NationStates Jolt Archive

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

The difference would be that you and your dad aren't the same person.

Dyakovo, you repeatedly say how the Bible is full of bigotry.

What about passages such as "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you all are one in Christ Jesus." Gal. 3:28

"[There will be] glory, honor, and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For God does not show favoritism." Romans 2:10-11

"God choose the foolish things in this world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things - and the things that are not - to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him." 1 Cor. 1:27-29

"You are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household." Eph. 2:19

"Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace." Col. 3:13

These passages by Paul seem to advocate tolerance instead of bigotry.

I meant the latter


Except that according to itself it was handed down by god...
Where does it say that? It is the word of God, certainly, but God Himself did not take a pen to paper and start writing. He didn't even dictate.
GoG would like it to be one anyways.
GoG would like it to be more theological than you perhaps, but you can't deny that we are discussing its interpretations. You and KoL have a one interpretation, I have another, and GoG has yet another. Both he and I are explaining why women would want to be Christian (which was the question) by explaining Christianity is not anti-woman and therefore there is no conflict. It all depends on interpretation.

The bible is the basis of christianity, it is the word of god.
This is plain wrong.
1. The Bible isn't the basis of christianity. The Christ is, hence the name. The Bible is the best resource we have on His life, but it's not perfect.
2. Since the Bible isn't perfect, it isn't the exact word of God, although it is inspired by Him. Most current scholars (perhaps not in the US) agree on that.
I'm sorry if someone pointed this out before, but I sadly lack the time (and only time) to read further.
edit: I looked at the last posts and I see it has kinda been hinted at, so what kind of discussion took ALL THOSE PAGES? :confused:

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.


You've insisted (without evidence, or citation, or theoretical justification) that the only way to be a Christian is to hold that the Bible is inerrant. In order for it to believe the Bible inerrant, you have to believe the literal truth of each and every verse to be inerrant. But, don'cha know, believing the literal truth of each and every verse means 1) believing two or more verses that directly conflict with one another, and 2) believing in verses that suggest a lesser status of women, which implies a lesser status of women is in fact a Godly and Christian thing to believe.

Please, pray tell if that isn't an accurate synopsis of your argument.

Now, the problem with this argument is that it is faulty on two different levels, beyond of course the fact that the intial premise rests on mere assertion on your part. Let's take a gander at the problems two your argument presents, shall we:

1) Macro/Micro-level descriptive confusion: Basically, your argument assumes that for macro-level trait in ourselves to hold (i.e. we believe in the Bible), a micro-level trait in ourselves must hold as well, namely that we believe in all the constituent parts of the Bible with an equal level as we do the macro-level. This is just a goofy assertion, equivalent to saying that if a car engine is a cube, it's because every piece used to make the car engine was cubical as well.

2)False dichotomy: Your setup is designed to suggest that anyone who finds nuance in the Bible isn't really a believer in the Bible, while anyone who believes the Bible believes inconsistent and demonstrably unfavorable views. If you extrapolate from the above, this is not and need not be the case.

Beyond that, there is of course the emotive fact that the offense isn't in the pointing out, it's that you've failed to answer who the hell you think you are to set what standards I must meet to be considered Christian. Your desire to engage in unserious debate is exceeded only by your arrogance in assuming for yourself the right to define what my belief states constitute. You pointed out nothing more than the fact that you can win only be sticking to a completely gerrymandered definition; which isn't really winning, now isn't it?

This is plain wrong.
1. The Bible isn't the basis of christianity. The Christ is, hence the name. The Bible is the best resource we have on His life, but it's not perfect.
2. Since the Bible isn't perfect, it isn't the exact word of God, although it is inspired by Him. Most current scholars (perhaps not in the US) agree on that.
I'm sorry if someone pointed this out before, but I sadly lack the time (and only time) to read further.
edit: I looked at the last posts and I see it has kinda been hinted at, so what kind of discussion took ALL THOSE PAGES? :confused:

the insistance that the only way to be christian is to take those passages as written without placing them in context or relating them to other contradictory passages. anything else is a form of self deception.

which he will deny should he look at this post.

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

Christians don't believe that God wrote the bible

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.

There are plenty of churches that do allow women to become priests and become members of the celery, not just some small sects as you claim. In my parish (Roman Catholic parish) women have quite a lot of say in how it operates and what is going to happen even the sister sometimes seems to have more authority to the priest, they are not shunned to the back as you seem to think but are an important and respected part of the community.

The difference would be that you and your dad aren't the same person.

Well they aren't the same person and these quotes are from letters not written by God or Jesus but written by people Peter and Paul amongst others. And don't claim that it Christians believe that it is written by God because they don't so get that misconception out of your head right now.

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?

Or maybe just maybe they have realized that those passages are incorrect and flawed and are willing to admit that, isn't that what you wanted? Or are you one of those people who will forever judge someone because they made a mistake a long time ago and no matter how much someone turns around and changes their entire viewpoint and admit that they made a mistake, you will continue to shove these mistakes into their face and point to past misdeeds a long time ago when they have apologised and admitted those mistakes you will not accept it.

So yes they ignore it but that is because they know that 'the nasty parts' are incorrect.


What is with all these threads attacking religion recently seriously is this because Obama and Clinton aren't doing anything at the moment they have decided to turn their guns on religion.


Is anyone keeping count on the amount of times the word strawman has been posted on this thread?
We must be making a record here don't you think?

Then you are not a christian...

Are you Christ?

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

The followers are different from the theology.

There is no theology without the followers. If the believers do not believe in promoting bigotry, then the religion does not promote bigotry

That isn't, of course, to say that there are no Christians who believe that promoting bigotry is part of their religion. Thus, for them, bigotry is part and parcel of Christianity.

But it isn't for me.

Declaring you are a Christian and your religion isnt one of intolerance is false.

What makes you the arbiter of what is and is not a part of Christianity?

Are you Christ?

Hes implying that her religion does indeed promote bigotry.

What makes him the arbiter of what my religion does and does not promote?


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

You cannot separate Christianity from Christians. Christianity is a general grouping to describe a varied set of beliefs - namely, whatever Christians believe. Not what you have decided it is, unless you are a Christian, in which case you would have your version of Christianity.

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

Since when is "Christianity" an organized religion? We're talking about a set of beliefs that has been varied from its very beginning. There certainly are organized religions that are part of Christianity, but Christianity as a whole is not an organized religion. And there are many of us who do not belong to any given organized religion.

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.

I have never claimed that my religion is perfect. How could it be? I am imperfect, so my religion will necessarily be imperfect as well.

But it also isn't what you decide it to be. It is what I believe, not what you have decided I should believe based on a category I fall into, that matters.

This is plain wrong.
1. The Bible isn't the basis of christianity. The Christ is, hence the name. The Bible is the best resource we have on His life, but it's not perfect.
2. Since the Bible isn't perfect, it isn't the exact word of God, although it is inspired by Him. Most current scholars (perhaps not in the US) agree on that.
I'm sorry if someone pointed this out before, but I sadly lack the time (and only time) to read further.
edit: I looked at the last posts and I see it has kinda been hinted at, so what kind of discussion took ALL THOSE PAGES? :confused:

I didn't read all of it, but what I saw was basically this:

Non-Christians: YOUR RELIGION IS TEH BIGOTED!
Christians: That isn't what I believe.
Non-Christians: THEN YOU AREN'T TEH CHRISTIAN!
Christians: What makes you think that you determine what my religion is and is not?
Non-Christian: I say that your religion is based entirely and completely on the Bible. Since I say that, your religion is bigoted. If you are not bigoted, you are cherry-picking.
Christians: My religion is not based entirely and completely on the Bible.
Non-Christians: THEN YOU ARE NOT TEH CHRISTIAN.

Another non-Christian: Why won't you just admit that your religion is bigoted even if you aren't?
Christians: My religion is as much a part of me as anything else. If my religion were bigoted, I would be.
Non-Christian: JUST ADMIT YOUR RELIGION SUCKS ALREADY!

