NationStates Jolt Archive

Christianity is based on the bible, yes?

Overall yes ... but each sect tends to have a different weight placed on some parts rather then others ... or different interpretations. There are many sects where what she says is true ... some not so much

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

Ask a Christian if his religion is perfect.


Also, Constantine picked the books that would best allow him to unite Rome religiously and give him the most power. I think most would admit that.


Hell, Constantine and his lackies are the reason for the bad parts being in the Bible, they picked what books were in it!:p

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.

really?

denominations that are dedicated to peace and tolerance need to admit that they are NOT?

really?

the bible is not christianity. it is not god. people interpret it. yeah that does involve understanding that the injunction of women to not speak in church isnt relevant to today. a tiny minority of christians do not allow women to speak in church. a tiny minority insist that they must submit to their husbands. are you saying that the majority of christians do not know what they believe?

really?

denominations that are dedicated to peace and tolerance need to admit that they are NOT?

really?

the bible is not christianity. it is not god. people interpret it. yeah that does involve understanding that the injunction of women to not speak in church isnt relevant to today. a tiny minority of christians do not allow women to speak in church. a tiny minority insist that they must submit to their husbands. are you saying that the majority of christians do not know what they believe?



No, they need to admit that it is them as a people that make them dedicated to peace and tolerance, and their religion has nothing to do with it. They need to admit their religion has nothing to do with their peace and love, that in order to achieve their peace and love they need to cherry pick from the Bible, making Christianity an imperfect religion.


I cant decid if youre really missing the point, or if you just like burning strawmen.



And no, the Christians who believe a woman is to submit to her husband are not a tiny minority. Not at all.

really?

denominations that are dedicated to peace and tolerance need to admit that they are NOT?

They need to admit that christianity is not perfect

the bible is not christianity. it is not god. people interpret it. yeah that does involve understanding that the injunction of women to not speak in church isnt relevant to today. a tiny minority of christians do not allow women to speak in church. a tiny minority insist that they must submit to their husbands. are you saying that the majority of christians do not know what they believe?

The bible is the basis of christianity, it is the word of god.
I'm saying that a majority of christians do not know what their beliefs are based off, or choose to ignore the basis.

No, they need to admit that it is them as a people that make them dedicated to peace and tolerance, and their religion has nothing to do with it. They need to admit their religion has nothing to do with their peace and love, that in order to achieve their peace and love they need to cherry pick from the Bible, making Christianity an imperfect religion.


I cant decid if youre really missing the point, or if you just like burning strawmen.



And no, the Christians who believe a woman is to submit to her husband are not a tiny minority. Not at all.

I'd go with she's in the mood for burning strawmen tonight.

No, they need to admit that it is them as a people that make them dedicated to peace and tolerance, and their religion has nothing to do with it. They need to admit their religion has nothing to do with their peace and love, that in order to achieve their peace and love they need to cherry pick from the Bible, making Christianity an imperfect religion.


I cant decid if youre really missing the point, or if you just like burning strawmen.



And no, the Christians who believe a woman is to submit to her husband are not a tiny minority. Not at all.

christians ARE christianity.

christians ARE christianity.

That has what to do with what I said? I said Christianity isnt inherantly a perfect religion of peace and tolerance and I just want Christians to admit it isnt an inherantly perfect religion of peace...


I never said Christianity wasnt made of up Christians...


You usually do so well, whats going on tonight hun?

Ask a Christian if his religion is perfect.


Also, Constantine picked the books that would best allow him to unite Rome religiously and give him the most power. I think most would admit that.


Hell, Constantine and his lackies are the reason for the bad parts being in the Bible, they picked what books were in it!:p

Oh, I know that. I have always seen this choosing from Constantine and the Nicea Council of certain books for the canon we have presently as a huge mistake. They chose the passages that could combine Christianity with the religion of the Soles Invictus. It was a huge ¨excuse¨ of pagan-Chirstian worship. Lame, when you come to it.

I'd go with she's in the mood for burning strawmen tonight.

if i have used a strawman you need to point it out and tell me how what i responded to is not what you said.

That has what to do with what I said? I said Christianity isnt inherantly a perfect religion of peace and tolerance and I just want Christians to admit it isnt an inherantly perfect religion of peace...


I never said Christianity wasnt made of up Christians...


You usually do so well, whats going on tonight hun?

As I said, she's in the mood to burn strawmen. :p

if i have used a strawman you need to point it out and tell me how what i responded to is not what you said.

I have, on a number of occaisons.

That has what to do with what I said? I said Christianity isnt inherantly a perfect religion of peace and tolerance and I just want Christians to admit it isnt an inherantly perfect religion of peace...


I never said Christianity wasnt made of up Christians...


You usually do so well, whats going on tonight hun?

let me write it again

christians ARE christianity.

if christians are peaceful and tolerant then at least some of christianity is peaceful and tolerant.

I have, on a number of occaisons.

well then why dont you start with the most recent.

let me write it again

christians ARE christianity.

if christians are peaceful and tolerant then at least some of christianity is peaceful and tolerant.

Ah, but there is the contradiction. The belief in peace and tolerance is not inherant. They need to cherry pick. I just want them to admit that their religion is not inherantly perfect and that in order for it to be all about love and tolerance they have to willfully ignore parts. I dont understand whats so hard to understand about that...

Ah, but there is the contradiction. The belief in peace and tolerance is not inherant. They need to cherry pick. I just want them to admit that their religion is not inherantly perfect and that in order for it to be all about love and tolerance they have to willfully ignore parts. I dont understand whats so hard to understand about that...

Easy, Christians don´t want to admit to the world that they´ve been wrong for the better part of 2 millennia.;)

Ah, but there is the contradiction. The belief in peace and tolerance is not inherant. They need to cherry pick. I just want them to admit that their religion is not inherantly perfect and that in order for it to be all about love and tolerance they have to willfully ignore parts. I dont understand whats so hard to understand about that...

no.

you are elevating the bible to something that it isnt. it is a document that always has to be interpreted. that is what christians do. the only thing inherent in christianity is the belief in jesus christ. the rest varies from age to age and denomination to denomination.

maybe you should ask a few actual christians the simple question "is your religion perfect" and report back to us what responses you get.

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.

But they ARE Christians. And you are tarring the whole of Christianity with that brush of yours.

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

And it's not just Methodists.

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

Source, please.

no.

you are elevating the bible to something that it isnt. it is a document that always has to be interpreted. that is what christians do. the only thing inherent in christianity is the belief in jesus christ. the rest varies from age to age and denomination to denomination.

maybe you should ask a few actual christians the simple question "is your religion perfect" and report back to us what responses you get.

I have. They all say it is.


Thats the problem. Christians believe their religion is inherantly, without any modification, a religion that promotes peace, tolerance, and understanding. Thats a fucking lie. They believe they have scriptural justification for ignoring the really nasty parts (like the OT) which frankly they dont (Jesus says the OT still is valid).

When someone believes that everyone is equal and wants peace, it has nothing to do with their imaginary friend gawd, and everything to do with them just being good people. Theyd believe that with or without Jesus. Thats my point. Christianity contributes nothing to that belief.

Its like when someone who hates the world and is always depressed is really into Nietzsche. Theyd feel that way anyway, they just have some philisophical justification for it. The difference is you dont need to cherry pick Nietzsche and hes at least consistant.

Source, please.

*sigh*

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

I have. They all say it is.


Thats the problem. Christians believe their religion is inherantly, without any modification, a religion that promotes peace, tolerance, and understanding. Thats a fucking lie. They believe they have scriptural justification for ignoring the really nasty parts (like the OT) which frankly they dont (Jesus says the OT still is valid).

When someone believes that everyone is equal and wants peace, it has nothing to do with their imaginary friend gawd, and everything to do with them just being good people. Theyd believe that with or without Jesus. Thats my point. Christianity contributes nothing to that belief.

Its like when someone who hates the world and is always depressed is really into Nietzsche. Theyd feel that way anyway, they just have some philisophical justification for it. The difference is you dont need to cherry pick Nietzsche and hes at least consistant.

you are again elevating the bible to something it isnt. its not god. its not necessary to believe everything in the bible to be a christian. to be a christian all one has to believe in is jesus.

as i said before, its legitimate to ask the question. what is not legitimate is to deny the answer you get.

maybe you should broaden your circle of christians. or maybe you arent asking the simple question "is your religion pefect"

well then why dont you start with the most recent.

I'm doing even better, I have pulled up all your posts where you have tried to misrepresent my position

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?
and where does he get off deciding what her religion does? did she even say what denomination she belongs to, if any?
if they have to follow the bible as you tell them to, i guess pretty much none.
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.

But they ARE Christians. And you are tarring the whole of Christianity with that brush of yours.

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

And it's not just Methodists.

That article doesnt really help your case...

It is obvious that, early in the 21st century, the largest institutions in North America which will still deny equal rights to women are among conservative Christian denominations: Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and many denominations within Protestantism, like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Southern Baptist Convention. These groups interpret Bible passages as requiring women and men to follow defined, sexually determined roles. In opposite-sex marriage, for example, men are to lead and women are to be submissive to their husbands. In religion institutions women are not to be placed in a position of authority over men. A logical result of these beliefs is that women are not to be considered for ordination. There is no wiggle room here, unless their theologians take a different approach to biblical interpretation.

As gender discrimination becomes as abhorrent to the public as racism, these denominations may well be under increased pressure to conform to the non-sexist secular standard. Faith groups will be expected to evaluate candidates for ordination on the basis of the candidates knowledge, sense of calling from God, personality, commitment, ability, etc -- but not on the basis of gender. Gender discrimination will be viewed by many as a millstone around the necks of conservative denominations. It will present a serious barrier to the evangelization of non-Christians. Whenever religious institutions are perceived by the general public as operating to a lower ethical standard than the rest of society, religious conversion becomes more difficult to achieve.



:confused:

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?

The OP points out some of the intolerance inherent in christianity.

missed this the first time around

you are again elevating the bible to something it isnt. its not god. its not necessary to believe everything in the bible to be a christian. to be a christian all one has to believe in is jesus.

as i said before, its legitimate to ask the question. what is not legitimate is to deny the answer you get.

maybe you should broaden your circle of christians. or maybe you arent asking the simple question "is your religion pefect"

No, but you need to believe the Bible is the inspired word of God.


I guess you just know very liberal Christians. The fact of the matter is most arent like that.


I think you are having a hard time grasping that no one is attacking Christians. We are attacking their theology. Which, without modification and cherry pick, is violent, intolerant, and bigoted.

you are again elevating the bible to something it isnt. its not god.

It is however the word of god...

you are elevating the bible to something that it isnt. it is a document that always has to be interpreted.

If the bible is interpreted, it is no longer relevant since it lacks any coherence in society.

No, but you need to believe the Bible is the inspired word of God.


I guess you just know very liberal Christians. The fact of the matter is most arent like that.

What we´re doubting here is the canon. God may have, truly, inspired a message. The problem with that message is that, somewhere along the way, because of the word of mouth, it was corrupted and, what we have today, doesn´t even begin to encompass the true message of a God. I just wish Christians could see that. But then again, what realizing this might do? Could Christian truly handle it without collapsing?

I'm doing even better, I have pulled up all your posts where you have tried to misrepresent my position

you dont state your position well. thats not my problem its yours.

They have Christian hippies now?!
*snort*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippie

The foundation of the hippie movement finds historical precedent as far back as the counterculture of the Ancient Greeks, exemplified by Diogenes of Sinope and the Cynics.[26] Hippies were influenced by the philosophy of Jesus Christ, Hillel the Elder, Buddha, St. Francis of Assisi, Henry David Thoreau, and Gandhi.[26]

If the bible is interpreted, it is no longer relevant since it lacks any coherence in society.

that makes no sense.

the bible has always and will always be interpreted. just like any other document.

you dont state your position well. thats not my problem its yours.

You've purposefully misunderstood mine and KoL's point every time we've put it forth.

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

You obviously have no idea what your posts are saying about your tolerance.

What we´re doubting here is the canon. God may have, truly, inspired a message. The problem with that message is that, somewhere along the way, because of the word of mouth, it was corrupted and, what we have today, doesn´t even begin to encompass the true message of a God. I just wish Christians could see that. But then again, what realizing this might do? Could Christian truly handle it without collapsing?

This is part of what KoL and I have been saying all along...

You've purposefully misunderstood mine and KoL's point every time we've put it forth.

no i have not.

you dont state your position well. thats not my problem its yours.

Then why does it only seem to be you having a problem understand what we are saying?

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 ^

Why do you miss out Islamic and Jewish?

^ and that ^

Why do you hate God?

^ and this one too ^

You obviously have no idea what your posts are saying about your tolerance.

Apparently I don't since I've made no statements concerning christians or people in particular, I have no idea where she came up with that crap...
I must have missed the memo where being opposed to bigotry was some horrible form of intolerance.

This is part of what KoL and I have been saying all along...

really? i didnt get that impression at all.

im not particularly interested in nanastu's point. thats why i didnt respond to it.

Then why does it only seem to be you having a problem understand what we are saying?

In Spain, we call people like that, ¨Cristianos recalcitrantes¨ (recalcitrant Christians). It explains a lot. But then again, the fact that Ashmoria´s like this may well mean that these are the beliefs with which he/she grew up. And if that´s so, who are we, besides being enlightened in entirely different ways, to question this person?

Apparently I don't since I've made no statements concerning christians or people in particular, I have no idea where she came up with that crap...
I must have missed the memo where being opposed to bigotry was some horrible form of intolerance.

Yeah apperantly we're not allowed to hate ideologies...


I never said Christians were bad people. Did you? I seem to recall us attacking ideas, not the people.


Hmmm...

:rolleyes:

really? i didnt get that impression at all.

im not particularly interested in nanastu's point. thats why i didnt respond to it.

Then you need to work on your reading comprehension as much as you need to work on your grammar.

really? i didnt get that impression at all.


Odd, because we've been pretty explicet...

Then you need to work on your reading comprehension as much as you need to work on your grammar.

Dyakovo, be careful. With posts like this one, even when you have the reason, you lose it by your words.;)

Then why does it only seem to be you having a problem understand what we are saying?

because you seem to have no actual understanding of christianity as it is practiced only what you think it should be.

so you think that christians should admit that their religion has flaws and that there are some sketchy passages in the bible that they have to overlook or explain away and that somehow they must admit that to your satisfaction.

no they dont.

many christians practice a religion of love peace and tolerance. your obsession with passages of the bible does not change that.

