reading the Bible does not constitute understanding it. As a Christian, yes, I have read the Bible cover-to-cover and study it daily. The simple fact is, you cannot get anything out of the Bible because you do not believe in the Bible. Your mind was made up before you even read the book. It would be like me, a devout Christian, writing a non-bias examination of Darwinism.. It simply cannot be done. Seeing as I hold majors in history and theology and I'm currently in grad school, I find it rather funny that you call me "kiddo" and think you know more than in this regard.


Except, I was a Christian when I read the Bible. No bias. Also a history major too. Going to grad school for Medieval History and getting my PhD in that as well. You know, the Middle Ages, back when your religion of peace and tolerance was perticularially nasty?

View the Bible as sexist if you like, but Christian women themselves would probably disagree with you. I'm not going to debate with you given your very sophomoric response.


Excuse me, my sophmoric response? I dont recall calling you a moron or teling you to get your head out of your ass. You were the one flaming/flame baiting. Get off your high horse and get over yourself.

As for your expected witty retort, don't talk down to me like a child considering I'm two semesters away from getting my M.A.. I never talked to you like a child, I talked to you like an adult and I expect the same decency.

I talked to you like you were a child because you acted like one. I wasnt the one telling you to get your head out of your ass. Physician, heal thy self. Oh, and your academic credentials do not impress me. We're on the same level bud.


A. You had a clear bias


And you dont? Get over it.

B. Your quotes were questionable.. From what I gather, you saw a snippet that adds to your argument but you ignored the context and just ran with it hoping that everyone would just agree with you.

My quotes are all in their context. When they are talking about the law, and the law says to stone a non virigin on her doorstep, thats the context. You cant justify that mysogeny.

C. "Why would any woman want to be a Christian?" Is not a very fair question considering everyone thinks differently. You asked this question to push an agenda against Christianity with the underlying thesis that Christian men and the Bible are sexist and that all women should be athiests because of that... This also smells of the argument that women only practice Christianity because the "evil patriarchs" throughout history forced them to... A brief study of the Church will show that this is clearly not the case.

Wow, youre a bloody awful history student if your denying that people had a say in whether to be Christian or not in the past, especially in regards to women. Or are you talking before Constantine and his lackis picked and choose what to include in the Bible at Nicea? Back before all the pacifist secs that promoted equality (like the gnostics) got exterminated?

In fact, studies show that of the millions of Americans who attend church on Sunday, 61% of them are women. So, riddle me this: If more women are going to church than men, who really has more of a problem with the Bible and Christianity in general?

Probably because they arent working, because you know, according to Christian theology, their place is in the kitchen.

I'd also like to note that since most Christian denominations permit women to hold offices within the Church,

Actually, most secs dont. Only methodists.

I think you would be better suited to attack Islam for its record of sexism. Oh, right, that would be bigotry, so let's hate the Christians instead because somehow, that's not bigotry.

Ill attack Islam. Islam is just as violent. I never denyed that.

Nice try champ.

your statement is a fallacy of saying that ALL christians must believe what you have decided that they believe. that is "no true scotsman"

No, he didnt say all Christians are bigots, he said the religion promotes bigotry.


The followers are different from the theology.

Because he's a bastard ;)Heresy!!!

*Ties to a stake, pour gasoline around feet, and places a bunch of logs to prolong the flame.*

Does the heretic have any last words?

your not inteperating it wrong, they did say that , but remember the peolpe who said that lived 2000 years ago, back then almost no one had any rights, thats why peolpe hates Jesus coz he talked about freedom and common sence, he didnt make one set of rules for men and another for women(at the time a man could cheat on his wife but if she cheated on him , she was stoned to death, when he saw this sort of stuff he stoped it and helped the women)

the men that made these rules wernt bad peolpe that we just barlt educated fisher men, who tuck after the rules taght to them by their fathers. they still gave moral lessons about freedom,justice and the cristian way , they wer even suported by many of jesus followers who wer women,mary madaline for instance worked with his follwers to spred the news,(which was basicy talking in public about faith, wich acording to the prevous statment should hav been imoral)

basicly wat i mean is dont judge a entire religion, wich has been evolving for over two thosand years on the statemants of a few simpletons who created the church, they got a lot of it right but they just followed wat they wer taught.

women should become chrisian as long as there not dumb enoth to let some bigert tell them that there not allowed to take part in church, as thay said in genisis- adam(man) was made from dust, eve(womon) was made from his rib, so acording to christianity both adam and eve man and womon are made of the same dust , and as they are the same acording to GOD , dont let som mer saint say that ur anything less then equal - if you are that weak then you diserve rubish like that.