Non-Christian: I'm going to pretend that Christianity exists somehow separately from the beliefs of Christians so I can still pretend that Christianity is somehow inherently bigoted.
Christians: *sigh*


So, yeah, something like that.

Dyakovo, you repeatedly say how the Bible is full of bigotry.

What about passages such as "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you all are one in Christ Jesus." Gal. 3:28

"[There will be] glory, honor, and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For God does not show favoritism." Romans 2:10-11

"God choose the foolish things in this world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things - and the things that are not - to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him." 1 Cor. 1:27-29

"You are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household." Eph. 2:19

"Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace." Col. 3:13

These passages by Paul seem to advocate tolerance instead of bigotry.

Did you not notice where I've said the bible is contradictory?

Where does it say that? It is the word of God, certainly, but God Himself did not take a pen to paper and start writing. He didn't even dictate.
The quotes have already been provided, by GnI if I remember correctly.
GoG would like it to be more theological than you perhaps, but you can't deny that we are discussing its interpretations. You and KoL have a one interpretation, I have another, and GoG has yet another. Both he and I are explaining why women would want to be Christian (which was the question) by explaining Christianity is not anti-woman and therefore there is no conflict. It all depends on interpretation.

If by we you mean GoG and yourself, then that's true. I am not, nor is KoL.

Christianity is not misogynistic if you ignore the quoted passages in the OP, if you don't ignore them then it is.

You've insisted (without evidence, or citation, or theoretical justification) that the only way to be a Christian is to hold that the Bible is inerrant. In order for it to believe the Bible inerrant, you have to believe the literal truth of each and every verse to be inerrant. But, don'cha know, believing the literal truth of each and every verse means 1) believing two or more verses that directly conflict with one another, and 2) believing in verses that suggest a lesser status of women, which implies a lesser status of women is in fact a Godly and Christian thing to believe.

Please, pray tell if that isn't an accurate synopsis of your argument.

Now, the problem with this argument is that it is faulty on two different levels, beyond of course the fact that the intial premise rests on mere assertion on your part. Let's take a gander at the problems two your argument presents, shall we:

1) Macro/Micro-level descriptive confusion: Basically, your argument assumes that for macro-level trait in ourselves to hold (i.e. we believe in the Bible), a micro-level trait in ourselves must hold as well, namely that we believe in all the constituent parts of the Bible with an equal level as we do the macro-level. This is just a goofy assertion, equivalent to saying that if a car engine is a cube, it's because every piece used to make the car engine was cubical as well.

2)False dichotomy: Your setup is designed to suggest that anyone who finds nuance in the Bible isn't really a believer in the Bible, while anyone who believes the Bible believes inconsistent and demonstrably unfavorable views. If you extrapolate from the above, this is not and need not be the case.

Beyond that, there is of course the emotive fact that the offense isn't in the pointing out, it's that you've failed to answer who the hell you think you are to set what standards I must meet to be considered Christian. Your desire to engage in unserious debate is exceeded only by your arrogance in assuming for yourself the right to define what my belief states constitute. You pointed out nothing more than the fact that you can win only be sticking to a completely gerrymandered definition; which isn't really winning, now isn't it?

Strawman much?

You cannot separate Christianity from Christians. Christianity is a general grouping to describe a varied set of beliefs - namely, whatever Christians believe. Not what you have decided it is, unless you are a Christian, in which case you would have your version of Christianity.

Fair point, but you then have to find a definition of 'Christian' which doesn't involve anything along the lines of 'a member of Christianity'. 'Follower of Christ' would work, but then you could arguably include some Atheists in the 'Christian' catergory.

I think this whole chicken/egg-religion/believer discussion could be an interesting thread in it's own right.

the insistance that the only way to be christian is to take those passages as written without placing them in context or relating them to other contradictory passages. anything else is a form of self deception.

which he will deny should he look at this post.

You are right on the bolded, but it is because you have built a strawman yet again Ash.

Are you Christ?

Look, I've already pointed out that that post was (at least mostly) in jest, please try to keep up.

What makes you the arbiter of what is and is not a part of Christianity?

Are you Christ?



What makes him the arbiter of what my religion does and does not promote?

I've read the bible, have you?

The bible provides the rules of christianity, now before you go on some inane rant about how its christ not the bible, the only record you have of what christ may or may not have said is the bible.

You cannot separate Christianity from Christians. Christianity is a general grouping to describe a varied set of beliefs - namely, whatever Christians believe. Not what you have decided it is, unless you are a Christian, in which case you would have your version of Christianity.

Maybe you can't...

Since when is "Christianity" an organized religion? We're talking about a set of beliefs that has been varied from its very beginning. There certainly are organized religions that are part of Christianity, but Christianity as a whole is not an organized religion. And there are many of us who do not belong to any given organized religion.

:confused:
Since around 300 AD?

I didn't read all of it, but what I saw was basically this:

Non-Christians: YOUR RELIGION IS TEH BIGOTED!
Christians: That isn't what I believe.
Non-Christians: THEN YOU AREN'T TEH CHRISTIAN!
Christians: What makes you think that you determine what my religion is and is not?
Non-Christian: I say that your religion is based entirely and completely on the Bible. Since I say that, your religion is bigoted. If you are not bigoted, you are cherry-picking.
Christians: My religion is not based entirely and completely on the Bible.
Non-Christians: THEN YOU ARE NOT TEH CHRISTIAN.

Another non-Christian: Why won't you just admit that your religion is bigoted even if you aren't?
Christians: My religion is as much a part of me as anything else. If my religion were bigoted, I would be.
Non-Christian: JUST ADMIT YOUR RELIGION SUCKS ALREADY!

Non-Christian: I'm going to pretend that Christianity exists somehow separately from the beliefs of Christians so I can still pretend that Christianity is somehow inherently bigoted.
Christians: *sigh*


So, yeah, something like that.

And here we have the strawman, the favorite contstruct for the defense of chrisitianity on NSG...
:rolleyes:

And yet, another useless thread written for just one purpose...lol ah well, there are many of similiar threads on these boards, all for our enjoyment...

I deeply suspect the OP was rebuffed in his sexual advances when it turned out the target of his lustfull desires was a socially conservative woman who took certain tenants and Christian interpretations to heart. Hence he created this thread to exact vengeance! In laymans terms, cockblocked by Christ.

I deeply suspect the OP was rebuffed in his sexual advances when it turned out the target of his lustfull desires was a socially conservative woman who took certain tenants and Christian interpretations to heart. Hence he created this thread to exact vengeance! In laymans terms, cockblocked by Christ.

Fail

Fail


Precisely. You have failed. You need a better tactic to outwit the best pimp there ever was. Two millenia and he's still hogging the wiminz...

Because hypocracy is fun! who wouldn't want to join a religion that stresses peace and love thy neighbor but then goes and kills people in the name of God?

You are right on the bolded, but it is because you have built a strawman yet again Ash.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. --the princess bride

Since the Bible isn't perfect, it isn't the exact word of God, although it is inspired by Him. Most current scholars (perhaps not in the US) agree on that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/13/weekinreview/13luo.html
They don't even agree on what is directly applicable to modern life.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. --the princess bride

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

I know what a straw man is, you, on the other hand seem intent on attacking me for things I have not said. I have stated what my complaint/argument is on numerous occaissions, it is not my fault that you cannot counter it.

This is plain wrong.
1. The Bible isn't the basis of christianity. The Christ is <snip>

And the source for what is 'known' about the life and teachings of Jesus is?


wait for it...
wait for it...


That's right! It's the bible, so in your attempt to tell me that I'm wrong, you have instead shown that I am right.

And yet, another useless thread written for just one purpose...lol ah well, there are many of similiar threads on these boards, all for our enjoyment...