The bible?

In my opinion, the bible, and following the bible is not a prerequisite to being a Christian. You even agreed when I stated believing in Jesus, God, and the Hereafter as the requisites. Other than the Ten Commandments, I can't see something of vital importance in the bible that isn't covered by beliefs in the other three.

because you seem to have no actual understanding of christianity as it is practiced only what you think it should be.

See, I get this accusation a lot, but Id say the reverse is true.

so you think that christians should admit that their religion has flaws and that there are some sketchy passages in the bible that they have to overlook or explain away and that somehow they must admit that to your satisfaction.

Pretty much.

no they dont.

They dont have to but if they had a spine and where honost they would.

many christians practice a religion of love peace and tolerance. your obsession with passages of the bible does not change that.

But they only practice that religion of peace and tolerance by explaining away or ignoring the nasty parts! Whats so hard to get about this?

In Spain, we call people like that, ¨Cristianos recalcitrantes¨ (recalcitrant Christians). It explains a lot. But then again, the fact that Ashmoria´s like this may well mean that these are the beliefs with which he/she grew up. And if that´s so, who are we, besides being enlightened in entirely different ways, to question this person?
She's free to believe what she wants...
Yeah apperantly we're not allowed to hate ideologies...

Apparently not

I never said Christians were bad people. Did you? I seem to recall us attacking ideas, not the people.


Hmmm...

:rolleyes:

It must be that there is no difference
:rolleyes:

because you seem to have no actual understanding of christianity as it is practiced only what you think it should be.

so you think that christians should admit that their religion has flaws and that there are some sketchy passages in the bible that they have to overlook or explain away and that somehow they must admit that to your satisfaction.

no they dont.

many christians practice a religion of love peace and tolerance. your obsession with passages of the bible does not change that.

I was raised Catholic, I know how it all is practiced. Many of us do. The reason why we don´t agree anymore is because we´ve seen the very things we´re pointing out and those same things have disenchanted us. So don´t, please, presume that we know nothing of Christianity or how Christians are or believe. In order to discuss the topic we need to know. I guess you´re the one who´s unable to understand those who do not share your beliefs. Sad, really. But I accept it. You should try to too.

Dyakovo, be careful. With posts like this one, even when you have the reason, you lose it by your words.;)

Meh, Ashmoria refuses to try and comprehend what we're saying, so who cares?

In my opinion, the bible, and following the bible is not a prerequisite to being a Christian. You even agreed when I stated believing in Jesus, God, and the Hereafter as the requisites. Other than the Ten Commandments, I can't see something of vital importance in the bible that isn't covered by beliefs in the other three.

Christianity, the religion is based on intolerance, through ignoring major portions of the bible most christians are not intolerant towards everyone that the word of god says they're supposed to be intolerant towards.

But they only practice that religion of peace and tolerance by explaining away or ignoring the nasty parts! Whats so hard to get about this?

this is YOUR problem not theirs. in their religion there ARE no nasty parts. they dont interpret the bible the way you think they should. they dont have a problem with ignoring things that are best ignored.

they are still christians.

because you seem to have no actual understanding of christianity as it is practiced only what you think it should be.

so you think that christians should admit that their religion has flaws and that there are some sketchy passages in the bible that they have to overlook or explain away and that somehow they must admit that to your satisfaction.

no they dont.

many christians practice a religion of love peace and tolerance. your obsession with passages of the bible does not change that.

Yes

Some?

this is YOUR problem not theirs. in their religion there ARE no nasty parts. they dont interpret the bible the way you think they should. they dont have a problem with ignoring things that are best ignored.

they are still christians.

Yes there is, they just choose to ignore it.

I was raised Catholic, I know how it all is practiced. Many of us do. The reason why we don´t agree anymore is because we´ve seen the very things we´re pointing out and those same things have disenchanted us. So don´t, please, presume that we know nothing of Christianity or how Christians are or believe. In order to discuss the topic we need to know. I guess you´re the one who´s unable to understand those who do not share your beliefs. Sad, really. But I accept it. You should try to too.

did i say there are no flaws? i said that not all christians believe the same thing. i jumped in when dyakovo 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"

bigotry is not inherent in christianity. only the belief in jesus in inherent. he says that he is not insisting that he knows what christians must believe but he denied that dempublicent could reject bigotry AND be a christian.

all im saying is that he cannot decide the proper beliefs of others.

Yes there is, they just choose to ignore it.

when did you get to decide what constitutes other people's religion?

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



:rolleyes:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v260/Katganistan/Strawman.jpg

did i say there are no flaws? i said that not all christians believe the same thing. i jumped in when dyakovo 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"

bigotry is not inherent in christianity. only the belief in jesus in inherent. he says that he is not insisting that he knows what christians must believe but he denied that dempublicent could reject bigotry AND be a christian.

all im saying is that he cannot decide the proper beliefs of others.

And I'm not, the misunderstanding is because you cannot comprehend the difference between an attack on the religion and an attack on its adherents.

You still haven't answered my question of "what denomination of christianity does not consider the bible to be its holy book"

when did you get to decide what constitutes other people's religion?

Again, christianity is based on the word of god, the bible is the word of god.

I did not decide anything about what constitutes their religion...

What about this is so hard for you to understand?

did i say there are no flaws? i said that not all christians believe the same thing. i jumped in when dyakovo 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"

bigotry is not inherent in christianity. only the belief in jesus in inherent. he says that he is not insisting that he knows what christians must believe but he denied that dempublicent could reject bigotry AND be a christian.

all im saying is that he cannot decide the proper beliefs of others.

Yes Ashmoria, you did. And Dyakovo isn´t telling you how others should believe. No one can do that. It´s immoral to even suggest it. All we want you to see is that if we can understand the views of Christians subjectively enough to discuss them, that you too try to put an effort in understanding our views subjectively too. Also understand that there´s no attack in this. Only a debate.

this is YOUR problem not theirs. in their religion there ARE no nasty parts. they dont interpret the bible the way you think they should. they dont have a problem with ignoring things that are best ignored.


No, its their willful ignorane. There are nasty parts of their holy book. They choose to ignore them.

And I'm not, the misunderstanding is because you cannot comprehend the difference between an attack on the religion and an attack on its adherents.


what does "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" mean then?

give it to me in other words.

what i see you say is that christianity promotes bigotry--meaning that there is no form of christianity that doesnt promote bigotry.

you then wrote that she ISNT a christian. unless there is a different between being an adherent of christianity and being a christian that you can explain to me.

if dempublicent tells me that she her christianity does not promote bigotry, i see no reason not to believe her. she is a smart and thoughtful person. for you to say that she is wrong in her understanding of her own faith is outrageous.

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:
I think the difference is many Jewish laws were in place for logical reasons (such as not having sex with a woman straight after she gives birth) and many Jews have no issue reconciling the rules needed to survive in the dessert, with a modern life that is substantially more secure.

No, its their willful ignorane. There are nasty parts of their holy book. They choose to ignore them.

so?

does that negate their belief in jesus?

they do not have to follow your interpretation of the bible in order to be good christians.

Yes there is, they just choose to ignore it.
You are begging the question, to use a fallacy that not many people bring up here, for some reason. As I see it, this is the line of reasoning:
1. Assume these Bible passages mean A, B, and C.
2. Christians follow the Bible.
3. Ergo, Christians follow these passages.
4. Ergo, Christians believe A, B, and C. If they don't, they are just ignoring the part they don't like.

The fault, of course, lies in number one, when you assume you know what the passages mean.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v260/Katganistan/Strawman.jpg

Actually, its hyperbole. Meant for the point of humor. Im sorry if it was lost on you.

so?

does that negate their belief in jesus?

they do not have to follow your interpretation of the bible in order to be good christians.

KoL isn´t even remotely suggesting that.

You are begging the question, to use a fallacy that not many people bring up here, for some reason. As I see it, this is the line of reasoning:
1. Assume these Bible passages mean A, B, and C.
2. Christians follow the Bible.
3. Ergo, Christians follow these passages.
4. Ergo, Christians believe A, B, and C. If they don't, they are just ignoring the part they don't like.

The fault, of course, lies in number one, when you assume you know what the passages mean.

How the fuck do you interpet these passages differently? Women aught to shut up and do what their husband says means just that!


Ive gone through 6 cigarettes arguing with you peopel! You dont make sense!:p

what does "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" mean then?

give it to me in other words.

what i see you say is that christianity promotes bigotry--meaning that there is no form of christianity that doesnt promote bigotry.

you then wrote that she ISNT a christian. unless there is a different between being an adherent of christianity and being a christian that you can explain to me.

if dempublicent tells me that she her christianity does not promote bigotry, i see no reason not to believe her. she is a smart and thoughtful person. for you to say that she is wrong in her understanding of her own faith is outrageous.

Christianity does promote bigotry, all you have to do to realize that is read the bible...

Also my comment to Dem was in mostly in jest, yeah I should have included smilies, but I figured most people who have seen my posting would have realized that.
Especially considering my response to Bann-ed about what it takes to be a christian.

KoL isn´t even remotely suggesting that.

Its not worth pointing that out anymore, but thanks for pointing it out anyway. If ash wants to burn strawmen, Im just going to let her.

Its not worth pointing that out anymore, but thanks for pointing it out anyway. If ash wants to burn strawmen, Im just going to let her.

*sighs*
Yeah. It makes no sense in pointing anything on this debate. It´s sad, you know.

so?

does that negate their belief in jesus?

they do not have to follow your interpretation of the bible in order to be good christians.

Me and KoL are not interpreting the bible at all.

Again, christianity is based on the word of god, the bible is the word of god.

I did not decide anything about what constitutes their religion...

What about this is so hard for you to understand?

Christianity is based on two principles: Love God with all your heart, and treating your fellow man as if he were your brother. The rest is entirely negotiable.

I'm a tad insulted that I'm apparently a heretic, according to someone who is apparently not a follower, just because I don't believe that Judas died both by hanging and by falling in a field and bursting open, or that I wear mixed fabrics (cotton/polyester blends), or that I believe just like most every other mainline Protestant denomination that women are equal participants in our relationship with God.

Yes Ashmoria, you did. And Dyakovo isn´t telling you how others should believe. No one can do that. It´s immoral to even suggest it. All we want you to see is that if we can understand the views of Christians subjectively enough to discuss them, that you too try to put an effort in understanding our views subjectively too. Also understand that there´s no attack in this. Only a debate.

I have read a lot of this and have a question.

Do you really think that those of us that practice Christianity have not examined all aspects of our world? Do you really think that Christians do not question their faith, examine it, question it, and study it daily?

I have read here that some of you that seem to feel the need to bash Christianity say you were once practicing Christians. Congratulations, I was once an athiest. Do we get buttons somewhere making us experts in the subjects? Of course not.

Do you all really think that anything said here in the entire forum regarding religion and non-belief and questioning of scriptures and the lame 'pluck-a-verse' logic hasn't been around for centuries? Do you really think there is an original thought here? Or are they just original to some of you all?

So you found that you can choose to be non-believer. Ok, good for you. That gives you no license to dictate what a Christian should or should not believe.

Refer to Rathanar's post for an excellent reply to the nonsense several of you all are pandering here. When you have truly been enlightened then you will completely understand that bashing any religion only shows how unenlightened and intolerant you really are. When you know that and are humble enough to realize your error...then you will actually be enlightened.

Just pure silliness.:(

You are begging the question, to use a fallacy that not many people bring up here, for some reason. As I see it, this is the line of reasoning:
1. Assume these Bible passages mean A, B, and C.
2. Christians follow the Bible.
3. Ergo, Christians follow these passages.
4. Ergo, Christians believe A, B, and C. If they don't, they are just ignoring the part they don't like.

The fault, of course, lies in number one, when you assume you know what the passages mean.

Well, I can read, so yes I know what the passages mean, they're pretty straight forward. Thusly no fallacy.

Yes Ashmoria, you did. And Dyakovo isn´t telling you how others should believe. No one can do that. It´s immoral to even suggest it. All we want you to see is that if we can understand the views of Christians subjectively enough to discuss them, that you too try to put an effort in understanding our views subjectively too. Also understand that there´s no attack in this. Only a debate.

i am sorry to have given you the impression that i think that there is some perfect religion out there. i do not. i agree with much that you had to say about the council of nicaea.

dyakovo started a thread about the epistles of paul limiting the role of christian women and asking how any woman could be a christian after reading them. he did not accept the explanations given by christian posters.

i find it offensive to not accept people at their word about their beliefs.

I have read a lot of this and have a question.

Do you really think that those of us that practice Christianity have not examined all aspects of our world? Do you really think that Christians do not question their faith, examine it, question it, and study it daily?

I have read here that some of you that seem to feel the need to bash Christianity say you were once practicing Christians. Congratulations, I was once an athiest. Do we get buttons somewhere making us experts in the subjects? Of course not.

Do you all really think that anything said here in the entire forum regarding religion and non-belief and questioning of scriptures and the lame 'pluck-a-verse' logic hasn't been around for centuries? Do you really think there is an original thought here? Or are they just original to some of you all?

So you found that you can choose to be non-believer. Ok, good for you. That gives you no license to dictate what a Christian should or should not believe.

Refer to Rathanar's post for an excellent reply to the nonsense several of you all are pandering here. When you have truly been enlightened then you will completely understand that bashing any religion only shows how unenlightened and intolerant you really are. When you know that and are humble enough to realize your error...then you will actually be enlightened.

Just pure silliness.:(

Care to provide the link to this enlightening post?

And what nonsense would that be exactly?

I have read a lot of this and have a question.

Do you really think that those of us that practice Christianity have not examined all aspects of our world? Do you really think that Christians do not question their faith, examine it, question it, and study it daily?

I have read here that some of you that seem to feel the need to bash Christianity say you were once practicing Christians. Congratulations, I was once an athiest. Do we get buttons somewhere making us experts in the subjects? Of course not.

Do you all really think that anything said here in the entire forum regarding religion and non-belief and questioning of scriptures and the lame 'pluck-a-verse' logic hasn't been around for centuries? Do you really think there is an original thought here? Or are they just original to some of you all?

So you found that you can choose to be non-believer. Ok, good for you. That gives you no license to dictate what a Christian should or should not believe.