Heresy!!!

*Ties to a stake, pour gasoline around feet, and places a bunch of logs to prolong the flame.*

Does the heretic have any last words?

Fire extinguisher! haha, Mad hatters saves the day!

Fire extinguisher! haha, Mad hatters saves the day!

Plus, he has the Devil´s Advocate herself to defend him. LOL!:D

No, he didnt say all Christians are bigots, he said the religion promotes bigotry.


The followers are different from the theology.

he said "its not a no true scotsman, she said she doesn't adhere to a religion which promotes bigotry, christianity promotes bigotry, thusly she isn't an adherent of christianity."

does he really know better than she does what she believes? who is he to decide what christians must believe?

Oh? I've read through this thread and any time someone has mentioned how and why there are different views in Christanity you've gone off about how they are really not Christains then because of X.

Yeah, strawman, you. With the No True Scotsman you're getting quite a collection. Are you trying for the whole set per chance?

And where did I say a person wasn't a christian? I've made no statements about people (or christians), simply about christianity, there is a difference you know.

My supposed 'No true Scotsman" contained no fallacy of equivocation, thusly it wasn't one.
Also the only 'strawman' was created by you about me.

You might want to take a look and see what a strawman and no true scotsman are, since you obviously don't know.

Heresy!!!

*Ties to a stake, pour gasoline around feet, and places a bunch of logs to prolong the flame.*

Does the heretic have any last words?

Yes, can I light the fire?

he said "its not a no true scotsman, she said she doesn't adhere to a religion which promotes bigotry, christianity promotes bigotry, thusly she isn't an adherent of christianity."

does he really know better than she does what she believes? who is he to decide what christians must believe?

Declaring you are a Christian and your religion isnt one of intolerance is false. Hes implying that her religion does indeed promote bigotry.

I just read up in a Bible study book that says... At the time the 1st letter to Timothy was written Jewish women where not allowed to learn about religious matters. Paul says that the women should now be allowed to learn about these things but that they are not yet ready to teach as they do not yet have any knowledge due to not being allowed to learn before. In the following verses he also compares Adam coming before Eve to that the men have the knowledge but now it's the women's turn to gain the knowledge too.

Declaring you are a Christian and your religion isnt one of intolerance is false. Hes implying that her religion does indeed promote bigotry.

and where does he get off deciding what her religion does? did she even say what denomination she belongs to, if any?

your not inteperating it wrong, they did say that , but remember the peolpe who said that lived 2000 years ago, back then almost no one had any rights, thats why peolpe hates Jesus coz he talked about freedom and common sence, he didnt make one set of rules for men and another for women(at the time a man could cheat on his wife but if she cheated on him , she was stoned to death, when he saw this sort of stuff he stoped it and helped the women)

the men that made these rules wernt bad peolpe that we just barlt educated fisher men, who tuck after the rules taght to them by their fathers. they still gave moral lessons about freedom,justice and the cristian way , they wer even suported by many of jesus followers who wer women,mary madaline for instance worked with his follwers to spred the news,(which was basicy talking in public about faith, wich acording to the prevous statment should hav been imoral)

basicly wat i mean is dont judge a entire religion, wich has been evolving for over two thosand years on the statemants of a few simpletons who created the church, they got a lot of it right but they just followed wat they wer taught.

women should become chrisian as long as there not dumb enoth to let some bigert tell them that there not allowed to take part in church, as thay said in genisis- adam(man) was made from dust, eve(womon) was made from his rib, so acording to christianity both adam and eve man and womon are made of the same dust , and as they are the same acording to GOD , dont let som mer saint say that ur anything less then equal - if you are that weak then you diserve rubish like that.

Sorry, but I'm still going to judge the religion by its bigotry, just like I judge people based on their bigotry. The religion is flawed from the get go, this does not however, make the adherents of the religion automatically bad.

he said "its not a no true scotsman, she said she doesn't adhere to a religion which promotes bigotry, christianity promotes bigotry, thusly she isn't an adherent of christianity."

does he really know better than she does what she believes? who is he to decide what christians must believe?