And what purpose would that be?

in your attempt to tell me that I'm wrong, you have instead shown that I am right.
Technically. About as right as in "my house isn't built on the planet Earth, it's built on my earth!". Because there is a big difference between "christianinty is based on the Bible" and "christianity is based on the life of Christ". The difference is that we know that descriptions, such as the Bible, can contain errors and we have to think for ourselves while trying to emulate Christ.
edit: by the way, why don't you capitalize the Bible? It's the title, like "Metamorphoses". When you are writing about the islam, are you calling their book "the qur'an"?

Technically. About as right as in "my house isn't built on the planet Earth, it's built on my earth!". Because there is a big difference between "christianinty is based on the Bible" and "christianity is based on the life of Christ".

No, there really isn't, the only source you have for what Jesus may or may not have said is the bible, the words you choose to follow are in the bible.
If you do not follow that parts that are promoting bigotry, that simply means that you recognise that there are parts of your religion that are bigotted and intolerant, and have the intelligence to ignore them.

The difference is that we know that descriptions, such as the Bible, can contain errors and we have to think for ourselves while trying to emulate Christ.

That wouldn't be a difference between us (other than the emulating Christ bit).

edit: by the way, why don't you capitalize the Bible? It's the title, like "Metamorphoses". When you are writing about the islam, are you calling their book "the qur'an"?

Usually, yes I do. In general I don't capitalize the names of religions or religious items. Generally, if I have capitalized the name of a religious thingy :) it is because grammatical rules call for capitalization of any word in that situation.

No, there really isn't, the only source you have for what Jesus may or may not have said is the bible,
Not really. Some people claim that Jesus talks to them directly, and although all denominations of the christian faith are extremally conservative in admitting anything of that into the mainstream, this source cannot be entirely ignored (that is, if we don't want to entirely dismiss the religion as merely supertition). Quite fresh example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_Mercy_Sunday. It's a day when any sinner can receive full absolution under certain conditions.

If you do not follow that parts that are promoting bigotry, that simply means that you recognise that there are parts of your religion that are bigotted and intolerant, and have the intelligence to ignore them.
Again, the Bible =/= christianity. Parts of Bible =/= parts of religion. Paul is long dead, we have now more say in what is christianity than he. And before you point out that the religion could be taken anywhere with such attitude, yes, that would be true, unless we account for the guidance from above.

Generally, if I have capitalized the name of a religious thingy :) it is because grammatical rules call for capitalization of any word in that situation.
Well they do - it's a title of a book. If you feel uncomfortable capitalizing it, use words, like "the scripture". "Decapitalizing" the Bible makes you look like some bitter enemy of religion. ;)

Umm, they were born into it?

Umm, they were born into it?

You could say that. Sometimes women become Christian on account of inheriting it from family tradition. My grandma´s a Christian because that´s what she imbibed from her mother, grandmother and godmother.

Christianity traditionally supports the idea of women supporting their husbands as heads of households and obedience toward them and, furthermore, God. It is quite unlike the stance of Islam, which supports men to ritually abuse and, at times, "honorably" murder them.

Not really. Some people claim that Jesus talks to them directly, and although all denominations of the christian faith are extremally conservative in admitting anything of that into the mainstream, this source cannot be entirely ignored (that is, if we don't want to entirely dismiss the religion as merely supertition). Quite fresh example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_Mercy_Sunday. It's a day when any sinner can receive full absolution under certain conditions.

Yeah, when ever I hear someone say that, I just figure they are crazy...

Again, the Bible =/= christianity. Parts of Bible =/= parts of religion. Paul is long dead, we have now more say in what is christianity than he. And before you point out that the religion could be taken anywhere with such attitude, yes, that would be true, unless we account for the guidance from above.

Wasn't about to, I have no problem with people following the good parts of the bible, and going with their 'gut feelings' (or guidance from god if you want to call it that) about what is right.
Well they do - it's a title of a book. If you feel uncomfortable capitalizing it, use words, like "the scripture". "Decapitalizing" the Bible makes you look like some bitter enemy of religion. ;)

Well, I am, at least of organized religion...

Christianity traditionally supports the idea of women supporting their husbands as heads of households and obedience toward them and, furthermore, God. It is quite unlike the stance of Islam, which supports men to ritually abuse and, at times, "honorably" murder them.

You´re getting into deep waters with that last remark, trust me. Islam does not preach that at all. It´s fanatics of the religion and fundamentalists who think and do things like that. Abuse and honorably murdering women was never a part of the message of Muhammed or of the Qu´ran.

Yeah, when ever I hear someone say that, I just figure they are crazy...
Crazy like the prophets and the apostles?

Well, I am, at least of organized religion...
Go figure. :)
I mean, breaking the rules of grammar just because you dislike an idea is petty. Besides, would you write "mein kampf"? (Godwin Godwin Godwin...)

Crazy like the prophets and the apostles?

Well, considering my opinion about the origins of the Abrahamic religons, and christianity in particular, yes.

Go figure. :)
I mean, breaking the rules of grammar just because you dislike an idea is petty.

So I can be petty at times... :(

And the source for what is 'known' about the life and teachings of Jesus is?


wait for it...
wait for it...


That's right! It's the bible, so in your attempt to tell me that I'm wrong, you have instead shown that I am right.

No, it is the tradition handed down from the early Christians. According to the Catholic Church, it is the institution that continues this tradition. Considering the Bible did not exist in its current form until around the fourth century, it would not make sense any other way. I'm not sure where you're understanding of Christianity comes from, but it's not even historically accurate.

Why do you hate God?

He doesn't hate God.

He doesn't BELIEVE in God. Well, that's the impression I get.

And even if he DID, it doesn't make the words in these excerpts from the Bible go away now, does it?

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 beg your pardon?

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.
Whatever you want to call it, it's the same final result: progressive/non-sexist Christians must select which passages of the Bible they want to follow, and which they do not, based on their personal evaluation of how those passages apply to modern life.

This is the same thing modern Christians usually do with passages about slavery, passages encouraging genocide, passages directing Christians to rape, etc etc etc. It's not remotely unique to this situation.

Each generation seems to add more passages to the list of Outdated Bits. I'm curious to see how long it takes before the entire Bible is on that list.

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'.
The thing is, the Bible is supposedly the inspired word of God. You know, God, the all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful deity?

The deity who was prepared to send his only child to be brutally murdered in order to help out His human creations?

Yet this same God was only too happy to let His Word be written in such a way that it supported and helped to perpetuate the effective enslavement of 50% of his human children for several thousand years. He would let Jesus die on the cross, but He couldn't be bothered to offer a little editorial feedback on a book written in His name.

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.

Do you really think sexism didn't exist in pre-Christian society?


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.
It's practical. Think about your typical traditional Christian community across recent centuries:

Historically, women have been disproportionately dependent upon social approval, because they've had significantly less economic and legal independence. The costs to a woman who openly rejected Christianity ranged from being kicked out of town to being stoned as a witch. Invariably, a woman who was openly atheist would also be branded a slut (don't ask me why), and we all know that "slut" is still one of the most damaging insults to women.

But, more importantly, women have also been disproportionately burdened with all the unpaid labor of life. People at church help watch your kids. They bring food when somebody in your house is sick. If your roof caves in, folks from church are the ones who come help mend it. People at church help you out with the headaches of life, big and small, and that's a resource that makes a huge difference in women's lives.

Also, if you've got 10 kids and a household to run, life is pretty fucking busy. The church is your community center. You're a married woman with children, so it's not like you're getting to go out and party any other place. Church is your shot to socialize, make friends, and even perhaps enjoy the occasional picnic.

You´re getting into deep waters with that last remark, trust me. Islam does not preach that at all. It´s fanatics of the religion and fundamentalists who think and do things like that. Abuse and honorably murdering women was never a part of the message of Muhammed or of the Qu´ran.

Seconded.
On a side note, female circumcision is practiced by Christians and promoted in some Christian cultures as a religious rite of passage.