Refer to Rathanar's post for an excellent reply to the nonsense several of you all are pandering here. When you have truly been enlightened then you will completely understand that bashing any religion only shows how unenlightened and intolerant you really are. When you know that and are humble enough to realize your error...then you will actually be enlightened.

Just pure silliness.:(

Who´s bashing here? We haven´t been bashing Christianity. There´s no need for that. Where did you get that silly idea from?:rolleyes: And need I point out that no one here, ABSOLUTELY no one´s a 100% correct? KoL, Dyakovo, and others (myself included) haven´t been telling anyone what to or what not to believe. That doesn´t fall upon us, you suggesting it is plainly pretentious.

Me and KoL are not interpreting the bible at all.

everyone who reads the bible and puts forth an opinion about it is interpreting the bible.

i am sorry to have given you the impression that i think that there is some perfect religion out there. i do not. i agree with much that you had to say about the council of nicaea.

dyakovo started a thread about the epistles of paul limiting the role of christian women and asking how any woman could be a christian after reading them. he did not accept the explanations given by christian posters.

i find it offensive to not accept people at their word about their beliefs.

You get offended a lot, don't you?


Also, who said I didn't accept them? I listened to every reason put forth and proceeded to question.

Christianity is based on two principles: Love God with all your heart, and treating your fellow man as if he were your brother. The rest is entirely negotiable.

I'm a tad insulted that I'm apparently a heretic, according to someone who is apparently not a follower, just because I don't believe that Judas died both by hanging and by falling in a field and bursting open, or that I wear mixed fabrics (cotton/polyester blends), or that I believe just like most every other mainline Protestant denomination that women are equal participants in our relationship with God.

No I'm not a folower, I am an agnostic atheist. Also, again I have said nothing about christians or their beliefs. If you decide you want to get offended because someone points out the inherent intolerance in christianity, then feel free.

How the fuck do you interpet these passages differently? Women aught to shut up and do what their husband says means just that!


Ive gone through 6 cigarettes arguing with you peopel! You dont make sense!:p

Several misconceptions are at work:
1. You can take random passages from the Bible and understand them separate from their context. This isn't true for any piece of literature, and the Bible is no different.
2. The Bible is 100% literal. As the number of Christians who are not Young Earthers shows, this is not true.
3. The Bible was handed to St. Peter by God Himself. No. The Bible was written by men. By modern standards, these men were very likely sexist, intolerant, and ignorant. Kind of like normal people. To quote Thomas Merton:
From the very start, then, we must clarify the meaning of the Bible's basic claim to be "the word of God." We must understand that this claim does not mean that the Bible is an entirely unworldly book, a message from eternity, a contemptuous dismissal of the world in a promulgation issued from "out there" beyond the confines of time and space.
In other words, the Bible is just as much a part of man as it is of God.

i am sorry to have given you the impression that i think that there is some perfect religion out there. i do not. i agree with much that you had to say about the council of nicaea.

dyakovo started a thread about the epistles of paul limiting the role of christian women and asking how any woman could be a christian after reading them. he did not accept the explanations given by christian posters.

i find it offensive to not accept people at their word about their beliefs.

The reason why women chose to be Christian can be explained by many things, including family, society and belief. If a woman´s ok with her religion, it´s ok by me. KoL was mainly analyzing several biblical passages, something many scholars do. To KoL, it´s preposterous that, after reading the position of the Church, in a way, ¨oppresses¨ women and it´s hard to understand that after this, that women chose Christianity. But if they do, that´s their choice.

If you´re a Christian, then rejoice. That´s all I can say. I´m agnostic, and I´m ok with me being like that.;)

:rolleyes:

Do you really think that those of us that practice Christianity have not examined all aspects of our world? Do you really think that Christians do not question their faith, examine it, question it, and study it daily?


I think only the smart ones do.

I have read here that some of you that seem to feel the need to bash Christianity say you were once practicing Christians. Congratulations, I was once an athiest. Do we get buttons somewhere making us experts in the subjects? Of course not.

Actually, I have a button right here...

Do you all really think that anything said here in the entire forum regarding religion and non-belief and questioning of scriptures and the lame 'pluck-a-verse' logic hasn't been around for centuries? Do you really think there is an original thought here? Or are they just original to some of you all?

Lame pluck a verse? You mean like what Christians do against other religions?
No one is plucking verses. If you read our posts, we actually argue with logic and use your own holy book to supplement our arguements. Its called debating. Try it sometime.

So you found that you can choose to be non-believer. Ok, good for you. That gives you no license to dictate what a Christian should or should not believe.

No one is saying what they should believe. Ive said what they should admit if they were honost.

Refer to Rathanar's post for an excellent reply to the nonsense several of you all are pandering here.

Since when are posts filled with ad hominems, random chest beating, flaunting of alledged academic credentials over the internet, a lack of evidence, and illgocail arguements excellent replies?

When you have truly been enlightened then you will completely understand that bashing any religion only shows how unenlightened and intolerant you really are. When you know that and are humble enough to realize your error...then you will actually be enlightened.

Just pure silliness.:(


Attacking ideas shows unenlightenment and intolerance? Is attacking racism unenlightened? What about attacking sexism?

No, I refuse to believe that to attack an idea shows a lack of enlightenment. To accept every idea without questioning or critical analysis, that is a sign of unenlightenment.

If you wish to blindly follow, that is not my issue. I will not stop attacking ideas I see as flawed and potentially harmful. I will not stop calling people on hypocrisy and intellectual laziness.

If you cant handle your beliefs, ideas, and books being examined with a scholarly eye and criticaly viewed and challenged, keep them out of the public circle. I have freedom of speech. I will exercise it. Religion does not get a free pass. Christianity does not get a free pass, no matter how much people like you and Rathanar wish it did.

KoL isn´t even remotely suggesting that.

then KOL can tell me himself that he understands that the people who "ignore the nasty parts" are christians and that it doesnt actually matter that they overlook things that he thinks are very important.

i would be a fool to deny that there are some pretty terrible things in the bible. im not all that interested in discussing them but of course they exist. my point is not that they arent there, but that they arent in the forefront of christians beliefs.

Well, I can read, so yes I know what the passages mean, they're pretty straight forward. Thusly no fallacy.
You are reading excerpts from a translation of something written around 2,000 years ago. I can barely understand a Shakespeare play, something written in modern English four hundred years ago, in its entirety. Somehow I doubt you are much different.

everyone who reads the bible and puts forth an opinion about it is interpreting the bible.

So, it is interpretation if you quote it word for word?

1 : the act or the result of interpreting

1 : to explain or tell the meaning of : present in understandable terms
2 : to conceive in the light of individual belief, judgment, or circumstance : construe
3 : to represent by means of art : bring to realization by performance or direction

Obviously, we use vastly different dictionaries...

The reason why women chose to be Christian can be explained by many things, including family, society and belief. If a woman´s ok with her religion, it´s ok by me. KoL was mainly analyzing several biblical passages, something many scholars do. To KoL, it´s preposterous that, after reading the position of the Church, in a way, ¨oppresses¨ women and it´s hard to understand that after this, that women chose Christianity. But if they do, that´s their choice.

If you´re a Christian, then rejoice. That´s all I can say. I´m agnostic, and I´m ok with me being like that.;)

i am an atheist.

the vast majority of women that i know are christians and they are not submissive nor are they more silent in church than the typical man is. they are in no way oppressed or minimized by their christian beliefs nor are they taught that they are inferior to men.

So, it is interpretation if you quote it word for word?


Obviously, we use vastly different dictionaries...

oh yes you have had NO opinions on the passages quoted.

You are reading excerpts from a translation of something written around 2,000 years ago. I can barely understand a Shakespeare play, something written in modern English four hundred years ago, in its entirety. Somehow I doubt you are much different.

Your failings are not my problem.

i am an atheist.

the vast majority of women that i know are christians and they are not submissive nor are they more silent in church than the typical man is. they are in no way oppressed or minimized by their christian beliefs nor are they taught that they are inferior to men.

They are clearly bad Christians. As someone who is not Christian, you should point out their folly. I'm sure they will be grateful. ;)

i am an atheist.

the vast majority of women that i know are christians and they are not submissive nor are they more silent in church than the typical man is. they are in no way oppressed or minimized by their christian beliefs nor are they taught that they are inferior to men.

May I ask, what´s your Christian denomination? You don´t have to tell me, of course.

The only Christian women I know that aren´t submissive are Catholic.

oh yes you have had NO opinions on the passages quoted.

The passages speak for themselves...

What we´re doubting here is the canon. God may have, truly, inspired a message. The problem with that message is that, somewhere along the way, because of the word of mouth, it was corrupted and, what we have today, doesn´t even begin to encompass the true message of a God. I just wish Christians could see that. But then again, what realizing this might do? Could Christian truly handle it without collapsing?

Christianity would handle it just fine, as a huge number of Christians have already accepted (http://http://www.religioustolerance.org/sci_rel.htm) this (http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerrant.htm):

Many liberal Christians believe that the Bible contains much that is spiritually positive. However, since much of it was written by authors from a tribal, pre-scientific culture, it also contains material that does not reflect the will of God: e.g. condoning slavery, accepting the oppression of women, sexual minorities, persons of different religions, etc. Some of its content is mythical in nature and is often borrowed from nearby Pagan cultures. Some biblical content consists of anti-religious propaganda.

Many liberal Christians believe that the Bible was written by individuals in ancient times who were promoting their own evolving spiritual beliefs, but who were severely limited by their tribal culture and by their lack of scientific knowledge. Many liberals believe that it is important to recognize that many biblical passages are in error and do not reflect the will of God.

Yes there is, they just choose to ignore it.

Intelliegent liberal Christians do not simply ignore the bad parts of the Bible. Why do you assume they do?

The truth is that many Christians understand that most of the Bible was written by people who lived a long time ago. And back then, they had things like slavery and insitutionalised misogyny. We don't have those things now, or at least we try not to.

Yet you seem to believe that Christians are ignoring these parts simply because they haven't shown you specifically how they reconcile these parts with what they believe is the central message of Christainity. Why should Christians have to do this? Why don't you simply google it and read it yourself?

Christianity and feminism is fairly easy to reconcile. Simply compare Jesus' treatment of women to the normal treatment of women during that era. I challenge you to find one example of Jesus being sexist, even by today's standards of equality. Also, many of the early Christian communities also practiced equality of the sexes.

Many Christian denominations are sexist and misogynist. We could ask valid questions as to why women choose to stay in these communitites. We could discuss the process of religion in socialisation and gender roles. We could contrast and compare liberal Christian communities like the Quakers, who practiced gender equality during the 18th century, with conservative Christian groups who wish to take us back to the 1950's.

That would have been interesting.

Instead, we get another thread where we bash Christianity for not being perfect.

Your failings are not my problem.

Note to self: humility does not help an argument on NSG.

But please, explain what special expertise you have which allows you to interpret clippings so readily. Or perhaps I should say:

But...special....allows...readily.

You should find it just as easy to understand.

The passages speak for themselves...

geee and yet that word "bigotry" implies that you have formed some opinion...

Because they're inculcated from birth to seek to be doormats, or unforgiveably moronic.

Note to self: humility does not help an argument on NSG.

But please, explain what special expertise you have which allows you to interpret clippings so readily. Or perhaps I should say:

But...special....allows...readily.

You should find it just as easy to understand.

I can read and think.

Because they're inculcated from birth to seek to be doormats, or unforgiveably moronic.

At last, we can all stop wasting our breath. The blessed Chris has lived up to his name and given us the answer.

May I ask, what´s your Christian denomination? You don´t have to tell me, of course.

The only Christian women I know that aren´t submissive are Catholic.

i am an atheist but i was raised catholic.

i know women of many denominations.

my husband's brother his wife were in one of those nutcase fundamentalist sects for a long time (its too long to explain how nutty, just believe me) but even then she was never actually submissive to him. nor was her mother, come to think of it.

there really arent all that many (religiously) submissve women in the US even if some denominations insist on it. maybe its different in other countries.

Intelliegent liberal Christians do not simply ignore the bad parts of the Bible. Why do you assume they do?

The truth is that many Christians understand that most of the Bible was written by people who lived a long time ago. And back then, they had things like slavery and insitutionalised misogyny. We don't have those things now, or at least we try not to.

Yet you seem to believe that Christians are ignoring these parts simply because they haven't shown you specifically how they reconcile these parts with what they believe is the central message of Christainity. Why should Christians have to do this? Why don't you simply google it and read it yourself?

That's where you fail, I have read a number of the justifications, and most of them boil down to ignoring the passages that they do not approve of.

geee and yet that word "bigotry" implies that you have formed some opinion...

So you are saying that those passages do not demonstrate any bigotry?

then KOL can tell me himself that he understands that the people who "ignore the nasty parts" are christians and that it doesnt actually matter that they overlook things that he thinks are very important.

I NEVER SAID OTHERWISE!!!!!


God, you really are burning the strawmen. Like, seriously, I think youve just sped up global warming by a few hundred years with all the smoke you must be releasing from burning those strawmen.


Ive been talking about honosty to ones self and others. To say that their religion is inherantly one of peace, without ignoring the nasty parts, is dishonost. Not once have I even implied what does and doesnt make a Christian.


Are you being willfully ignorant or do you have some sort of condition that only allows you to see what you want to see?

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...

Here's a word for you since you seem not to have understood what I posted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporeal

Incorporeal, from Latin, means without the nature of a body or substance. The idea of the incorporeal refers to the notion that there is an incorporeal realm or place, that is distinct from the corporeal or material world. Incorporeal beings are not made out of matter in the way a physical, material being exists.

So, an entity without physical substance might find it difficult to wield a pen. And as I said, I can tell you something verbally... you can tell someone the message as well... and once it's passed through enough people (and isn't that really how the bible was written down? The oral tradition through many writers?) the meaning gets changed.

As for literate, it's only in the past maybe two centuries that literacy became the norm. Why would Jesus necessarily need to write? Why do you think so many itinerant preachers went from town to town passing an oral tradition? Because most people could not read. Do you try to reach people with a method they are incapable of using, or do you use a method they can grasp?

So you are saying that those passages do not demonstrate any bigotry?

i am saying that claiming bigotry means that you have interpreted the passage.

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

Ok.

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...


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13563502&postcount=183
Then you are not a christian...

I NEVER SAID OTHERWISE!!!!!


God, you really are burning the strawmen. Like, seriously, I think youve just sped up global warming by a few hundred years with all the smoke you must be releasing from burning those strawmen.