Did I say anything about what christians believe?
No, I didn't, I made a statement about what the religion promotes, its not my fault if you can't tell the difference.

and where does he get off deciding what her religion does? did she even say what denomination she belongs to, if any?

What denomination of christianity does not follow the bible, pray tell?

And where did I say a person wasn't a christian? I've made no statements about people (or christians), simply about christianity, there is a difference you know.
Wow... I mean, here we are talking about how you claim Dem isn't a Christain, and you acknowledge this in the next line, and yet you spit out something like the above.

You really have lost it haven't you?

My supposed 'No true Scotsman" contained no fallacy of equivocation, thusly it wasn't one.
Bull. You state that a true Christian believes the Bible (Any time it has been noted about the setting and so on you suddenly charge in and say then all the Bible is to be abandoned so don't even try to say that wasn't what you said. Your meaning is quite clear). Therefore since Dem doesn't follow the Bible literally, she isn't a Christian. That's a No True Scotsman.

Also the only 'strawman' was created by you about me.
I can't believe you've said that with a straight face. You and KoL have filled this thread with nothing but strawmen constructed out of YOUR notion of what Christanity is.

You might want to take a look and see what a strawman and no true scotsman are, since you obviously don't know.
I'd say the same to you. You might also rant to really look at the fact that the relgion you are trying to 'educate' us on due to its bad beliefs doesn't exist for the majority.

Oh, I know, I know, it's so much easier to agrue against that then the actual reality.

Wow... I mean, here we are talking about how you claim Dem isn't a Christain, and you acknowledge this in the next line, and yet you spit out something like the above.

Let's see the quote where I said that...

You really have lost it haven't you?

Nope

Bull. You state that a true Christian believes the Bible (Any time it has been noted about the setting and so on you suddenly charge in and say then all the Bible is to be abandoned so don't even try to say that wasn't what you said. Your meaning is quite clear). Therefore since Dem doesn't follow the Bible literally, she isn't a Christian. That's a No True Scotsman.

Once again I never said that...

I can't believe you've said that with a straight face. You and KoL have filled this thread with nothing but strawmen constructed out of YOUR notion of what Christanity is.

I provided excerpts from the bible which show its bigotry, christianity is based on the bible. How then is stating that christianity promotes bigotry a strawman?

I'd say the same to you. You might also rant to really look at the fact that the relgion you are trying to 'educate' us on due to its bad beliefs doesn't exist for the majority.

Yes it does, the majority of christians have the sense to realize that its not good, so do not follow those portions. That doesn't change the fact that the religion (not its followers) promotes bigotry.

Oh, I know, I know, it's so much easier to agrue against that then the actual reality.

I'll point you to this:
What denomination of christianity does not follow the bible, pray tell?

What denomination of christianity does not follow the bible, pray tell?

if they have to follow the bible as you tell them to, i guess pretty much none.

if they have to follow the bible as you tell them to, i guess pretty much none.

Just answer the question...

What denomination of christianity does not consider the bible to be its holy book?

Just answer the question...

What denomination of christianity does not consider the bible to be its holy book?

oh am i supposed to ignore your point? that you have decided just what their interpretation, emphasis and reliance on the bible must be if they are to be considered christians?

good christian men and women in this thread have told you how they deal with the passages you posted that you have a huge problem with. you do not get to decide who is and who is not a real christian and what their interpretations must be.

it is legitimate to ask the question. it is legitimate to press the answerer as to whether or not that is a good way to deal with the question. it is NOT legitimate to insist that there is no good way to deal with it and that the only way to be a christian is to believe as you say they must.

oh am i supposed to ignore your point? that you have decided just what their interpretation, emphasis and reliance on the bible must be if they are to be considered christians?

good christian men and women in this thread have told you how they deal with the passages you posted that you have a huge problem with. you do not get to decide who is and who is not a real christian and what their interpretations must be.

it is legitimate to ask the question. it is legitimate to press the answerer as to whether or not that is a good way to deal with the question. it is NOT legitimate to insist that there is no good way to deal with it and that the only way to be a christian is to believe as you say they must.