The thing is, the Bible is supposedly the inspired word of God. You know, God, the all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful deity?

Yet this same God was only too happy to let His Word be written in such a way that it supported and helped to perpetuate the effective enslavement of 50% of his human children for several thousand years. He would let Jesus die on the cross, but He couldn't be bothered to offer a little editorial feedback on a book written in His name.

Again, we have different ways of theologically reconciling the apparent contradictions. Why would god let the Bible be written this way? Why does god not intervene in the sexism and misogyny perpetrated in Her name?

One answer put forth by process theologians is that god is self-limiting. There are various reasons for believing this. It resolves the apparent contradiction between free will and omniscience, as well as the apparent contradiction of omnibenevolence and the presence of evil and suffering.

Christians who ascribe to this belief would then see the Bible as a totally human artifact. God did not have any hand in the writing or editing of the text. He simply stars in it, so to speak.

Whatever you want to call it, it's the same final result: progressive/non-sexist Christians must select which passages of the Bible they want to follow, and which they do not, based on their personal evaluation of how those passages apply to modern life.

This is the same thing modern Christians usually do with passages about slavery, passages encouraging genocide, passages directing Christians to rape, etc etc etc. It's not remotely unique to this situation.

Each generation seems to add more passages to the list of Outdated Bits. I'm curious to see how long it takes before the entire Bible is on that list.

Well, the Bible changes very slowly...unfortunately. However, the Bible is not the only source of Christian belief. This helps to explain why there is such a vast spectrum of beliefs under the umbrella term of Christianity. Since all denominations 'cherry pick' their beliefs to a certain extent, a good question to ask would be: how do different congregations come to such vastly different beliefs? Well, most people who study religion agree that religious communities use a method similar to the one quoted below:

Speaking generally, religious beliefs are often established at the denominational, congregational and individual level on the basis of four factors:


What do the scriptures say, as interpreted by the group or person?
What have the faith group's historical policies been?
What does one's personal experience say?
What does reason and scientific knowledge say?


Conservative wings pf Christianity tend to more heavily weigh the first two factors; the liberal and progressive wing tend to give more importance to the last two factors. A similar process is seen in other world religions.

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

It is somewhat analogous to scientific methodology. By this I mean that scientific methodologies help us choose which theories are the most useful in understanding natural phenomena, while this method helps religious communities and individuals to decide which beliefs are most useful in their spritual lives. Obviously, the analogy can only be taken so far, due to the vast differences between rteligion and science.

And I found your thoughts on the practical aspects of the church in a woman's life to be interesting. Made me think about how tradition and religion work to strengthen each other, making it difficult to enact change. If there is one thing that bothers me about organised religion, it's that such a powerful tool of social engineering is constantly abused by those who wish to create an oppressive society. If I had a lower post count, I would insert some sort of angry smiley.

Again, we have different ways of theologically reconciling the apparent contradictions. Why would god let the Bible be written this way? Why does god not intervene in the sexism and misogyny perpetrated in Her name?

One answer put forth by process theologians is that god is self-limiting. There are various reasons for believing this. It resolves the apparent contradiction between free will and omniscience, as well as the apparent contradiction of omnibenevolence and the presence of evil and suffering.

Christians who ascribe to this belief would then see the Bible as a totally human artifact. God did not have any hand in the writing or editing of the text. He simply stars in it, so to speak.

Obviously I don't object to the view of the Bible as a totally human artifact.

It's just that if you're going to view it that way, and if you're going to basically accept that there's no written instruction manual on How To Please The Christian God, then you're left in a situation where you basically pick what you think God wants and then you do it. Which, to me, is like choosing a middleman. Why bother? If you're just deciding that you think God wants you to do the stuff that you've already concluded is moral, why bother with the God part at all? Can't you simply live a life of virtue as you see it, without needing to convince yourself that there's a God and it agrees with you?


Well, the Bible changes very slowly...unfortunately. However, the Bible is not the only source of Christian belief. This helps to explain why there is such a vast spectrum of beliefs under the umbrella term of Christianity. Since all denominations 'cherry pick' their beliefs to a certain extent, a good question to ask would be: how do different congregations come to such vastly different beliefs?

The same way all humans do. We all make value judgments based on a combination of our cultural/historical context and our own personal experiences. It's just that religious groups feel the need to posit that there is a deity who shares their individual values.


And I found your thoughts on the practical aspects of the church in a woman's life to be interesting. Made me think about how tradition and religion work to strengthen each other, making it difficult to enact change. If there is one thing that bothers me about organised religion, it's that such a powerful tool of social engineering is constantly abused by those who wish to create an oppressive society. If I had a lower post count, I would insert some sort of angry smiley.
I mentioned my boyfriend earlier in this thread, in the context of talking about his dissatisfaction with the gender hierarchy, but I feel it is important to add that he also had a lot of positive feelings about his church.

It was the social hub of his life while he was growing up. His friends, his teachers, his mentors, and all of his family's social support network were rooted in the church. When somebody in his family fell ill, the church would know about it and people would send food and assistance. When a new baby was born, every family in the church would send a long a few hand-me-downs to help make sure the new baby had everything it needed. There were summer camps for older kids and youth groups for teens.

There were resources provided through the church which simply would not have been available elsewhere in their community. For your average working family, those resources are tremendously important.

There is no reason why these resources must be provided by a church or religious organization, of course, but there are tons of communities in which that's how things have fallen out.

Seconded.
On a side note, female circumcision is practiced by Christians and promoted in some Christian cultures as a religious rite of passage.

It is? Hm... Interesting, I didn't know that. Thanks.

Seconded.
On a side note, female circumcision is practiced by Christians and promoted in some Christian cultures as a religious rite of passage.

Source? I have never heard that before at least none of the mainstream christian religions, maybe from some offshoot such as the Orthodox Methodist Church of Lutheran Florida. (Yes I know that is not a real church at least I hope not, but my point is, it may be some small local church with a very small gathering)

Source? I have never heard that before at least none of the mainstream christian religions, maybe from some offshoot such as the Orthodox Methodist Church of Lutheran Florida. (Yes I know that is not a real church at least I hope not, but my point is, it may be some small local church with a very small gathering)

It is apparently common in certain Christian communities in Ethipoia.

Attitudes and Beliefs:
Cultural practice encourages women to want to undergo one of these procedures. It is often associated with positive attributes such as gaining respect within the village and becoming a woman. Most importantly, girls who have not undergone one of the procedures are considered more likely to be promiscuous and, therefore, unworthy of marriage. The belief also exists that external female genitals are unclean.

Some use religion as the basis for their justification in performing these procedures, despite the fact they are not required by either the Quran or the Bible. Some Coptic Christian priests refuse to baptize girls who have not undergone one of the procedures.

http://www.state.gov/g/wi/rls/rep/crfgm/10098.htm

Fair point, but you then have to find a definition of 'Christian' which doesn't involve anything along the lines of 'a member of Christianity'. 'Follower of Christ' would work, but then you could arguably include some Atheists in the 'Christian' catergory.

You could argue that. If they want to call themselves Christians, I won't argue.

I think this whole chicken/egg-religion/believer discussion could be an interesting thread in it's own right.

It's really a problem of people assuming that religion has to be handed down from another person - that there is no such thing as a personal religion.

They assume that religion can only come from an institution or must be based completely in a holy book. By assuming this, they also believe they can make assumptions about the beliefs of a religious person based upon the grouping they fall into.

Source? I have never heard that before at least none of the mainstream christian religions, maybe from some offshoot such as the Orthodox Methodist Church of Lutheran Florida. (Yes I know that is not a real church at least I hope not, but my point is, it may be some small local church with a very small gathering)

Sources:
http://www.sbc.edu/honors/HJSpr03/Conrad.htm
http://www.bluegecko.org/kenya/tribes/kikuyu/circumcision.htm
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-1994424_ITM

I've read the bible, have you?