Ive been talking about honosty to ones self and others. To say that their religion is inherantly one of peace, without ignoring the nasty parts, is dishonost. Not once have I even implied what does and doesnt make a Christian.


Are you being willfully ignorant or do you have some sort of condition that only allows you to see what you want to see?

After reading her comment in another thread, I've come to the conclusion that she's only an atheist on the internet, IRL she's a fundamentalist christian and thusly is deeply offended by our questioning her religion ;)

That's where you fail, I have read a number of the justifications, and most of them boil down to ignoring the passages that they do not approve of.

So why don't you tell me what they are?

Or even respond to the one that I have posted several times in this thread?

The one about Christianity and women?

Or is it easier just to keep repeating that Christians are ignorant?

Here's a word for you since you seem not to have understood what I posted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporeal



So, an entity without physical substance might find it difficult to wield a pen. And as I said, I can tell you something verbally... you can tell someone the message as well... and once it's passed through enough people (and isn't that really how the bible was written down? The oral tradition through many writers?) the meaning gets changed.

As for literate, it's only in the past maybe two centuries that literacy became the norm. Why would Jesus necessarily need to write? Why do you think so many itinerant preachers went from town to town passing an oral tradition? Because most people could not read. Do you try to reach people with a method they are incapable of using, or do you use a method they can grasp?



Wow, the literate part was a joke. Lighten up. :p


And my question about Jesus was a serious one. He clearly was educated to a degree. Why didnt he write anything down? Muhammed (well his scribe...) did, and its not like the literacy rate was any higher then...

I NEVER SAID OTHERWISE!!!!!


God, you really are burning the strawmen. Like, seriously, I think youve just sped up global warming by a few hundred years with all the smoke you must be releasing from burning those strawmen.


Ive been talking about honosty to ones self and others. To say that their religion is inherantly one of peace, without ignoring the nasty parts, is dishonost. Not once have I even implied what does and doesnt make a Christian.


Are you being willfully ignorant or do you have some sort of condition that only allows you to see what you want to see?

gee you could try doing what you are telling me to do. have you not paid attention to the point *I* have been making over and over?

gee you could try doing what you are telling me to do. have you not paid attention to the point *I* have been making over and over?


I have. You see, the problem with the point you have been making is it in no way pertains to what Im saying 9/10 times. Id debate with you, but you seem to be having some totally different debate in your own little world where Im saying all Christians are evil sexists out to destroy women and that if you are not an evil sexist your not a Christian.

Ok.






http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13563502&postcount=183

Fine, I do not remember using those words, but I will acknowledge the point...

My apologies. http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/Dziekuje.gif

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.




If there is a better way to link I don't know it and apologize. It's on pg 12 of this thread.

There is a lot of disrespect here, I will grant you the benefit of the doubt that some of you simply don't understand that. Now you do.

It has been explained numerous times that no one single verse constitutes Christian law, also that different sects follow different covenents. Yet some here still think it is necessary to dispute those facts in favor of ones they pluck from their very limited knowledge of Christianity. Yet many here have genuinely tried to explain the errors in the thinking. To no avail just continued denial of any understanding but the one wanted.

Christianity isn't about what YOU a non-believer wants it to be. It is about what it is to the believer. As has been pointed out so many times it is redundant...you, nor KoL, nor Dyakovo get to dictate the interpretation that must be adhered to by anyone. How silly to think you do. :p

This whole thread is nothing but just that. Someone who wants to interpret and make fun of Christianity. The interest isn't genuine, it is a dig and we all know this. It is mean spirited too. The OP doesn't give one damn why women become Christians. It is simply an exercise in ridicule. Just as the statement that Christianity is based in bigotry. What hog-swallop, people are bigots, not Christianity.

Some of you think you can protest the calling out of it and that somehow veils the real intent but again I will contend people are not stupid. The list of people who have legitimately approached this and in good faith have tried to discuss this is long. There is no intent for any non-Christian here to learn anything, it is only the intent for some of you to enlighten us silly old Christians. Like I already said, you have no new ideas or thoughts that haven't already been debated for centuries. Do you think no one reads? ;)

I would address the OP, but I have to go, it is bed time for me right after I wipe my hubby's arse, rub his back, scrub his truck and bow and kiss his feet, perform only sexual acts he wants and of course clean up after it...after all it is my job since I am his inferior subject some of you think I am. :rolleyes:

So why don't you tell me what they are?

Or even respond to the one that I have posted several times in this thread?

The one about Christianity and women?

Or is it easier just to keep repeating that Christians are ignorant?

It's strawman day on NSG!


When did I say that christians were ignorant?
as an aside I might have, since my memory has been shown to be faulty one already in this thread

As to the justifications, why should I post them?
This is the first post of yours that I've noticed so far.

I have. You see, the problem with the point you have been making is it in no way pertains to what Im saying 9/10 times. Id debate with you, but you seem to be having some totally different debate in your own little world where Im saying all Christians are evil sexists out to destroy women and that if you are not an evil sexist your not a Christian.

did you miss the parts where i agreed with you that there are sketchy passages in the bible?

now pay attention, this is my only point:

the only thing inherent in christianity is the belief in jesus. ingoring or explaining away, or even embracing the passages in the bible that bother you does not make them dishonest or bad christians.

ok?

if you agree with my point, we can drop that part. if you see that i agree that there are disturbing things in the bible, we can drop that point.

if you think that there is only one way to deal with those disturbing parts, we can discuss that.

i am an atheist but i was raised catholic.

i know women of many denominations.

my husband's brother his wife were in one of those nutcase fundamentalist sects for a long time (its too long to explain how nutty, just believe me) but even then she was never actually submissive to him. nor was her mother, come to think of it.

there really arent all that many (religiously) submissve women in the US even if some denominations insist on it. maybe its different in other countries.

I understand. I was also raised Catholic, I studied under Catholic nuns and priests for 12 years. Now I´m an agnostic. As for what you say about Fundamentalists, yeah, I know they can be nut cases, all you have to do is listen for 5 seconds to the things they preach and your hair would stand on end. But let me tell you, whereas in the US, Christian women do not tend to be very submissive, Europe is another thing.

Example of what I´m implying: Italian women and Italian society. One of my co-workers is married to an Italian man from Sardinia. His mother asked her one time while in Rome what did she wanted to do now that she was married to her son. To which my friend answered that she wanted to settle down and work on her chosen field. The mother in law promptly replayed that, according to the Church, women belong at home, raising kids and feeding the husband. My friend back-fired with asking her where did her life stood at if she dedicated herself to her children and husband only, to which the lady replayed that as soon as you get married your life belongs to the husband. That that is what God wants.

If that isn´t submission I don´t know what is. But I understand you. We´re talking about entirely different societies.

If there is a better way to link I don't know it and apologize. It's on pg 12 of this thread.

There is a lot of disrespect here, I will grant you the benefit of the doubt that some of you simply don't understand that. Now you do.

It has been explained numerous times that no one single verse constitutes Christian law, also that different sects follow different covenents. Yet some here still think it is necessary to dispute those facts in favor of ones they pluck from their very limited knowledge of Christianity. Yet many here have genuinely tried to explain the errors in the thinking. To no avail just continued denial of any understanding but the one wanted.

Christianity isn't about what YOU a non-believer wants it to be. It is about what it is to the believer. As has been pointed out so many times it is redundant...you, nor KoL, nor Dyakovo get to dictate the interpretation that must be adhered to by anyone. How silly to think you do. :p

This whole thread is nothing but just that. Someone who wants to interpret and make fun of Christianity. The interest isn't genuine, it is a dig and we all know this. It is mean spirited too. The OP doesn't give one damn why women become Christians. It is simply an exercise in ridicule. Just as the statement that Christianity is based in bigotry. What hog-swallop, people are bigots, not Christianity.

Some of you think you can protest the calling out of it and that somehow veils the real intent but again I will contend people are not stupid. The list of people who have legitimately approached this and in good faith have tried to discuss this is long. There is no intent for any non-Christian here to learn anything, it is only the intent for some of you to enlighten us silly old Christians. Like I already said, you have no new ideas or thoughts that haven't already been debated for centuries. Do you think no one reads? ;)

I would address the OP, but I have to go, it is bed time for me right after I wipe my hubby's arse, rub his back, scrub his truck and bow and kiss his feet, perform only sexual acts he wants and of course clean up after it...after all it is my job since I am his inferior subject some of you think I am. :rolleyes:

boohoo

We've already torn apart the enlightening post you are referring to so go ahead a go off to bed and dream up other strawmen, your presence will not be missed.

Christianity is based on the bible, yes?

Me oh my, and I thought it was based on the teachings of Christ. Hence the name.

Then there is a lot of historical context (OT) and interpretation of Christ and his life (NT). Heck, the Gospels, disagree with each other on the same events.

I can read and think.
That's true. However, you are wrong, mostly, in your thinking.
Bit by bit:
1
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.
From New Limacon's Bible's footnotes: "It appeasr that 1 Cor 14, 34-36, was added to Paul's original letter by a later writer. Perhaps someone copying Paul's letters needed to show that Christianity was not a movement that would disrupt the social order by allowing women to speak in public." This makes sense, because if you look at the rest of Corinthians 1, he mentions women prophesizing several times.

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.
From NL's Bible's footnotes: "A modern person reading 1 Tm 2, 8-15 may be shocked by the teaching there. A passage like this can be easily misunderstood and even misused against women. It is very important to realize that it is a reflection of women's roles in the ancient world...As Christianity became more widely accepted, concern for how the church appeared to outsiders grew--including concern about drunken bishops, immodest dress, and women teaching in public." (Emphasis added.)

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.

From NLB's footnotes: "This is another case where we must take into account the cultural context in order to properly interpret the passage. At the time the Letter to the Ephesians was written, the male gender was dominant in society. The letter's challenge to a man to love his wife and to treat his children with respect was probably viewed as a radical statement...Just as we should not interpret 6, 5-9 as giving permission to own slaves, we should not interpret [this] as commanding submissive behavior of married women today." Interesting, you did not quote the beginning of the passage, verse 21: "Be subordinate to one another out of reverance for Christ." (Emphasis added.)

The other three passages say more or less the same thing.

This whole thread is nothing but just that. Someone who wants to interpret and make fun of Christianity. The interest isn't genuine, it is a dig and we all know this. It is mean spirited too. The OP doesn't give one damn why women become Christians. It is simply an exercise in ridicule.


Thats awfully presumptuous of you. We have asked geniune questions and exposed genuine critisim. All we have gotten in return is whining, bitching, strawmen, and accusations of intolerance. It seems to me, and Im sure Im not the only one, that Christians cant take it when their sacred ideals are questioned. They get awfully pissy...


Just as the statement that Christianity is based in bigotry. What hog-swallop, people are bigots, not Christianity.


See, Ive been saying the reverse is also true, people are virtuous, not Christianity. Or does that not work? Does Christianity get all the praise but none of the blame?


And if you think that post by Rathanan is anything but just one big long ad hominem and whine fest, and if you really think its an enlightening and "ideal" post...well...I guess your post about how its unenlightened to question ideas makes a lot more sense now.


Go off to bed and dream happy dreams where no one questions and everyone blindly follows. But be careful not to let teh ebil anti-Christians under your bed get you.

Me oh my, and I thought it was based on the teachings of Christ. Hence the name.

Then there is a lot of historical context (OT) and interpretation of Christ and his life (NT). Heck, the Gospels, disagree with each other on the same events.

Is the bible not the word of god?

i am an atheist but i was raised catholic.

i know women of many denominations.

my husband's brother his wife were in one of those nutcase fundamentalist sects for a long time (its too long to explain how nutty, just believe me) but even then she was never actually submissive to him. nor was her mother, come to think of it.

there really arent all that many (religiously) submissve women in the US even if some denominations insist on it. maybe its different in other countries.

I have very close ties to a Mennonite communtity, a very primative one at that (a zipper is a machine and forbidden) and those wives are not submissive or subservient. They have an equal say in all labors and decisions. At church meetings they do not speak but their messages are heard to the elders via their husbands. Their closeness speaks volumes to the thought that a man and woman marry and become "one" in the eyes of God.

Heck, the Gospels, disagree with each other on the same events.

Among other things. I´ve always been intrigued by the missing years of Christ. What happened after he´s presented at the Temple, when a teen? Why is it that none of the Evangelists have an answer as to why Christ disappears until he´s 30 years old... Makes you wonder.

That's true. However, you are wrong, mostly, in your thinking.
Bit by bit:

From New Limacon's Bible's footnotes: "It appeasr that 1 Cor 14, 34-36, was added to Paul's original letter by a later writer. Perhaps someone copying Paul's letters needed to show that Christianity was not a movement that would disrupt the social order by allowing women to speak in public." This makes sense, because if you look at the rest of Corinthians 1, he mentions women prophesizing several times.

From NL's Bible's footnotes: "A modern person reading 1 Tm 2, 8-15 may be shocked by the teaching there. A passage like this can be easily misunderstood and even misused against women. It is very important to realize that it is a reflection of women's roles in the ancient world...As Christianity became more widely accepted, concern for how the church appeared to outsiders grew--including concern about drunken bishops, immodest dress, and women teaching in public." (Emphasis added.)

From NLB's footnotes: "This is another case where we must take into account the cultural context in order to properly interpret the passage. At the time the Letter to the Ephesians was written, the male gender was dominant in society. The letter's challenge to a man to love his wife and to treat his children with respect was probably viewed as a radical statement...Just as we should not interpret 6, 5-9 as giving permission to own slaves, we should not interpret [this] as commanding submissive behavior of married women today." Interesting, you did not quote the beginning of the passage, verse 21: "Be subordinate to one another out of reverance for Christ." (Emphasis added.)

The other three passages say more or less the same thing.

Which does nothing other than point out what me and KoL have been saying all along, I'm glad to see you agree with us.

Which does nothing other than point out what me and KoL have been saying all along, I'm glad to see you agree with us.

I'm afraid I don't understand.

Thats awfully presumptuous of you. We have asked geniune questions and exposed genuine critisim. All we have gotten in return is whining, bitching, strawmen, and accusations of intolerance. It seems to me, and Im sure Im not the only one, that Christians cant take it when their sacred ideals are questioned. They get awfully pissy...




See, Ive been saying the reverse is also true, people are virtuous, not Christianity. Or does that not work? Does Christianity get all the praise but none of the blame?