And what strawman have you set up as my point, since you obviously don't understand what my point actually is.

And what strawman have you set up as my point, since you obviously don't understand what my point actually is.

oh really? what is your actual point?

oh really? what is your actual point?

First lets hear what you think my point is, since I've actually already stated in this thread what my point is.

Why would any woman decide to become christian?

Yeah, because obviously all those rules are still followed. *rolls eyes* we also walk ten steps behind our husbands and are barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen...


NOT.

Yeah, because obviously all those rules are still followed. *rolls eyes* we also walk ten steps behind our husbands and are barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen...


NOT.

It shows the inherent bias of the religion...

And yes I know that a majority of christians do not follow those rules.

That doesn't mean that they have to remain christian, my wife was brought up roman catholic, now she isn't christian at all.
My point being, whether they were brought up christian or not, it is still a choice.

Is belief really a choice? Can you truly just choose to believe something you find untrue?

I mean I cant swallow the whole Christian god thing and no amount of concious thought is going to just change that. I could take steps and put myself to slowly change that ... and I could choose to practice. But the belief does not seem to be simply a situation of what you wish

That's Catholicism. That ritual is part of Holy Communion (Mass), and I believe is part of the Eucharist.

Catholics read the Bible.

Is belief really a choice? Can you truly just choose to believe something you find untrue?

I mean I cant swallow the whole Christian god thing and no amount of concious thought is going to just change that. I could take steps and put myself to slowly change that ... and I could choose to practice. But the belief does not seem to be simply a situation of what you wish

It's not necessarily a conscious choice...

Yep. And it's kind of a slap in the face of their god, too, to say that he was wrong about those bits of the bible. I mean, after all, it is the word of god right? And if god is infallible why did he foul up writing his own damn book? Sheesh..

Wow, and I thought that such reasonable and logical people would understand that incorporal entities cannot use pen and parchment... and like any message, once it's been told to one person and passed along to everyone in the group, everyone's biases and interpretation changes the meaning of the message.

Try playing "telephone" some time.

First lets hear what you think my point is, since I've actually already stated in this thread what my point is.

oh for god's sake you have already told me that i dont know what you point is.

post it or go home.

Wow, and I thought that such reasonable and logical people would understand that incorporal entities cannot use pen and parchment... and like any message, once it's been told to one person and passed along to everyone in the group, everyone's biases and interpretation changes the meaning of the message.

Try playing "telephone" some time.

Youd think that if God was all powerful hed at least be literate....

As an aside, I find it interesting that Jesus never wrote anything of his own down...

Wow, and I thought that such reasonable and logical people would understand that incorporal entities cannot use pen and parchment... and like any message, once it's been told to one person and passed along to everyone in the group, everyone's biases and interpretation changes the meaning of the message.

Try playing "telephone" some time.

Amen to that, Kat. Once the word of mouth passes from person to person, the original message is corrupted.

Wow, and I thought that such reasonable and logical people would understand that incorporal entities cannot use pen and parchment... and like any message, once it's been told to one person and passed along to everyone in the group, everyone's biases and interpretation changes the meaning of the message.

Try playing "telephone" some time.

Then you get into the old argument of omnipotents of god ... he is clearly able to effect this world (at least according to the bible) so he SHOULD be able to use pen and parchment

oh for god's sake you have already told me that i dont know what you point is.

post it or go home.

Getting tired of constructing strawmen?


My point is that christianity, is a flawed intolerant religion...
A statement which says nothing about christians, I have no problem with most christians, only those that use bigoted passages to justify their own bigotry.

Amen to that, Kat. Once the word of mouth passes from person to person, the original message is corrupted.

Which is a part of my problem with christianity (and for that matter every other organized religion that I know anything about).

Of course you can be a Christian...but it still raises serious logical consistencies issues. I mean, after all, we all sin according to scripture. So it seems natural to me that Christians rejecting the rigid definition in the bible are just sinning, right?
Where in the Bible does it say people even have to read the Bible? Until the past two to two and a half centuries, most people could not read, and laymen were discouraged if not forbidden to read the Bible. Might disagree with it or misinterpret it, dontchaknow.

Which is a part of my problem with christianity (and for that matter every other organized religion that I know anything about).

Jesus had a good idea. The problem is that men constructed a belief system out of it. Sucks.