Yup.

The bible provides the rules of christianity, now before you go on some inane rant about how its christ not the bible, the only record you have of what christ may or may not have said is the bible.

Actually, that isn't the only record. There is other scripture out there that was not included in the Bible, but was used by some in the early church. On top of that, I have my own personal connection with God to follow.

The Bible provides insight into what some of the early Christians thought was necessary, just as a sermon gives us an idea what a given preacher thinks Christianity should be.

:confused:
Since around 300 AD?

Christianity is, and has been throughout its history, much more varied than you are implying. The Council of Nicea and other councils provided for organized religion, yes. But they were not then, and certainly are not now, the whole of Christianity.

And here we have the strawman, the favorite contstruct for the defense of chrisitianity on NSG...
:rolleyes:

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

I know what a straw man is, you, on the other hand seem intent on attacking me for things I have not said. I have stated what my complaint/argument is on numerous occaissions, it is not my fault that you cannot counter it.

Your complaint/argument is based in incorrect assumptions. This has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions. It's not our fault that you insist on defining Christianity in a certain way so that you can attack it as a whole.

The things you are calling "straw men" are not straw men. The argument you are making necessitates them as part of the basis for your complaint.

It's just that if you're going to view it that way, and if you're going to basically accept that there's no written instruction manual on How To Please The Christian God, then you're left in a situation where you basically pick what you think God wants and then you do it. Which, to me, is like choosing a middleman. Why bother? If you're just deciding that you think God wants you to do the stuff that you've already concluded is moral, why bother with the God part at all? Can't you simply live a life of virtue as you see it, without needing to convince yourself that there's a God and it agrees with you?

If you start from the assumption that either there is no God or that said God does not provide guidance, you're never going to understand the perspective of one who believes otherwise.

To you, because of your beginning assumptions, it appears as if such a person is creating a God that agrees with them. To that person, however, the connection with God is an integral part of finding that moral compass.

Christianity traditionally supports the idea of women supporting their husbands as heads of households and obedience toward them and, furthermore, God.

Which is sexist.


It is quite unlike the stance of Islam, which supports men to ritually abuse and, at times, "honorably" murder them.

My Qur'an doesnt say that. Hm. What do you know? :rolleyes:

Which is sexist.




My Qur'an doesnt say that. Hm. What do you know? :rolleyes:

your Qur'an isn't the shining example of gender equality either though, is it?

2:228 Women who are divorced shall wait, keeping themselves apart, three (monthly) courses. And it is not lawful for them that they should conceal that which Allah hath created in their wombs if they are believers in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands would do better to take them back in that case if they desire a reconciliation. And they (women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them in kindness, and men are a degree above them. Allah is Mighty, Wise.



4:34 Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

your Qur'an isn't the shining example of gender equality either though, is it?

2:228 Women who are divorced shall wait, keeping themselves apart, three (monthly) courses. And it is not lawful for them that they should conceal that which Allah hath created in their wombs if they are believers in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands would do better to take them back in that case if they desire a reconciliation. And they (women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them in kindness, and men are a degree above them. Allah is Mighty, Wise.



4:34 Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

Im not Islamic. Islam is vile towards women as well. I just get sick of people who have never read the Qur'an saying things the Qur'an doesnt fucking say.

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

Why do you miss out Islamic and Jewish?- That's an important point and I'm sorry but you did seem to. The bit about Jewish law, though, does relate rather heavily to the Early Church, as they were originally Jews. Also, Islamic Law is very similar to Jewish Law for the same reason- Ishmael was the son of the servant girl who Abraham took to be his wife, so therefore a descendant of Abraham, who is the father of the Jewish race.

Actually it isn't true that most Christians don't choose to be. I know of a lot of people that choose NOT to be cos of having it drilled into them by their parents, but a lot of my Christian friends are Christian by choice, as am I. There are also a lot of people, women included, in countries which are ruled by governments suspicious of Christians, who choose to become Christians even though it could potentially alienate them from family, friends, and maybe endanger their lives. Anyone who is a Christian because they've had it drilled into them probably goes to church more out of fear than faith.

Also, the Church of today treats women much less harshly than you wish to imply. You are very much taking those verses out of their historical context. In the days of the early Church, the law of the land was still Jewish law, and, for instance, eating certain forms of meat was outlawed. This was changed by the vision of the Apostle Peter "He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. Then a voice told him 'Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.'
'Surely not, Lord!' Peter replied. @I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.'
The voice spoke to him a second time, 'Do not call anything impure that God has maded clean.'" (Acts 10:11-16 NIV translation.)
Several things changed within the Church throughout the centuries since it was founded- one of the main things being the treatment of women, and the place of women within the Church. The original Christians did still keep to Jewish Law, which is quite oppressive of women in some respects. Christians nowadays are much freer. We would not have women vicars or ministers if the Church had not changed. Admittedly the Catholic Church is a little behind in this respect, but the majority of Protestant and Free Churches are in agreement that women are the equal of men.

It may also be interesting for you to note that Genesis 2:24 states that "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." This implies equality not inequality. Paul also quotes this in the same passage you mentioned about wives submitting to husbands. He also says that husbands should love their wives as their own bodies, implying respect also, as to love your body you must respect it as well. "Husbands love your wives, just as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no-one ever hated his own body, but feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-for we are members of his body. 'For this reason a man will leave his father an mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' This is a profound mystery-but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you must also love his wife as he loves himself, an the wife must respect her husband." (Ephesians 2:25-33 NIV translation.) If husbands are to love their wives in the way that Christ loves the church, then this is self-sacrificing love indeed! Anyone who knows anything about what crucifixion is like from historical texts, or from watching films on it (The Passion of the Christ- this is actually probably fairly accurate, although it's horrific), will know that this kind of love is a painful kind, requiring everything of the person. This suggests that, whilst women are required to respect and be obedient to their husbands, the husbands are required to sacrifice everything for their wives if the need ever arises! They are required to guard the honour of their wives, in effect, with their very bodies......I don't think then that in return a little obedience and respect is too much to ask.......do you?:)

I also think that the bit about Christians submitting to each other is important to note: "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." (Ephesians 5:21 NIV translation.) This implies that we should all respect each other as equals, and that we should work things out in as genial a manner as possible, because we are brothers and sisters in Christ, in essence in the same family. It actually makes things a lot easier also, when people talk about things rationally rather than getting hot-tempered, because they are more likely to see and understand each others' points of view, and come to a decision that benefits all of them in the long term.;)

No, it is the tradition handed down from the early Christians. According to the Catholic Church, it is the institution that continues this tradition. Considering the Bible did not exist in its current form until around the fourth century, it would not make sense any other way. I'm not sure where you're understanding of Christianity comes from, but it's not even historically accurate.
:rolleyes:
He doesn't hate God.

He doesn't BELIEVE in God. Well, that's the impression I get.
Exactly
And even if he DID, it doesn't make the words in these excerpts from the Bible go away now, does it?
No it wouldn't
Again, we have different ways of theologically reconciling the apparent contradictions. Why would god let the Bible be written this way? Why does god not intervene in the sexism and misogyny perpetrated in Her name?
One answer would be that the christian god, i.e. as presented by the bible does not exist.
One answer put forth by process theologians is that god is self-limiting. There are various reasons for believing this. It resolves the apparent contradiction between free will and omniscience, as well as the apparent contradiction of omnibenevolence and the presence of evil and suffering.
:rolleyes:
Christians who ascribe to this belief would then see the Bible as a totally human artifact. God did not have any hand in the writing or editing of the text. He simply stars in it, so to speak.
So where do they get their idea of what god's 'directives' from...
Not trying to be snide by the way...
Well, the Bible changes very slowly...unfortunately. However, the Bible is not the only source of Christian belief. This helps to explain why there is such a vast spectrum of beliefs under the umbrella term of Christianity. Since all denominations 'cherry pick' their beliefs to a certain extent, a good question to ask would be: how do different congregations come to such vastly different beliefs? Well, most people who study religion agree that religious communities use a method similar to the one quoted below:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/denomchg.htm
It is somewhat analogous to scientific methodology. By this I mean that scientific methodologies help us choose which theories are the most useful in understanding natural phenomena, while this method helps religious communities and individuals to decide which beliefs are most useful in their spritual lives. Obviously, the analogy can only be taken so far, due to the vast differences between rteligion and science.