Now you've got it...

And if you think that post by Rathanan is anything but just one big long ad hominem and whine fest, and if you really think its an enlightening and "ideal" post...well...I guess your post about how its unenlightened to question ideas makes a lot more sense now.


Go off to bed and dream happy dreams where no one questions and everyone blindly follows. But be careful not to let teh ebil anti-Christians under your bed get you.

:D

I'm afraid I don't understand.

I know.

the only thing inherent in christianity is the belief in jesus. ingoring or explaining away, or even embracing the passages in the bible that bother you does not make them dishonest or bad christians.

I agree. However, I want them to admit the reason they are ignoring them is BECAUSE Christianity is not inherantly a religion of peace.

I know.

Silly of me, I admitted ignorance again.

Now that it has been established I do not understand, could you please explain how I am agreeing with you and KoL.

I understand. I was also raised Catholic, I studied under Catholic nuns and priests for 12 years. Now I´m an agnostic. As for what you say about Fundamentalists, yeah, I know they can be nut cases, all you have to do is listen for 5 seconds to the things they preach and your hair would stand on end. But let me tell you, whereas in the US, Christian women do not tend to be very submissive, Europe is another thing.

Example of what I´m implying: Italian women and Italian society. One of my co-workers is married to an Italian man from Sardinia. His mother asked her one time while in Rome what did she wanted to do now that she was married to her son. To which my friend answered that she wanted to settle down and work on her chosen field. The mother in law promptly replayed that, according to the Church, women belong at home, raising kids and feeding the husband. My friend back-fired with asking her where did her life stood at if she dedicated herself to her children and husband only, to which the lady replayed that as soon as you get married your life belongs to the husband. That that is what God wants.

If that isn´t submission I don´t know what is. But I understand you. We´re talking about entirely different societies.

*shudder*

did the new wife follow that advice?

Ok, well its been fun, but Im off to bed. I got a meeting over coffee with my undergrad mentor tomorrow. Ill be back however, youre not rid of me yet.


Ill be sure to plot the mass genocide of Christians in my dreams:rolleyes:

Silly of me, I admitted ignorance again.

Now that it has been established I do not understand, could you please explain how I am agreeing with you and KoL.

For christianity to be a religion of love, peace and tolerance, you have to ignore or explain away the intolerance in its holy book, it's what we've been saying, and its what you just did.

*shudder*

did the new wife follow that advice?

Nah, she´s very independent in that aspect. But needless to say, she´s Satan to her husband´s mother.:D

Ok, well its been fun, but Im off to bed. I got a meeting over coffee with my undergrad mentor tomorrow. Ill be back however, youre not rid of me yet.


Ill be sure to plot the mass genocide of Christians in my dreams:rolleyes:
Good night. Remember in your dreams: the only way to effectively kill us is to expose us to the sun or stab a stake in our hearts.

When did I say that christians were ignorant?

In this thread, on the last few pages:

That's where you fail, I have read a number of the justifications, and most of them boil down to ignoring the passages that they do not approve of.

Christianity, the religion is based on intolerance, through ignoring major portions of the bible most christians are not intolerant towards everyone that the word of god says they're supposed to be intolerant towards.

Yes there is, they just choose to ignore it.


I'm saying that a majority of christians do not know what their beliefs are based off, or choose to ignore the basis.

A quick scan of your posts inthis thread show that you clearly believe that Christians are either willfully ignorant of these verses, or simply have no idea what their beliefs are, i.e. they are ignorant of them.

As to the justifications, why should I post them?
This is the first post of yours that I've noticed so far.

You should post them because you made claims about them. I don't believe your claims about these justifications. I want to see them for myself. Give me a link.

And while you're at it, go back and look at my post. Read how I reconciled feminism and Christianity. If you can't even bother to do that, then why have a thread about it?

Thats awfully presumptuous of you. We have asked geniune questions and exposed genuine critisim. All we have gotten in return is whining, bitching, strawmen, and accusations of intolerance. It seems to me, and Im sure Im not the only one, that Christians cant take it when their sacred ideals are questioned. They get awfully pissy...




See, Ive been saying the reverse is also true, people are virtuous, not Christianity. Or does that not work? Does Christianity get all the praise but none of the blame?


And if you think that post by Rathanan is anything but just one big long ad hominem and whine fest, and if you really think its an enlightening and "ideal" post...well...I guess your post about how its unenlightened to question ideas makes a lot more sense now.


Go off to bed and dream happy dreams where no one questions and everyone blindly follows. But be careful not to let teh ebil anti-Christians under your bed get you.


The obvious doesn't require presumption. And Rathanan is right about you and how you approach posts. You are called on it each and every night by someone, lots of folks in fact. Of course it is all everyone else and could not possibly be you. ;)

I expected no less than this reply. I am happy you prove my point for me. :p

That's true. However, you are wrong, mostly, in your thinking.
Bit by bit:

From New Limacon's Bible's footnotes: "It appeasr that 1 Cor 14, 34-36, was added to Paul's original letter by a later writer. Perhaps someone copying Paul's letters needed to show that Christianity was not a movement that would disrupt the social order by allowing women to speak in public." This makes sense, because if you look at the rest of Corinthians 1, he mentions women prophesizing several times.



one good reason for thinking that it doesnt mean what it seems to mean or was added later is that paul had close associations with female evangelists who were not silent and taught men about christianity.

For christianity to be a religion of love, peace and tolerance, you have to ignore or explain away the intolerance in its holy book, it's what we've been saying, and its what you just did.

Well it's catch-22 then, isn't it? I can either say, "Yes Dyakovo, your interpretation is right," and you'll point out Christians don't follow the word of God. Or, I can say, "No Dyakovo, your interpretation is wrong and here is why, based on the teachings of the institution that created the very Bible you quote" and you claim I'm just "explaining it away." You asked for an answer to your question, and you've very graciously looked at and responded to all of them. But now that there's something that you can't explain away, you accuse me of it.

That article doesnt really help your case...




:confused:

It's not an article, it's an introduction and labeled in RED "Menu." Obviously you've misunderstood... or you like cherry-picking yourself.

Topics Covered in this menu:
bullet The status of women in society and religion:
bullet Equal rights - An overview
bullet Legal aspects of gender discrimination
bullet Numbers of female clergy in North America


bullet When various faith groups started to ordain women


bullet Status of female ordination as priests & consecration as bishops:
bullet The Roman Catholic Church
bullet Among Anglicans:
bullet The Anglican communion
bullet The Australian Anglican Church
bullet The Church of England:
bullet Ordaining female priests
bullet Consecrating female bishops
bullet The Episcopal Church, USA
bullet The Scottish Episcopal Church
bullet Other faith groups


bullet Bible and other ancient sources:
bullet Female leaders mentioned in the Bible, and early Christian writings
bullet Biblical passages directly related to female leadership and ordination


bullet The continuing debate:
bullet Arguments for and against female ordination
bullet Recent news on female ordination
bullet Lawsuit against the Roman Catholic church


bullet More information:
bullet Books, Internet links and a video

It's ok.... since you're having some trouble: The Anglican Church -- http://www.religioustolerance.org/femclrg15.htm

The Australian Anglican Church -- http://www.religioustolerance.org/femclrg16.htm


The Church of England --
http://www.religioustolerance.org/femclrg15.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/femclrg18.htm

The Episcopal Church, USA -- http://www.religioustolerance.org/femclrg14.htm

The Scottish Episcopal Church -- http://www.religioustolerance.org/femclrg17.htm

Oh, and some others such as "Congregationalists, some Lutherans, the Presbyterian Church-USA, the United Church of Canada, United Church of Christ, United Methodist Church, etc." Association of Vineyard Churches, Pentecostal Denominations, : http://www.religioustolerance.org/femclrg4.htm

And just to be inclusive and fair, there are female rabbis too in liberal reform synagogues.

Nah, she´s very independent in that aspect. But needless to say, she´s Satan to her husband´s mother.:D

it has to be rough to be disliked by an italian mother in law.

one good reason for thinking that it doesnt mean what it seems to mean or was added later is that paul had close associations with female evangelists who were not silent and taught men about christianity.
Exactly. I can't remember all of their names, but there was a deacon named Phoebe who was a friend of Paul's. And as I said at the beginning of this thread, women were some of the first converts because Christianity was so much better for the weaker elements of society than existing beliefs. That doesn't validate the religion, but it does explain why so many women joined it.

For christianity to be a religion of love, peace and tolerance, you have to ignore or explain away the intolerance in its holy book, it's what we've been saying, and its what you just did.

There it is YET again.

Because you say so. Amazing, but you know what, no one has to explain away a thing if it is not interpretted to mean what you are implying.

YOU do not get to dictate what the Bible means or how anyone has to interpret it. No one does for that matter.

No one is ignoring a thing, there is a huge difference in ignoring something and understanding that a meaning is not literal or simply not applicable...as in Mosaic law vs Christian law. Christ not once ever showed any intolerance, not ever.

In my opinion, the bible, and following the bible is not a prerequisite to being a Christian. You even agreed when I stated believing in Jesus, God, and the Hereafter as the requisites. Other than the Ten Commandments, I can't see something of vital importance in the bible that isn't covered by beliefs in the other three.

The Apostle's Creed is a popular way to define who a Christian is, as is "any person who believes in the teachings of Christ."

The Apostle's Creed is a popular way to define who a Christian is, as is "any person who believes in the teachings of Christ."

Believes or follows? How many 'Christians' would find turning the other cheek etc?

The Apostle's Creed is a popular way to define who a Christian is, as is "any person who believes in the teachings of Christ."
Believes or follows? How many 'Christians' would find turning the other cheek etc?
Something a priest I heard constantly bring up was that in the original language, Latin, I guess, the phrase was, "I belive into one God, etc." It doesn't really make sense gramatically, but I think it's a better description because it connotes action as an effect of belief. "Faith without works is dead" and all that.

it has to be rough to be disliked by an italian mother in law.

Yeah, it´s a bitch. LOL.:p

Anyway guys, I retire now from the debate. I must attend to other affairs. See you all, if the thread´s still open, tomorrow. Ki o tsukette!!

Wow, the literate part was a joke. Lighten up. :p


And my question about Jesus was a serious one. He clearly was educated to a degree. Why didnt he write anything down? Muhammed (well his scribe...) did, and its not like the literacy rate was any higher then...

Really?
Where did Jesus go to school?
What was the curriculum there?

I mean if you've read the Bible, doesn't it pretty much skip from his birth, to a visit to Jerusalem as a kid, and thence BOOM! to his ministry? What makes you so sure he was educated?

Is the bible not the word of god?

You know, you keep asking a question that has been answered many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many times in this thread.

I suggest you go back and read as you have admitted your memory is faulty.

Why would any woman decide to become christian?

Just because the Bible says it doesn't mean that how it works. People become part of a religion for many different reasons, its their desicion. Why can't we just be happy with our own choices and not fault people on theres.

Just because the Bible says it doesn't mean that how it works. People become part of a religion for many different reasons, its their desicion. Why can't we just be happy with our own choices and not fault people on theres.

Because people love meddling, especially the people on this forum.

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.
and all the JW's want is for you to admit that you are a sinner and that Jesus died for you and repent and vow to never have a blood transfusion ever ever, right there on your front porch at 10am on a Saturday morning.

Really?
Where did Jesus go to school?
What was the curriculum there?

I mean if you've read the Bible, doesn't it pretty much skip from his birth, to a visit to Jerusalem as a kid, and thence BOOM! to his ministry? What makes you so sure he was educated?



You know, you keep asking a question that has been answered many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many times in this thread.

I suggest you go back and read as you have admitted your memory is faulty.

I'll answer for KOL if I may; Jesus was, in truth, little more than a religious teacher. Hebrew scrolls denote him as such, they may even use the term "rabbi". If this is so, Jesus would have required a religious education beyond that prevalent for the period so as to have any basis upon which to preach.

Logically, Jesus simply must have been erudite. Little else, given the preponderence of other such contemporary figures, would have afforded him any legitimacy.

Because people love meddling, especially the people on this forum.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v260/Katganistan/katsseal-1.jpg

I'll answer for KOL if I may; Jesus was, in truth, little more than a religious teacher. Hebrew scrolls denote him as such, they may even use the term "rabbi". If this is so, Jesus would have required a religious education beyond that prevalent for the period so as to have any basis upon which to preach.

Logically, Jesus simply must have been erudite. Little else, given the preponderence of other such contemporary figures, would have afforded him any legitimacy.

Indeed, but intelligence and wit do not imply, especially at a time in which most people were not literate, that Jesus was himself a writer.

If anything, being an educator has shown me that. People can carry on conversations and make quite intelligent and persuasive arguments without having the ability to string three written words together. It is likely that whatever education he may have had, given the time period, was largely, if not entirely, passed orally.

Indeed, but intelligence and wit do not imply, especially at a time in which most people were not literate, that Jesus was himself a writer.

If anything, being an educator has shown me that. People can carry on conversations and make quite intelligent and persuasive arguments without having the ability to string three written words together. It is likely that whatever education he may have had, given the time period, was largely, if not entirely, passed orally.

I was reading that people who cannot read think more narratively and less abstractly than the literate. For example, when illiterates were shown pictures of wood, an ax, and a hammer, they said that the hammer did not belong. They weren't grouping the things into abstract categories ("tools" or "raw material") but thinking how they would work in a story. A hammer isn't much good for gathering firewood, which is why it would go.
I bring this up because much of what Jesus taught was in the form of parables, of stories. Even if he himself was not illiterate, he certainly realized he was dealing with an illiterate audience.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v260/Katganistan/katsseal-1.jpg

Thank you, thank you very much. :D

Something a priest I heard constantly bring up was that in the original language, Latin, I guess, the phrase was, "I belive into one God, etc." It doesn't really make sense gramatically, but I think it's a better description because it connotes action as an effect of belief. "Faith without works is dead" and all that.

Well how I understand Jesus' message was that personal belief is irrelevant, and that good is determined by real actions.

Well how I understand Jesus' message was that personal belief is irrelevant, and that good is determined by real actions.

seems to me to be a bit of both but different sects have different opinions.

Well how I understand Jesus' message was that personal belief is irrelevant, and that good is determined by real actions.

This is my favoured interpretation of the Bible; however, I've met many Christians who believe that salvation is solely by grace, and that belief in God will wash away all sins. The Bible itself - which is our primary source for information on Christ - seems to support both interpretations, as is common with the Bible.