Getting tired of constructing strawmen?


My point is that christianity, is a flawed intolerant religion...
A statement which says nothing about christians, I have no problem with most christians, only those that use bigoted passages to justify their own bigotry.

Exactly, all I want is for Christians to admit their religion is not this perfect one true religion of peace and tolerance they want to believe it is. That its all about a personal choice to be tolerant and peaceful and their religion has nothing to bloody do with it.

Getting tired of constructing strawmen?


My point is that christianity, is a flawed intolerant religion...
A statement which says nothing about christians, I have no problem with most christians, only those that use bigoted passages to justify their own bigotry.

so there is a difference between christians and the church that is made up of christians?

all religions have flaws. duh. they are human institutions.

does your point have nothing to do with the passages you quoted in the OP?

Jesus had a good idea. The problem is that men constructed a belief system out of it. Sucks.

Exactly, all I want is for Christians to admit their religion is not this perfect one true religion of peace and tolerance they want to believe it is. That its all about a personal choice to be tolerant and peaceful and their religion has nothing to bloody do with it.

Exactly

Fair enough, and from what I do know about them I agree.



Didn't say that, or mean to imply it, christianity is a misogynistic religion though.

That must be why there are women who are ministers, pastors, and elders in the church.

What of Acts 18, where Priscilla explains to Apollos, with her husband Aquilas, about Christ? That's not a woman staying quiet, is it?

How about Romans 16:1?

Romans 16
Personal Greetings
1I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant[a] of the church in Cenchrea. 2I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been a great help to many people, including me. 3Greet Priscilla[b] and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus. 4They risked their lives for me. Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them. 5Greet also the church that meets at their house. Greet my dear friend Epenetus, who was the first convert to Christ in the province of Asia. 6Greet Mary, who worked very hard for you. 7Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was. 8Greet Ampliatus, whom I love in the Lord. 9Greet Urbanus, our fellow worker in Christ, and my dear friend Stachys. 10Greet Apelles, tested and approved in Christ. Greet those who belong to the household of Aristobulus. 11Greet Herodion, my relative. Greet those in the household of Narcissus who are in the Lord. 12Greet Tryphena and Tryphosa, those women who work hard in the Lord. Greet my dear friend Persis, another woman who has worked very hard in the Lord. 13Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and his mother, who has been a mother to me, too. 14Greet Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas and the brothers with them. 15Greet Philologus, Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas and all the saints with them. 16Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ send greetings.

Wow, calling them workers in Christ. Do you think they might have been telling others about it -- in other words, not being silent?

In Matthew 28, the revelation that Jesus was risen was NOT given to the Apostles, was it -- it was given to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. They're told to pass the word. Wow. No silence there either.

Exactly, all I want is for Christians to admit their religion is not this perfect one true religion of peace and tolerance they want to believe it is. That its all about a personal choice to be tolerant and peaceful and their religion has nothing to bloody do with it.

some christian denominations are dedicated to peace and tolerance. dont they count or is christianity only to be judged by the worst things you can find in any denomination?

That must be why there are women who are ministers, pastors, and elders in the church.

But the sects that allow such are actually the minority. Im pretty sure its just methodists, maybe one or two others have jumped on the idea, but most havent.

some christian denominations are dedicated to peace and tolerance. dont they count or is christianity only to be judged by the worst things you can find in any denomination?

Those denominations need to admit that their religion they follow is imperfect and not inherantly peaceful and tolerant, and in order to make it such they have to willingly ignore certian passages and cherry pick others.

That must be why there are women who are ministers, pastors, and elders in the church.

Christianity is based on the bible, yes?

That must be why there are women who are ministers, pastors, and elders in the church.

To a much lesser extent then men ... and even rarer in the largest sect.

Those denominations need to admit that their religion they follow is imperfect and not inherantly peaceful and tolerant, and in order to make it such they have to willingly ignore certian passages and cherry pick others.

Shhhhh! you're not supposed to point out that little detail... :rolleyes:

Shhhhh! you're not supposed to point out that little detail... :rolleyes:

They´ve been doing that, in Christianity at least, since AD 300+. We owe it to Constantine.;)

Shhhhh! you're not supposed to point out that little detail... :rolleyes:

I would seriously not have a beef with Christians (the people) if they just bloody admitted that.