And I found your thoughts on the practical aspects of the church in a woman's life to be interesting. Made me think about how tradition and religion work to strengthen each other, making it difficult to enact change. If there is one thing that bothers me about organised religion, it's that such a powerful tool of social engineering is constantly abused by those who wish to create an oppressive society. If I had a lower post count, I would insert some sort of angry smiley.
Very interesting...

Obviously I don't object to the view of the Bible as a totally human artifact.

It's just that if you're going to view it that way, and if you're going to basically accept that there's no written instruction manual on How To Please The Christian God, then you're left in a situation where you basically pick what you think God wants and then you do it. Which, to me, is like choosing a middleman. Why bother? If you're just deciding that you think God wants you to do the stuff that you've already concluded is moral, why bother with the God part at all? Can't you simply live a life of virtue as you see it, without needing to convince yourself that there's a God and it agrees with you?


The same way all humans do. We all make value judgments based on a combination of our cultural/historical context and our own personal experiences. It's just that religious groups feel the need to posit that there is a deity who shares their individual values.


I mentioned my boyfriend earlier in this thread, in the context of talking about his dissatisfaction with the gender hierarchy, but I feel it is important to add that he also had a lot of positive feelings about his church.

It was the social hub of his life while he was growing up. His friends, his teachers, his mentors, and all of his family's social support network were rooted in the church. When somebody in his family fell ill, the church would know about it and people would send food and assistance. When a new baby was born, every family in the church would send a long a few hand-me-downs to help make sure the new baby had everything it needed. There were summer camps for older kids and youth groups for teens.

There were resources provided through the church which simply would not have been available elsewhere in their community. For your average working family, those resources are tremendously important.

There is no reason why these resources must be provided by a church or religious organization, of course, but there are tons of communities in which that's how things have fallen out.

QFT

Actually, that isn't the only record. There is other scripture out there that was not included in the Bible, but was used by some in the early church. On top of that, I have my own personal connection with God to follow.
I know, Nanatsu already pointed that out to me.
The Bible provides insight into what some of the early Christians thought was necessary, just as a sermon gives us an idea what a given preacher thinks Christianity should be.
And provides rules for christians, some of them very bigoted and intolerant.
Christianity is, and has been throughout its history, much more varied than you are implying. The Council of Nicea and other councils provided for organized religion, yes. But they were not then, and certainly are not now, the whole of Christianity.
Did I ever say that every christian follows all the rules in the bible?
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Yup, it does
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position). A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.
Your complaint/argument is based in incorrect assumptions. This has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions. It's not our fault that you insist on defining Christianity in a certain way so that you can attack it as a whole.
No, your attacks on me have been based on incorrect assumptions
The things you are calling "straw men" are not straw men. The argument you are making necessitates them as part of the basis for your complaint.
Yes, they are. See the definition above, if you cannot refute my argument by any other method than misstating my position, that is your failing, not mine.

If you start from the assumption that either there is no God or that said God does not provide guidance, you're never going to understand the perspective of one who believes otherwise.

To you, because of your beginning assumptions, it appears as if such a person is creating a God that agrees with them. To that person, however, the connection with God is an integral part of finding that moral compass.

Another one with the bs argument of if you don't believe in god, you can't understand christianity. :rolleyes:

And provides rules for christians, some of them very bigoted and intolerant.

Fred Phelps "provides rules for Christians," as does any preacher. Does that mean that any of them define Christianity as a whole?

Did I ever say that every christian follows all the rules in the bible?

No. You said that the Bible defines Christianity, ignoring the large variance that has always existed in the beliefs that fall under that umbrella.

Yup, it does

If only you were using it in a way that matched that definition.

No, your attacks on me have been based on incorrect assumptions

Oh?

So you have not been asserting over and over and over and over and over again that the Bible defines Christianity as a whole?

You have not been asserting over and over and over again that a religion which does not include every little thing you don't like about the Bible is not Christianity?

Meanwhile, can you please point to an "attack on you" I have made?

Yes, they are. See the definition above, if you cannot refute my argument by any other method than misstating my position, that is your failing, not mine.

Thing is, I'm not misstating your position. You just don't want to admit that your position is wrong.

Another one with the bs argument of if you don't believe in god, you can't understand christianity.

Actually, what I said is that you cannot understand the connection that a believer has with God if you start with the assumption that (a) there is no God or (b) there is no connection.

....which is true. It's like starting with the assumption that x<y and then trying to understand how x=y. Your starting assumption has already rendered the thing you are trying to understand false in your eyes.

Exactly.



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


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

To be fair, you are kind of coming off as pretty antagonistic. While there will always be crazy fundies, it doesn't help if we feel like we're always being accused of complete stupidity because of our beliefs.

Which is only really a problem around Richard Dawkins and on NSG.

Although my nation prefers athiesm, I believe that religion should be a choice of all citizens. I am a christian leader myself, and it's going to take alot to turn my citizens away from athiesm to another more pro religious state. The simple truth is, you can't force religion on any women, she must choose what she believes in, women have just as much right as men to worship freely here in the Begley Alliance. This is our pledge to world peace. You cant get everything you want, however, we will do our best to ensure that you get what you need. Our goals are all the same, "For God and Country", religion focuses on one cause, a belief in one being. Let's all understand that religion is a forefront for peace, and with peace, comes world happiness.

Brandon J. Begley
The Begley Commonwealth and Begley Alliance

So you have not been asserting over and over and over and over and over again that the Bible defines Christianity as a whole?
No, I haven't, trying working on your reading comprehension
You have not been asserting over and over and over again that a religion which does not include every little thing you don't like about the Bible is not Christianity?
Nope
Thing is, I'm not misstating your position. You just don't want to admit that your position is wrong.
Yes you are.

No, I haven't, trying working on your reading comprehension

Nope

Yes you are.

Ok. Now you're flat-out lying.

If I had the time, I could pull out numerous direct quotes from throughout the thread in which you have asserted those things.

Of course, if you are not asserting those things, you have no basis for asserting that Christianity is sexist because of certain Biblical passages. As such, what exactly is this thread about?

Meh. I went through some of it after all. I'm only ~ 2/3 of the way through the thread and I've got a rather long post here.

Here's a fun one:

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

You flat-out state that I am not a Christian because I don't adhere to the definition of Christianity you have decided upon based on a few Biblical passages.


When called on it a couple of pages later, you tried to pretend that you hadn't said it:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13563750&postcount=209


Here, you make it clear that "follow the Bible" is what constitutes Christianity in your eyes:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13563774&postcount=216


Oh look! Here you are trying to pretend that you didn't write an earlier post again. You also reassert the idea that "Christianity is based on the Bible" and that, therefore, any bigotry in the Bible is inherent in Christianity.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13563833&postcount=218


Again, making it clear that, according to you, anything in the Bible is "inherently" in the religion:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13563948&postcount=226

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13564021&postcount=246

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13564053&postcount=255

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13564135&postcount=274

Again, making it clear that, according to you, anything in the Bible *must* be a part of Christianity:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13564225&postcount=301

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13564236&postcount=304

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13564293&postcount=309

Oh, wow! You finally admit to making the comment to me in the first place, after denying it previously!
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13564351&postcount=319


You going to claim you never said any of that now?