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.

Ah, but what species are we referencing? Yes, males do seem to dominate much of the animal kingdom. But then we have to consider things like the matriarchy of bonobos, our closest primate relative. The one the MALE scientists don't want you to know about because they've spent the past few decades reinforcing sexist stereotypes based on research about chimpanzees. *shakes fist at those bloody scientists*

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

Hee.

This is my favoured interpretation of the Bible; however, I've met many Christians who believe that salvation is solely by grace, and that belief in God will wash away all sins. The Bible itself - which is our primary source for information on Christ - seems to support both interpretations, as is common with the Bible.

Maybe so, but when you look at the amount of the New Testament devoted to the good works gospel, and the parts devoted to actual spiritual/religious concepts like Heave/Hell, it's easy to see that the good works is the main body of the message.

I think that those who use the Bible in just a personal belief/salvation way are massively naive and engaging in hopeful thinking, if anything the spiritual parts are strange and represent a primitive bronze-age mythos, the main worth of the NT comes from it's altruistic ideas and exhortation to making peoples lives better.

I mean it took what, 1000 years for Christs message to reach every corner of the globe? If God was going to come back and give salvation I think it would be more decisive.

Well it's catch-22 then, isn't it? I can either say, "Yes Dyakovo, your interpretation is right," and you'll point out Christians don't follow the word of God. Or, I can say, "No Dyakovo, your interpretation is wrong and here is why, based on the teachings of the institution that created the very Bible you quote" and you claim I'm just "explaining it away." You asked for an answer to your question, and you've very graciously looked at and responded to all of them. But now that there's something that you can't explain away, you accuse me of it.

You are explaining it away... The part that you, and many others don't seem to get is I'm okay with that. I have no problems with most christians, because they ignore the parts of the bible that make the religion a religion of intolerance.

There it is YET again.

Because you say so. Amazing, but you know what, no one has to explain away a thing if it is not interpretted to mean what you are implying.

YOU do not get to dictate what the Bible means or how anyone has to interpret it. No one does for that matter.

No one is ignoring a thing, there is a huge difference in ignoring something and understanding that a meaning is not literal or simply not applicable...as in Mosaic law vs Christian law. Christ not once ever showed any intolerance, not ever.

Do you read what you write?

"I'm not going to follow those rules, because I do not think they are applicable"

As far as my "interpretting" go back to the OP read the passages, where is there room for interpretation?

You know, you keep asking a question that has been answered many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many times in this thread.

I suggest you go back and read as you have admitted your memory is faulty.

If it has been answered, show me the answer, I admit I might have missed it in the flurry of replies.

You are explaining it away... The part that you, and many others don't seem to get is I'm okay with that. I have no problems with most christians, because they ignore the parts of the bible that make the religion a religion of intolerance.

They don't ignore them. You just think they do. Without any evidence.

If anyone's ignoring anything, it's you. You seem to have ignored my explanation of how feminism and Christianity can be reconciled.

Just because the Bible says it doesn't mean that how it works. People become part of a religion for many different reasons, its their desicion. Why can't we just be happy with our own choices and not fault people on theres.

I asked a question, how is that a bad thing?

Indeed, but intelligence and wit do not imply, especially at a time in which most people were not literate, that Jesus was himself a writer.

If anything, being an educator has shown me that. People can carry on conversations and make quite intelligent and persuasive arguments without having the ability to string three written words together. It is likely that whatever education he may have had, given the time period, was largely, if not entirely, passed orally.

point to Kat

In this thread, on the last few pages:A quick scan of your posts inthis thread show that you clearly believe that Christians are either willfully ignorant of these verses, or simply have no idea what their beliefs are, i.e. they are ignorant of them.

Ignoring something does not equate to being ignorant.


You should post them because you made claims about them. I don't believe your claims about these justifications. I want to see them for myself. Give me a link.

I don't see how its my job to help you defend your religion.

And while you're at it, go back and look at my post. Read how I reconciled feminism and Christianity. If you can't even bother to do that, then why have a thread about it?

I'll look for it, I might have already read it and simply not responded because I didn't see any problem with it...

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.

Is this the one you were talking about GoG?


Going back I remember seeing it, I ignored it because of the strawman at the beginning.

Ignoring something does not equate to being ignorant.

To be honest, I don't really care. I'm just tired of you saying that Christians ignore these passages, when you have provided no evidence for such a statement, and you refuse to discuss any interpretations that attempt to reconcile feminism and Christianity.

I don't see how its my job to help you defend your religion.

You don't even know what my religion is.

The reason I want you to show me the justifications is because you said that these justifications ignore the passages in the OP. You made the claim. Now you have to back it up.

I'll look for it, I might have already read it and simply not responded because I didn't see any problem with it...

Considering the caliber of your debate, I won't hold my breath waiting for an intelligent response.

Is this the one you were talking about GoG?


Going back I remember seeing it, I ignored it because of the strawman at the beginning.

Do you even know what a strawman is?

Do you even know what a strawman is?

Yes, You stated in the first line (which I bolded) that:
"everyone has assumed so far that Jesus preached a sexist and misogynist message."
Which is something that no one has said.

Jesus may not have "preached a sexist and misogynistic message" the christian holy book, however, does.

To be honest, I don't really care. I'm just tired of you saying that Christians ignore these passages, when you have provided no evidence for such a statement, and you refuse to discuss any interpretations that attempt to reconcile feminism and Christianity.

Every argument I have seen has boiled down to ignoring the passages.

You don't even know what my religion is.
True, I also don't care. I assume based on your posts here and in other religion threads that you're a christian of some sort.
The reason I want you to show me the justifications is because you said that these justifications ignore the passages in the OP. You made the claim. Now you have to back it up.
No I don't, I've already seen them, If you want to show me justifications that do not boil down to ignoring the passages, feel free.

Yes, You stated in the first line (which I bolded) that:
"everyone has assumed so far that Jesus preached a sexist and misogynist message."
Which is something that no one has said.

Jesus may not have "preached a sexist and misogynistic message" the christian holy book, however, does.

Notice how I called it an assumption? That means that it was an implicit part of everyone's argument, rather than an explicit one. So you're right when you say that no one made this specifc argument, but you have to believe this assumption is true if you want everyone's arguments to make sense.

If we actually look at Jesus' behaviour in the Gospels, we see that Jesus never exhibited sexist behaviour, even by today's standards. This is important because it serves a s acontrast to those verses you quoted in the OP. Those verses show what life was like in Judea at the time. But Jesus didn't follow those rules. He treated women equally. And the intersting thing is that this part of Jesus' ministry isn't clear unless you specifically take into account the verses in the OP.

Every argument I have seen has boiled down to ignoring the passages.

Then you haven't looked very hard, have you?

True, I also don't care. I assume based on your posts here and in other religion threads that you're a christian of some sort.

And your assumptions would be wrong. I don't even believe in the historical Jesus. In my opinion, Jesus is purely mythological.

No I don't, I've already seen them, If you want to show me justifications that do not boil down to ignoring the passages, feel free.

I did show you a justification. Several times. I even repeated it in this very post. It debunks your claim that every single justification ignores the passages in the OP.

As long as everybody is clear that you are making unsupported claims about these justifications (i.e. that they ignore the passages), and when I asked you for support for this claim, you couldn't show me any.

And your assumptions would be wrong. I don't even believe in the historical Jesus. In my opinion, Jesus is purely mythological.

So you're not a christian, so what?

I did show you a justification. Several times. I even repeated it in this very post. It debunks your claim that every single justification ignores the passages in the OP.
No it doesn't, it provides a justification for ignoring the passages. Also I did not say that ever single justification ignores the passages.
As long as everybody is clear that you are making unsupported claims about these justifications (i.e. that they ignore the passages), and when I asked you for support for this claim, you couldn't show me any.
My claim is not unsupported, all you have to do is actually read the arguments and you'll see that the essence of every argument is "well, they don't count, because of X"

My god.. I.. I have no idea... no idea at all why they're christian.

You assume too much in saying that they just overlook certain bits though. Just because you can't see yourself being that stupid, it doesn't mean that they can't be that stupid.

My ex-girlfriend was christian, and she believed that women should be subservient to men because Eve came from Adam's rib, and was by that notion inferior. I mean wtf?! How could they believe this shite? I don't see men ribs coming out of their body, and transforming in to women these days.. where'd all the magic go? Did it run out? If it ran out why do we even give a crap?! GOD!!??!

My god.. I.. I have no idea... no idea at all why they're christian.

You assume too much in saying that they just overlook certain bits though. Just because you can't see yourself being that stupid, it doesn't mean that they can't be that stupid.

My ex-girlfriend was christian, and she believed that women should be subservient to men because Eve came from Adam's rib, and was by that notion inferior. I mean wtf?! How could they believe this shite? I don't see men ribs coming out of their body, and transforming in to women these days.. where'd all the magic go? Did it run out? If it ran out why do we even give a crap?! GOD!!??!

A little over the top to say or imply that all christian women are stupid...

So you're not a christian, so what?

You're the one who brought up my relious affiliation. Not me. I was just using it as an opportunity to point out one of your assumptions.

No it doesn't, it provides a justification for ignoring the passages.

It provides evidence for an interpretation. This interpretation implies that Christians do not have to live by the tenets described in the OP. The verses in the OP can not be ignored because they are central to the formation of the interpretation. Let me repeat that for you: The verses in the OP can not be ignored because they are central to the formation of the interpretation.

Also I did not say that ever single justification ignores the passages.

Oh, really?

Every argument I have seen has boiled down to ignoring the passages.

You should take more care to keep track of what you say.

My claim is not unsupported, all you have to do is actually read the arguments and you'll see that the essence of every argument is "well, they don't count, because of X"

I would like to read the arguments. Post a link.

Why would any woman decide to become christian?
Speaking from personal experience:

It's hard to buck tradition.

It's hard to constantly fight against social norms.

It's hard to be bathed in sexism day in and day out without caving to it in some way.

It's hard to resist seeking approval. It's hard to constantly face disapproval.

Add to all that, it's hard to live your life as a fully independent person. Being a grown up is rough. You have to make lots of hard choices, and you always have to face the possibility that you made a lousy choice and fucked things up. Life is much simpler if somebody else makes all the tough choices for you, because then even if things suck it's never your fault. Submission can be very simple and can seem like a nice easy solution.

Christianity offers women a very simple, straightforward life path. According to the Bible, a woman needs to submit, make babies, and submit some more. That's it. If she does that, she's a good woman and God will love her and take her up to heaven when she dies.

I can see the attraction of that. I can certainly see why females who were brought up in Christian or traditionalist households would be particularly willing to follow this path in life. Many young women simply don't realize they've got any alternative!

You're the one who brought up my relious affiliation. Not me. I was just using it as an opportunity to point out one of your assumptions.

And since I was wrong about your religious affiliation, that makes all my other statements wrong too? :rolleyes:
Since it got your panties in such a bunch...
I'm sorry I don't care enough to have found out and memorize your religious affiliation.
better?

It provides evidence for an interpretation. This interpretation implies that Christians do not have to live by the tenets described in the OP. The verses in the OP can not be ignored because they are central to the formation of the interpretation. Let me repeat that for you: The verses in the OP can not be ignored because they are central to the formation of the interpretation.

And the interpretation is that the passages don't count, thusly they are ignored.

Oh, really?

Yup.

You should take more care to keep track of what you say.

They are not the same thing, work on your reading comprehension skills.

I would like to read the arguments. Post a link.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=552861
Thats a start

Speaking from personal experience:

It's hard to buck tradition.

It's hard to constantly fight against social norms.

It's hard to be bathed in sexism day in and day out without caving to it in some way.

It's hard to resist seeking approval. It's hard to constantly face disapproval.

Add to all that, it's hard to live your life as a fully independent person. Being a grown up is rough. You have to make lots of hard choices, and you always have to face the possibility that you made a lousy choice and fucked things up. Life is much simpler if somebody else makes all the tough choices for you, because then even if things suck it's never your fault. Submission can be very simple and can seem like a nice easy solution.

Christianity offers women a very simple, straightforward life path. According to the Bible, a woman needs to submit, make babies, and submit some more. That's it. If she does that, she's a good woman and God will love her and take her up to heaven when she dies.

I can see the attraction of that. I can certainly see why females who were brought up in Christian or traditionalist households would be particularly willing to follow this path in life. Many young women simply don't realize they've got any alternative!

That's a rather said statement though Bottle...

And would be a reason (crossing topics with another thread here) why in theory I have no problem with an age of majority for religion.

That's a rather said statement though Bottle...

And would be a reason (crossing topics with another thread here) why in theory I have no problem with an age of majority for religion.
I should add that many young men don't know there's an alternative, either.

My boyfriend and I have talked a lot about this, as a matter of fact. He grew up in a conservative Christian culture, one where traditional gender roles were enforced, and he literally didn't know jack shit about feminism until he met me.

The funny thing was, he hated the gender role crap. He resented relationships, and was starting to resent women in general, because he hated the notion of a submissive partner for life. He hated the idea that he would basically have to be responsible for another adult. He wanted an equal partner, not a woman-child who expected him to always lead her. He was coming to resent women because he saw them as constantly being lazy and leaving important decisions to their male partners, instead of taking an equal share of the responsibility for decision making.

He hated the sexual dynamic where the female was supposed to allow the male access to sex in exchange for things she really wanted (like "security"), because he wanted to be desired and wanted sexually. He hated the idea of a relationship where he desired sex and his partner did not, but merely suffered it, and that was the future that was projected for him.

He hated the way he was always expected to behave and feel certain ways because of his maleness, and how he was constantly expected to hide his true feelings and desires because they weren't "manly."

The sad thing was, until he got to college he thought he was alone in this.

He had thought "feminism" was basically man-hating. He'd only ever been fed the tired, sexist, anti-feminist lies about how feminists want all people to be homogeneous and androgynous. He thought feminism was about feminine superiority achieved by destroying everything masculine.

Needless to say, I corrected these misconceptions. :D

I wasn't the only feminist he met in college (thank heavens!) and I think it worked wonders for him to simply see that there were alternatives available in life.

And since I was wrong about your religious affiliation, that makes all my other statements wrong too? :rolleyes:
Since it got your panties in such a bunch...
I'm sorry I don't care enough to have found out and memorize your religious affiliation.
better?