Sources:
http://www.sbc.edu/honors/HJSpr03/Conrad.htm
http://www.bluegecko.org/kenya/tribes/kikuyu/circumcision.htm
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-1994424_ITM

I don't know if you were trying to prove that it did happen beause of Christianity or it didn't but the sources you cited disprove what Cabra West was saying

From the Conrad article: "While it is commonly thought to be a religious practice because the countries that allow it are home to Muslims, female circumcision predates Christianity, Islam, and possibly Judaism. This dispels the theory that the ritual is based upon these religions. Research shows that the tradition of clitoridectomies is "widely practiced in countries where the predominant religion is Christianity" (Robinson, B.A., www.kabbalah.com). Because the people who take part in female circumcision practice a variety of different religions, one can only conclude that the practice is cultural, not religious"

And from the blue gecko page: "This is in stark contrast to female circumcision (also called 'female genital mutilation', or FGM), which over the last century and a half has attracted furious criticism and opposition not only from missionaries, the church and latterly Kenyan women's groups, but from people all over the world."

And from your final source cited: "Christian missionaries to Africa, women's liberation movements, and human rights advocates have condemned the practice as barbaric, savage, torturous, maiming, and sexist aimed at depriving African women of their femininity especially with regard to sexual sensitivity and pleasure."

So it would seem that CabraWest was incorrect in saying "female circumcision is practiced by Christians and promoted in some Christian cultures as a religious rite of passage." Unless of course there are other sources he or yourself has that shows it.

:rolleyes:

Por qué? What I said is exactly what the Church says. If you disagree with it, that's fine, plenty of other Christians do. But while it is one thing to deny that the Catholic Church is the best form of Christianity, and quite another to deny it is Christian.

I think if this thread has shown anything, it is that Christianity is not a monolithic belief system, even among people of the same sect. Any arguments based on this assumption are doomed from the start.

Why have a long, drawn-out discussion when there is such an easy answer in the open?

Women convert to Christianity because Jesus is a pimp.

Why have a long, drawn-out discussion when there is such an easy answer in the open?

Women convert to Christianity because Jesus is a pimp.

LOL

Ok. Now you're flat-out lying.

If I had the time, I could pull out numerous direct quotes from throughout the thread in which you have asserted those things.

Of course, if you are not asserting those things, you have no basis for asserting that Christianity is sexist because of certain Biblical passages. As such, what exactly is this thread about?
Responses to this below, mixed in with responses to your next post, and also at the bottom...
Meh. I went through some of it after all. I'm only ~ 2/3 of the way through the thread and I've got a rather long post here.

Here's a fun one:

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

You flat-out state that I am not a Christian because I don't adhere to the definition of Christianity you have decided upon based on a few Biblical passages.


When called on it a couple of pages later, you tried to pretend that you hadn't said it:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13563750&postcount=209
And I've already told you that I was joking...
I had forgotten about it, as far as I was concerned it was a joke

Here, you make it clear that "follow the Bible" is what constitutes Christianity in your eyes:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13563774&postcount=216
I asked a question, I also would like to point out that no-one was able to answer that question...
Also that is not what I was saying at all
Oh look! Here you are trying to pretend that you didn't write an earlier post again. You also reassert the idea that "Christianity is based on the Bible" and that, therefore, any bigotry in the Bible is inherent in Christianity.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13563833&postcount=218
Already explained that

Again, making it clear that, according to you, anything in the Bible is "inherently" in the religion:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13563948&postcount=226
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13564021&postcount=246
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13564053&postcount=255
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13564135&postcount=274
They are, whether the particular christian chooses to follow them or not.
Again, making it clear that, according to you, anything in the Bible *must* be a part of Christianity:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13564225&postcount=301
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13564236&postcount=304
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13564293&postcount=309[/QUOTE]
It is, no christian follows every rule in the bible, for one it would be impossible to do so since so many of them are contradictory.
Oh, wow! You finally admit to making the comment to me in the first place, after denying it previously!
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13564351&postcount=319
Once, since you are apparently unable to figure it out, see above where I explain again that it was intended as a joke, thusly of no importance to me.

You going to claim you never said any of that now?
I am going to say that nothing you pulled up means what you think it means.

As a counterpoint to what I think is required for somebody to be a christian I'm going to tag on the exchange between Bann-ed and myself.
Would you consider someone a Christian if she/he believed in Jesus, that there is a God, and an afterlife with Heaven/Hell?I'd have to go with yes.
So that says that I only think someone is a christian if they follow all the rules of the bible how?

And again, if you are having trouble figuring out still what my position is, I suggest you polish up on your reading comprehension and go through my posts again.

Why have a long, drawn-out discussion when there is such an easy answer in the open?

Women convert to Christianity because Jesus is a pimp.

Because some people are being dense (I'm guessing purposefully since normally I have a lot of respect for their intelligence) and are misrepresenting what my position actually is.

Because some people are being dense (I'm guessing purposefully since normally I have a lot of respect for their intelligence) and are misrepresenting what my position actually is.

Tell you what, Dyakovo, why don't you simply restate your position?

Just write a nice short paragraph that clearly shows what exactly you're arguing. That way, there will be no more confusion.

They are, whether the particular christian chooses to follow them or not.

Seriously. Make up your mind.

You clearly state that anything in the Bible is a defining factor for Christianity now, but just a few posts ago, you denied it:

So you have not been asserting over and over and over and over and over again that the Bible defines Christianity as a whole?
No, I haven't, trying working on your reading comprehension

I am going to say that nothing you pulled up means what you think it means.

What language are you speaking, then? Because stating that anything in the Bible is an inherent part of Christianity does mean that the Bible defines Christianity.

And it is a completely incorrect assertion. In the idyllic sense, Christ defines Christianity. But, given the subjective nature of religion and the fact that Christ's message will necessarily be filtered through human beings, what we really have is the fact that Christians define Christianity.

Christianity is a general grouping to describe a varied set of beliefs held by numerous people, for numerous generations, around the globe. Some have used the Bible as an infallible source. Others have not. Some used other scriptural sources. Some popped up with all new scripture on golden tablets.

I don't know if you were trying to prove that it did happen beause of Christianity or it didn't but the sources you cited disprove what Cabra West was saying

From the Conrad article: "While it is commonly thought to be a religious practice because the countries that allow it are home to Muslims, female circumcision predates Christianity, Islam, and possibly Judaism. This dispels the theory that the ritual is based upon these religions. Research shows that the tradition of clitoridectomies is "widely practiced in countries where the predominant religion is Christianity" (Robinson, B.A., www.kabbalah.com). Because the people who take part in female circumcision practice a variety of different religions, one can only conclude that the practice is cultural, not religious"

And from the blue gecko page: "This is in stark contrast to female circumcision (also called 'female genital mutilation', or FGM), which over the last century and a half has attracted furious criticism and opposition not only from missionaries, the church and latterly Kenyan women's groups, but from people all over the world."

And from your final source cited: "Christian missionaries to Africa, women's liberation movements, and human rights advocates have condemned the practice as barbaric, savage, torturous, maiming, and sexist aimed at depriving African women of their femininity especially with regard to sexual sensitivity and pleasure."

So it would seem that CabraWest was incorrect in saying "female circumcision is practiced by Christians and promoted in some Christian cultures as a religious rite of passage." Unless of course there are other sources he or yourself has that shows it.

I'm going to assume you didn't read the sources correctly, becasue they do talk about the fact that female circumsition is a common practice in several Christian sects in the areas of Kenya and Nigeria.

Tell you what, Dyakovo, why don't you simply restate your position?

Just write a nice short paragraph that clearly shows what exactly you're arguing. That way, there will be no more confusion.

Or, here's one:

Define Christianity.

Dyakovo, why don't you give us your personal definition of Christianity?

Tell you what, Dyakovo, why don't you simply restate your position?

Just write a nice short paragraph that clearly shows what exactly you're arguing. That way, there will be no more confusion.