My religion, or lack thereof, is completely irrelevant to the debate.

And the interpretation is that the passages don't count, thusly they are ignored.

Do you have trouble reading? I really don't think I can make it any clearer. One more time: it would be impossible to come up with my interpretation without taking into account the passages in your OP. I've already shown you why. Three times.

Yup.

They are not the same thing, work on your reading comprehension skills.

It doesn't really matter. I'm kinda getting tired of reminding you what you posted. I just want you to post something that actually supports your claims.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=552861
Thats a start

No, it's not. This (http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/pdf_files/free_articles/ETS%20Paper%20on%20the%20Pillars%20for%20Womens%20Submission.pdf) is.


The link is to an essay by a Chrisian feminist on those very passages in your OP. Wow, I debunked your claim again.

I should add that many young men don't know there's an alternative, either.

My boyfriend and I have talked a lot about this, as a matter of fact. He grew up in a conservative Christian culture, one where traditional gender roles were enforced, and he literally didn't know jack shit about feminism until he met me.

The funny thing was, he hated the gender role crap. He resented relationships, and was starting to resent women in general, because he hated the notion of a submissive partner for life. He hated the idea that he would basically have to be responsible for another adult. He wanted an equal partner, not a woman-child who expected him to always lead her. He was coming to resent women because he saw them as constantly being lazy and leaving important decisions to their male partners, instead of taking an equal share of the responsibility for decision making.

He hated the sexual dynamic where the female was supposed to allow the male access to sex in exchange for things she really wanted (like "security"), because he wanted to be desired and wanted sexually. He hated the idea of a relationship where he desired sex and his partner did not, but merely suffered it, and that was the future that was projected for him.

He hated the way he was always expected to behave and feel certain ways because of his maleness, and how he was constantly expected to hide his true feelings and desires because they weren't "manly."

The sad thing was, until he got to college he thought he was alone in this.

He had thought "feminism" was basically man-hating. He'd only ever been fed the tired, sexist, anti-feminist lies about how feminists want all people to be homogeneous and androgynous. He thought feminism was about feminine superiority achieved by destroying everything masculine.

Needless to say, I corrected these misconceptions. :D

I wasn't the only feminist he met in college (thank heavens!) and I think it worked wonders for him to simply see that there were alternatives available in life.

I agree with you 100%

The link is to an essay by a Chrisian feminist on those very passages in your OP. Wow, I debunked your claim again.
Reading the first page of that link reveals that the author is arguing pretty much what Dyakovo (and others) have been saying:

The Bible passages in question are obviously sexist, and progressive/non-sexist Christians can basically only get around them by saying, "Those passages were meaningful in their historical context, but no longer have literal application today." In other words, discard them as out-dated advice.

Her thesis does not conflict with what Dyakovo has been saying all along.

EDIT: And, having read the full paper, I find this confirmed. Most of the arguments center around the idea that the Bible was written in a cultural context quite different from our current one, and thus many of the instructions and suggestions in the Bible are quite obviously not appropriate to apply to modern life.

She also points out some false reasoning on the part of evangelicals who call for female submission, but those arguments are not the ones being brought up in this discussion, so I've left them out. (For instance, the bit about the chronological order of creation and how it relates to hierarchy is not something that appears to be debated right now.)

Reading the first page of that link reveals that the author is arguing pretty much what Dyakovo (and others) have been saying:

The passages in question are obviously sexist, and progressive/non-sexist Christians can basically only get around them by saying, "Those passages were meaningful in their historical context, but no longer have literal application today." In other words, discard them as out-dated advice.

Shhh! You can't be telling him that, it gets in the way of him attacking me. ;)
:rolleyes:

I should add that many young men don't know there's an alternative, either....snip Bottle's typically intelligent post...
Needless to say, I corrected these misconceptions. :D

I wasn't the only feminist he met in college (thank heavens!) and I think it worked wonders for him to simply see that there were alternatives available in life.

While I was reading your post, and the previous one, I contrasted it in my head to two women I knew during my youth. Both had been raised in Christian households by stauch feminists. One was the daughter of a United minister, while the other had grown up in a Friends community (Quakers, for all of you who aren't familiar with the term).

It was interesting to see how religion was used as a tool for socialising these young women into believing that they were equals, and that everybody should be treated the same regardless of their genitals.

You're right in that it's hard to buck tradition and fight against social norms, and it is even harder when it has been linked with religion. But in these women's lives, I noticed that these dynamics were used to prevent sexism and submission. The religious communty basically rewarded progressive attitudes with societal approval.

I think this route is harder to take as it reduces social cohesion in the community by promoting individual rights. A parallel can be made that it is harder to govern in a democracy compared to some sort of dictatorship. This may be why these communities don't have the same sort of political power that more conservative groups do.

Reading the first page of that link reveals that the author is arguing pretty much what Dyakovo (and others) have been saying:

The Bible passages in question are obviously sexist, and progressive/non-sexist Christians can basically only get around them by saying, "Those passages were meaningful in their historical context, but no longer have literal application today." In other words, discard them as out-dated advice.

Her thesis does not conflict with what Dyakovo has been saying all along.

EDIT: And, having read the full paper, I find this confirmed. Most of the arguments center around the idea that the Bible was written in a cultural context quite different from our current one, and thus many of the instructions and suggestions in the Bible are quite obviously not appropriate to apply to modern life.

She also points out some false reasoning on the part of evangelicals who call for female submission, but those arguments are not the ones being brought up in this discussion, so I've left them out. (For instance, the bit about the chronological order of creation and how it relates to hierarchy is not something that appears to be debated right now.)

Perhaps we are using a different definition of 'ignore'. When I ignore something, i pretend it isn't there. What the author of the essay did was directly address the passage and describe why it is no longer applicale in a modern context. To me, that's not 'ignoring'. But I'm not going to get into a semantic debate. You want to call that ignoring something, go ahead, but don't pretend that they haven't addressed these passages in a logical and critical manner.

Every argument I have seen has boiled down to ignoring the passages.

Untrue.

There is a line of defence that roughly goes like this:
- The rules are written by God
- Therefore they're good
- Therefore following them is NOT misogynist but GOOD for women.

I'm willing to accept that someone - a christian woman - who believes in the Word of God can lead a happy and fulfilling life without apparent equality: Who are we to judge them and their lifestyle?


This thread however needs few links to lighten the mood!
- http://www.sexinchrist.com/submission.html
- http://community.kinkychristians.com/

And naturally, the best unbiased bible online:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html


:p

Untrue.

There is a line of defence that roughly goes like this:
- The rules are written by God
- Therefore they're good
- Therefore following them is NOT misogynist but GOOD for women.

I'm willing to accept that someone - a christian woman - who believes in the Word of God can lead a happy and fulfilling life without apparent equality: Who are we to judge them and their lifestyle?


This thread however needs few links to lighten the mood!
- http://www.sexinchrist.com/submission.html
- http://community.kinkychristians.com/

And naturally, the best unbiased bible online:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html


:p

Then they have issues...

Perhaps we are using a different definition of 'ignore'. When I ignore something, i pretend it isn't there. What the author of the essay did was directly address the passage and describe why it is no longer applicale in a modern context. To me, that's not 'ignoring'. But I'm not going to get into a semantic debate. You want to call that ignoring something, go ahead, but don't pretend that they haven't addressed these passages in a logical and critical manner.
it's not worth the time, these people are not here for intelligent debate or answers to their questions or anything of the sort.

it's not worth the time, these people are not here for intelligent debate or answers to their questions or anything of the sort.

I'm not here for intelligent debate because of what?
The fact that I have been consistently attacked for things which I have not said?
Get over yourself Smunkee, we both know you're better than that.

Perhaps we are using a different definition of 'ignore'. When I ignore something, i pretend it isn't there. What the author of the essay did was directly address the passage and describe why it is no longer applicale in a modern context. To me, that's not 'ignoring'. But I'm not going to get into a semantic debate. You want to call that ignoring something, go ahead, but don't pretend that they haven't addressed these passages in a logical and critical manner.

So maybe ignore isn't the best word, they have 'addressed' the passages by saying that they don't matter.

Holy cow, this thread exploded!

Holy cow, this thread exploded!

My religious threads tend to be rather active :D just look at the was Jesus real thread...

Apologetics goes ant ways apparently.

:confused:

Apologetics goes both ways apparently. I'm suprised you quoted me Dy, since I'm on your ignore list.

Apologetics goes both ways apparently. I'm suprised you quoted me Dy, since I'm on your ignore list.

You were, no one stays on my ignore list forever, I think the longest was 2 weeks.

My religious threads tend to be rather active :D just look at the was Jesus real thread...

I think you probably have enough material to write a book.

I think you probably have enough material to write a book.

It would be a rather strange and convoluted one though...

Which actually would be rather appropriate, yes?

It would be a rather strange and convoluted one though...

Which actually would be rather appropriate, yes?

Exactly.

Exactly.

:fluffle:

@Dy: Ah. That makes sense. It was just a bit of a surprise to see you quoting me. Sorry I can't quote on this thing either. Opera mini hates Jolt.

@Dy: Ah. That makes sense. It was just a bit of a surprise to see you quoting me. Sorry I can't quote on this thing either. Opera mini hates Jolt.

Surprise!

So maybe ignore isn't the best word, they have 'addressed' the passages by saying that they don't matter.

When feminist theologians look at these passages, they read them in the original languages, compare translations, try and discern the cultural context of the authors, analyse how they fit into the context of other parts of Christian belief, and debate how applicable they are to modern society, among other things. That is quite different from 'addressing the passages by saying that they don't matter'.

When feminist theologians look at these passages, they read them in the original languages, compare translations, try and discern the cultural context of the authors, analyse how they fit into the context of other parts of Christian belief, and debate how applicable they are to modern society, among other things. That is quite different from 'addressing the passages by saying that they don't matter'.

And they finish by saying that they are not applicable because they were written in a time period where that sort of behaviour was not only acceptable, it was expected. Thus concluding that they are not a rule to be followed in the modern world.
Do you really not see how this is saying that the rule is to be ignored?

And they finish by saying that they are not applicable because they were written in a time period where that sort of behaviour was not only acceptable, it was expected. Thus concluding that they are not a rule to be followed in the modern world.
Do you really not see how this is saying that the rule is to be ignored?

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f398/maryjustmary/cat-jesus.jpg

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f398/maryjustmary/cat-jesus.jpg

Do you have a lolcat for every possible scenario?

Do you have a lolcat for every possible scenario?

Not me, Teh Interwebs does.

Not me, Teh Interwebs does.

So essentially yes, especially since we know you make your own also...

So essentially yes, especially since we know you make your own also...

Oh s*it. Busted!:eek:

The obvious doesn't require presumption. And Rathanan is right about you and how you approach posts. You are called on it each and every night by someone, lots of folks in fact. Of course it is all everyone else and could not possibly be you. ;)


Oh, another internet scolding...


The only people who I treat like children are those who act like children. Dont want to be told your ideas are idiotic? Dont post idiotic things.

I also like how you attack me for being condescending, yet defend your enlightened Crusader whos post is full of internet chest banging, ad hominems, and illogical arguements. You slandering my character does not make his god awful post go away.

And they finish by saying that they are not applicable because they were written in a time period where that sort of behaviour was not only acceptable, it was expected. Thus concluding that they are not a rule to be followed in the modern world.
Do you really not see how this is saying that the rule is to be ignored?

Yes, after studying the problem in depth, they come to a logical conclusion that resolves the issue. By 'ignoring the rule' as you put it.

And by 'ignoring' the rule, they seek to define a new dynamic within Christianity that aims to empower women in their quest for equality.

Okay. Fine. I wish all Christians could 'ignore the rule' that way. Don't you?

First, if anyone has posted anything directed at me, please understand if I dont respond, I didnt read all the pages since page 26. If you have a question directed at me, please repost it or something. I dont want to be accused of ignoring the other sides "arguements".

Secondly...

I honostly, honostly dont see whats so hard for a Christian to say "My religion is not perfect*, it has some awful aspects to it**, but I willingly and knowingly choose to ignore those aspects because I do not believe in them, even though my scripture tells me I should. I am still a Christian, I just dont feel I need to apply those bigoted/sexist/mysoginistic/genocidal/pro slavery aspects to my life."

*- They can give whatever reason they want for this
**-They can give whatever reason they want for this

I dont know whats so hard to admit about the above, its honost to themselves and others.

I dont know why Im some terrible person for wanting them to admit it. But then again, I dont see why Im a terrible person for examining religion with a critical and scholarly eye and not giving Christianity a free pass, but apperantly that makes me a hatemonger, even though I never attacked the people, just the ideas:rolleyes:.

I honostly, honostly dont see whats so hard for a Christian to say "My religion is not perfect*, it has some awful aspects to it**, but I willingly and knowingly choose to ignore those aspects because I do not believe in them, even though my scripture tells me I should. I am still a Christian, I just dont feel I need to apply those bigoted/sexist/mysoginistic/genocidal/pro slavery aspects to my life."...I dont know whats so hard to admit about the above, its honost to themselves and others.

You do realise that a substantial number of Christians believe and say something very similar? You do realise that very few Christians think their religion is perfect, right?

You are explaining it away... The part that you, and many others don't seem to get is I'm okay with that. I have no problems with most christians, because they ignore the parts of the bible that make the religion a religion of intolerance.

Perhaps I was unclear. I am not ignoring these passages, I am ignoring the sexist interpretation of them, because it's wrong (at least in my faith). They are still useful passages, especially the part of Corinthians you didn't quote, about husband and wife being subordinate to each other just as they are subordinate to Christ. It is said in the liturgy at least once every three years, and basically repeats what Jesus himself said: love God above all things and love your neighbor as you love yourself.

Yes, after studying the problem in depth, they come to a logical conclusion that resolves the issue. By 'ignoring the rule' as you put it.

And by 'ignoring' the rule, they seek to define a new dynamic within Christianity that aims to empower women in their quest for equality.

Okay. Fine. I wish all Christians could 'ignore the rule' that way. Don't you?

Yes, that is what KoL and I have been saying...

Up until a couple of posts ago I (and you as well it seems) didn't realize we were arguing over the definition of 'ignore'.

You do realise that a substantial number of Christians believe and say something very similar? You do realise that very few Christians think their religion is perfect, right?

And as KoL and I have said our only beef with christians (as opposed to christianity) is with those who do not acknowledge this.

Perhaps I was unclear. I am not ignoring these passages, I am ignoring the sexist interpretation of them, because it's wrong (at least in my faith).

It's not an interpretation, its what they say.

They are still useful passages, especially the part of Corinthians you didn't quote, about husband and wife being subordinate to each other just as they are subordinate to Christ. It is said in the liturgy at least once every three years, and basically repeats what Jesus himself said: love God above all things and love your neighbor as you love yourself.

Got to have some way to keep those damn uppity women in line?
How are the passages I quoted useful?

*snip*
Nowadays, yes. But when Christianity really exploded, around the time these letters were being written, a disproportionate amount of converts were women, so I'm not sure tradition can be used as the sole reason.
Even today, in fact, women seem to be more religious than men. (You never hear of a "church man," you hear of a "church lady.") I'm not really sure why that is, perhaps someone more learned in differences in gender psychology can explain it.

Nowadays, yes. But when Christianity really exploded, around the time these letters were being written, a disproportionate amount of converts were women, so I'm not sure tradition can be used as the sole reason.
Even today, in fact, women seem to be more religious than men. (You never hear of a "church man," you hear of a "church lady.") I'm not really sure why that is, perhaps someone more learned in differences in gender psychology can explain it.

Perhaps it´s because women are more sensitive than men. And because Religion appeals to the senses, and I´m not saying men are insensitive, women tend to be more swayed by it than men. I don´t know, that´s just me speculating.

Yes, that is what KoL and I have been saying...

Up until a couple of posts ago I (and you as well it seems) didn't realize we were arguing over the definition of 'ignore'.

And as KoL and I have said our only beef with christians (as opposed to christianity) is with those who do not acknowledge this.

If you want to pretend you've been saying the same thing that I've been arguing all this time, go right ahead. I can see why you think it would make you look smarter.

If you want to pretend you've been saying the same thing that I've been arguing all this time, go right ahead. I can see why you think it would make you look smarter.

:rolleyes:

Dya and I have been pretty explicet that we just want Christians to admit that they are ignoring the nasty parts without having scriptual reasons to do so.

If you never saw that I suggest you work on reading comprehension.

If you want to pretend you've been saying the same thing that I've been arguing all this time, go right ahead. I can see why you think it would make you look smarter.

Look, are you really that full of yourself, that you find it impossible to actually read the arguments of other posters?
I post nothing 'to make myself look smarter', I really don't give a flying fuck what anybody thinks of me.

KoL and myself have been arguing that intelligent christians choose to not follow rules which are bigotted, and you have been arguing that intelligent christians choose not to follow rules which are bigoted. You were simply to caught up in your definition of ignore and to busy attacking strawmen you built about our beliefs to realize that.
The only real difference is that KoL and I have acknowledged that, based upon the bible, christianity is a religion which promotes bigotry.

The fact that you are unable to perceive that does not in any way make you smarter than me, in fact the opposite could easily be said to be true.

It's not an interpretation, its what they say.

Yes, it is an interpretation. Everything you read is an interpretation, to a degree. Even this post I'm writing is not actually speaking to you, you are looking at the words and in a mental process I have little knowledge of, making sense of it.
The Bible is much less straightfoward than my post, closer to poetry. When J. Alfred Prufrock says, "We have lingered in the chambers of the sea/By sea-girls wreathed with seaweed red and brown/Till human voices wake us, and we drown," Eliot is not actually suggesting that he and his audience have drowned themselves. There are several different layers of meaning, some of which are specific to each individual reader. Same with the Bible.


Got to have some way to keep those damn uppity women in line?
How are the passages I quoted useful?

Good Lord. I explain how they are useful directly following the part you bolded.

You do realise that a substantial number of Christians believe and say something very similar? You do realise that very few Christians think their religion is perfect, right?

Not in my experiance comrade.

They think they have scriptural reasons why they can ignore those parts, when in reality said scriptural evidence does not exist.

They walk around believing Christianity is inherantly the One True Religion of Peace.


And my experiance is from the midwest Bible belt, such as Wheaton IL, which spends the more capita per GDP on churchs than anywhere else in the country (at least as of 2 years ago).

Maybe I just dont encounter liberal Christians.

:rolleyes:

Dya and I have been pretty explicet that we just want Christians to admit that they are ignoring the nasty parts without having scriptual reasons to do so.

If you never saw that I suggest you work on reading comprehension.

Did you miss the bit where I gave scriptural reasons for ignoring the passages in the OP? And the part where I showed how Christian feminists have also done so?

I may have missed your responses due to my poor reading comprehension or something...

Yes, it is an interpretation. Everything you read is an interpretation, to a degree. Even this post I'm writing is not actually speaking to you, you are looking at the words and in a mental process I have little knowledge of, making sense of it.
The Bible is much less straightfoward than my post, closer to poetry. When J. Alfred Prufrock says, "We have lingered in the chambers of the sea/By sea-girls wreathed with seaweed red and brown/Till human voices wake us, and we drown," Eliot is not actually suggesting that he and his audience have drowned themselves. There are several different layers of meaning, some of which are specific to each individual reader. Same with the Bible.




Good Lord. I explain how they are useful directly following the part you bolded.

No, you explain how other parts of that scripture are useful, not the quoted parts.

Did you miss the bit where I gave scriptural reasons for ignoring the passages in the OP? And the part where I showed how Christian feminists have also done so?

I may have missed your responses due to my poor reading comprehension or something...

I certainly did. Saying it was written for another audience and thusly not applicable in the modern world is not scriptural reasons.

Did you miss the bit where I gave scriptural reasons for ignoring the passages in the OP? And the part where I showed how Christian feminists have also done so?

I may have missed your responses due to my poor reading comprehension or something...

I can counter with scriptural evidence saying you should keep the laws of the OP...

"The Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35)

"Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished" (Matthew 5:18).

He referred to Scripture as "the commandment of God" (Matthew 15:3) and as the "Word of God" (Matthew 15:6)


So, once again the Bible contradicts itself it seems. Again, requiring Christians to admit their religion is not inherantly perfect and that they have to cherry pick.

If you made that point earlier, I probably missed it. I probably couldnt see it over all the burnt remains of your strawmen.

No, you explain how other parts of that scripture are useful, not the quoted parts.

The Bible is not a collection of witty aphorisms. You cannot expect to understand it if you only read selected verses.
Now, the verses that you quoted agree with the verse that I brought up. But you could not understand that if you did not read the entire book.

The Bible is not a collection of witty aphorisms. You cannot expect to understand it if you only read selected verses.
Now, the verses that you quoted agree with the verse that I brought up. But you could not understand that if you did not read the entire book.

You fail again, I have read the entire book.

I however recognize it as a muddled collection of contradictions and bigotry.

Not in my experiance comrade.

They think they have scriptural reasons why they can ignore those parts, when in reality said scriptural evidence does not exist.

The theologians whose work I have cited in this thread have used scriptural evidence to discuss the passages listed in the OP. You can look at them yourself. Simply click on any of the links in my posts.

And my experiance is from the midwest Bible belt, such as Wheaton IL, which spends the more capita per GDP on churchs than anywhere else in the country (at least as of 2 years ago).

Maybe I just dont encounter liberal Christians.

Perhaps you don't. It would be foolish of you to assume that all Christians believe the same things that the conservative Christians in your community do. That would be intellectual laziness.

Perhaps you don't. It would be foolish of you to assume that all Christians believe the same things that the conservative Christians in your community do. That would be intellectual laziness.

I never said that. More strawmen? Whats the strawman body count now?


I think its safe to say that liberal christians are the minority however, considering how much of America doesnt believe in evolution, is against gay marriage, and such.

I never said that. More strawmen? Whats the strawman body count now?


I think its safe to say that liberal christians are the minority however, considering how much of America doesnt believe in evolution, is against gay marriage, and such.

To be fair KoL, it seems strawmen are the only way they can attack our arguments.

To be fair KoL, it seems strawmen are the only way they can attack our arguments.

I guess its easier to attack what you want to see than attack whats there...

To be fair KoL, it seems strawmen are the only way they can attack our arguments.

It will be like that, Dy and KoL, per saecula saeculorum... amen.

It will be like that, Dy and KoL, per saecula saeculorum... amen.

meh?

You fail again, I have read the entire book.

I however recognize it as a muddled collection of contradictions and bigotry.

Just to clarify: by "book" I meant Corinthians, not the entire Bible. But if you've read the latter, you've read all of the former.

Here's something I don't understand: the Bible, as I've said repeatedly, was not handed down by God, it was written by many different people. Later, it was compiled into one official book by the Church, around 300-400. Now, people had been using the Old Testament scriptures, letters, and Gospels for hundreds of years by now, but the ultimate decision of what got in was up to the Church, the editors, so to speak. Why would they put in material which contradicted not only other material, but their basic message?
They wouldn't. Unlike you, they realized that there were no contradictions except on the most literal and shallow level. Enter any western literature survey class and you'll read stories that cover a timespan of thousands of years. If you expect Charles Dickens to say the same things as Homer, you're in for a surprise. But great works of literature do not contradict each other in general, their timeless truth is what makes them great. Although it is printed as one book, the Bible is very similar to the survey class.

meh?

That it will always be like that. Straw-men, no real explanation, even if Dy and you present them with the most convincing evidence there is. Unfortunately, those who believe won´t see reason. Sad, really, but it´s how it´ll always be.

That it will always be like that. Straw-men, no real explanation, even if Dy and you present them with the most convincing evidence there is. Unfortunately, those who believe won´t see reason. Sad, really, but it´s how it´ll always be.

Oh ok.


Your latin threw me off:p

Oh ok.


Your latin threw me off:p

;)

I certainly did. Saying it was written for another audience and thusly not applicable in the modern world is not scriptural reasons.

Okay, so we know that Dyakovo missed it. It's here:

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

I can counter with scriptural evidence saying you should keep the laws of the OP...

"The Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35)

"Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished" (Matthew 5:18).

He referred to Scripture as "the commandment of God" (Matthew 15:3) and as the "Word of God" (Matthew 15:6)

Yet, in the Bible, we see that Jesus himself does not treat women as subordinates. Clearly, he himself is breaking the laws that are suggested by the passages in the OP. It would appear that Jesus himself didn't follow your interpretation of these passages. Any intelligent person, Christian or otherwise, can see that. So what does this mean?

It could mean that Jesus was wrong and your interpretation is correct. Or it could mean that Jesus was correct and that we are not to interpret the passages listed above the way you would like us to. Which option do you think an intelligent Christian would pick?

So, once again the Bible contradicts itself it seems. Again, requiring Christians to admit their religion is not inherantly perfect and that they have to cherry pick.

We have gone over this. Not all Christians believe their religion is inherently perfect. I've even discussed how Christian communities deal with choosing which beliefs to uphold and which to discard.

If you made that point earlier, I probably missed it. I probably couldnt see it over all the burnt remains of your strawmen.

Tell you what, if you wish to claim that I am making strawman arguments, prove it.

Tell you what, if you wish to claim that I am making strawman arguments, prove it.

Thats been done. On several occasions. I dont feel like redoing what Dya already did.

Thats been done. On several occasions. I dont feel like redoing what Dya already did.

Then how about addressing the rest of my post?

Yet, in the Bible, we see that Jesus himself does not treat women as subordinates. Clearly, he himself is breaking the laws that are suggested by the passages in the OP. It would appear that Jesus himself didn't follow your interpretation of these passages. Any intelligent person, Christian or otherwise, can see that. So what does this mean?

Possibly that there are instances of Jesus following them that were not recorded, or were in books that were not included?

It could mean that Jesus was wrong and your interpretation is correct. Or it could mean that Jesus was correct and that we are not to interpret the passages listed above the way you would like us to. Which option do you think an intelligent Christian would pick?

But then why do so many Christians, especially Baptists, cite those passages as scriptural backing for wives submiting to their husbands and male dominance in the household?

Its not as cut and dry as you paint it.



We have gone over this. Not all Christians believe their religion is inherently perfect. I've even discussed how Christian communities deal with choosing which beliefs to uphold and which to discard.


But enough do for it to be an issue.

Because this is essentially a debate over how the Bible is to be interpreted, there's an article here about "Hermeneutics," essentially how it should be interpreted.

I stole it from the same site as GoG:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_inte.htm

I follow the Catholic method of interpretation, which may help any confusion about my posts.

Just to clarify: by "book" I meant Corinthians, not the entire Bible. But if you've read the latter, you've read all of the former.
I meant the latter
Here's something I don't understand: the Bible, as I've said repeatedly, was not handed down by God, it was written by many different people. Later, it was compiled into one official book by the Church, around 300-400. Now, people had been using the Old Testament scriptures, letters, and Gospels for hundreds of years by now, but the ultimate decision of what got in was up to the Church, the editors, so to speak. Why would they put in material which contradicted not only other material, but their basic message?
They wouldn't. Unlike you, they realized that there were no contradictions except on the most literal and shallow level. Enter any western literature survey class and you'll read stories that cover a timespan of thousands of years. If you expect Charles Dickens to say the same things as Homer, you're in for a surprise. But great works of literature do not contradict each other in general, their timeless truth is what makes them great. Although it is printed as one book, the Bible is very similar to the survey class.

Except that according to itself it was handed down by god...

Okay, so we know that Dyakovo missed it. It's here:

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

Ah, the link in your first post, the one I ignored because of the strawman...
:rolleyes:



Yet, in the Bible, we see that Jesus himself does not treat women as subordinates. Clearly, he himself is breaking the laws that are suggested by the passages in the OP. It would appear that Jesus himself didn't follow your interpretation of these passages. Any intelligent person, Christian or otherwise, can see that. So what does this mean?
That the bible contradicts itself, and once again it isn't an interpretation.
It could mean that Jesus was wrong and your interpretation is correct. Or it could mean that Jesus was correct and that we are not to interpret the passages listed above the way you would like us to. Which option do you think an intelligent Christian would pick?
Not an interpretation, but the intelligent christian would choose to not follow the rules that are bigotted.

I guess Jesus and his dad disargreed about the role of women. Thats ok. I disagree with my dad on things too:p

Because this is essentially a debate over how the Bible is to be interpreted, there's an article here about "Hermeneutics," essentially how it should be interpreted.

I stole it from the same site as GoG:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_inte.htm

I follow the Catholic method of interpretation, which may help any confusion about my posts.

GoG would like it to be one anyways.