Christianity is a bigotted religion (specifically for this thread misogynistic). This, however, is not saying that all christians are bigots. My basis for this assertation is the bible, try reading it without discounting the parts that you find offensive.

Christianity is a bigotted religion (specifically for this thread misogynistic).

Christianity is not, and never has been a religion. It is a broad term used to describe numerous different religions.

My basis for this assertation is the bible, try reading it without discounting the parts that you find offensive.

To use that as your basis, you have to first assert that the Bible is the definitive source on what constitutes Christianity.

Since that assertion is incorrect, using it as a basis for another assertion is also incorrect.

Christianity is not, and never has been a religion. It is a broad term used to describe numerous different religions.

All of which have the bible as their holy book...


Oh and by the way as far as the never has been a single religion, since you seem to think you have all the answers:

How about you list all of the varied christian sects from the death of christ until say 500 AD...


It is a religion, same as judaism and islam are religons, the only sect of christianity that really qualifies as a seperate religion is the church of jesus christ and the latter day saints.

Christianity is not, and never has been a religion. It is a broad term used to describe numerous different religions.



To use that as your basis, you have to first assert that the Bible is the definitive source on what constitutes Christianity.

Since that assertion is incorrect, using it as a basis for another assertion is also incorrect.

Well, that was quick. Next thread?

Or, here's one:

Define Christianity.

Dyakovo, why don't you give us your personal definition of Christianity?

Since I missed this the first time around...

Christianity: The worship of Jesus Christ.
Christian: Someone who worships Jesus Christ.

All of which have the bible as their holy book...


Oh and by the way as far as the never has been a single religion, since you seem to think you have all the answers:

How about you list all of the varied christian sects from the death of christ until say 500 AD...


It is a religion, same as judaism and islam are religons, the only sect of christianity that really qualifies as a seperate religion is the church of jesus christ and the latter day saints.

I agree here. The base is the belief in Christ, so, no matter how many denominations you may mention, Dempublicents, they're all known as Christianity. A Catholic is a Christian because he/she believes in Christ. A Mormon is a Christian because he/she also believe in Christ. And the same goes for Lutherans, Anglicans, Protestants and so forth. Even those who claim to be Gnostics believe in Christ.

Well, that was quick. Next thread?

And a fail...

How about you list all of the varied christian sects from the death of christ until say 500 AD...

Without getting into the communities that would later band together to form Orthodox Christianity, we could mention Arianism, the Gnostics, teh Ebionites, Marcionism, and Montanism.

So does anybody have anything to say about my position that isn't nuh-uh?

Without getting into the communities that would later band together to form Orthodox Christianity, we could mention Arianism, the Gnostics, teh Ebionites, Marcionism, and Montanism.

And how many of those actually lasted?

And how many of those actually lasted?

Tell you what, if you want to assert that at a given point in time there was only one christian religion, go ahead and do so. But I suggest you find a source that supports your claim.

All of which have the bible as their holy book...

Having something as a holy book and considering it to be an infallible source on religion are two different things.

Sort of like how a preacher is a religious leader - a holy person - but is not considered to be infallible or to be the absolute source on the religion.

Meanwhile, I would assume you are aware that there are different versions of the Bible used by different denominations and that some Christians look to other scripture - not included in any version of the Bible - as well?

Oh and by the way as far as the never has been a single religion, since you seem to think you have all the answers:

How about you list all of the varied christian sects from the death of christ until say 500 AD...

Are you kidding? Nobody has that information, for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that records of many churches have been lost (or destroyed actively before Christianity was an accepted religion in the Roman empire).

In a sense, every congregation was its own sect up until the more powerful church leaders decided to try and standardize it. Every individual church had their own collection of holy texts, which may or may not have included the texts that were eventually collected into the standard Bible.

All of the apostles went out and started churches, based on their own experience of Christ. The leaders of those churches started still more churches, based on what they had gleaned from the apostles, and so on....

It is a religion, same as judaism and islam are religons, the only sect of christianity that really qualifies as a seperate religion is the church of jesus christ and the latter day saints.

None of those are truly single religions. Even pre-Christ, Judaism wasn't really a single religion. Essene Jews had extremely different viewpoints from Saducee Jews and so on. In Islam, Shia Islam is different from Sunni Islam.

And any individual may hold to a religion that doesn't truly match any of the standardized versions.

Christianity: The worship of Jesus Christ.

Strange how there's nothing about the Bible in that definition.

Apparently, all that is required for something to be Christianity is for it to be the worship of Jesus Christ. Use of the Bible is not a prerequisite.


I agree here. The base is the belief in Christ, so, no matter how many denominations you may mention, Dempublicents, they're all known as Christianity.

Precisely my point!

A Catholic is a Christian because he/she believes in Christ. A Mormon is a Christian because he/she also believe in Christ. And the same goes for Lutherans, Anglicans, Protestants and so forth. Even those who claim to be Gnostics believe in Christ.

Exactly!

And I am a Christian, despite the fact that I am not a member of any of those denominations.

My personal religion is different from the religion practiced by Catholics which is different from the religion practiced by Mormons and so on.

They all fall under the umbrella of "Christianity", but "Christianity" is not and never has been a single standard set of religious beliefs.

Tell you what, if you want to assert that at a given point in time there was only one christian religion, go ahead and do so. But I suggest you find a source that supports your claim.

It was a serious question, the only one that you listed that I was familiar with was the gnostics.


Also, I will reiterate christianity is a religion. whether the were always multiple sects or not, they all share the common denominator of worshipping jesus.


While I am at it, everyone has avoided telling me which sect does not acknowledge the bible as their holy book. Could it be because there isn't one?

Strange how there's nothing about the Bible in that definition.

No, it's not strange at all. I response to Bann-ed's question I said the same thing, following which you, GoG, and Ash all went on some inane rants about how I thought that every christian followed the bible word-for-word.
It is in no way my fault that the three of you couldn't/wouldn't understand that that was not what I was saying.

This is one of the reasons why I've been telling the three of you to work on your reading comprehension.

Also, I will reiterate christianity is a religion. whether the were always multiple sects or not, they all share the common denominator of worshipping jesus.

And these sects have different beliefs. Some of these sects have misogynist beliefs. Some do not. Therefore, misogyny is not inherent to Christianity. Therefore, Christianity is not a misogynist religion.

While I am at it, everyone has avoided telling me which sect does not acknowledge the bible as their holy book. Could it be because there isn't one?

Which Bible? There are several. Different denominations use different Bibles.

Also, I will reiterate christianity is a religion. whether the were always multiple sects or not, they all share the common denominator of worshipping jesus.

Liberals share the common denominator of pushing for progressive policies.

Does that mean that there is only one liberal political party?

While I am at it, everyone has avoided telling me which sect does not acknowledge the bible as their holy book. Could it be because there isn't one?

Which version of the Bible?

Meanwhile, you still haven't addressed the difference between being a holy book and being the definitive basis of a religion.

No, it's not strange at all.

Yes, it is. Here you have been asserting that anything in the Bible is inherently a part of Christianity as a whole, and then you go and use a definition of Christianity that does not require the Bible.

This means....drum roll.....that the "It's in the Bible" does not directly translate into "It's inherently a part of Christianity." The only thing inherent in Christianity, according to your own posted definition, is the worship of Christ.

I response to Bann-ed's question I said the same thing, following which you, GoG, and Ash all went on some inane rants about how I thought that every christian followed the bible word-for-word.
It is in no way my fault that the three of you couldn't/wouldn't understand that that was not what I was saying.

Ah. I see. It is YOU who have been misunderstanding US.

The problem we have been stating is that you are personally deciding that the Bible defines Christianity. This is not true. Christians define Christianity.

Admitting that Christians may not believe in bigoted viewpoints leads directly to the conclusion that Christianity is not inherently bigoted. Why? Because a religion is defined by what its believers say it is. Bigotry is not a part of my Christianity. It is not a part of the Christianity that many others practice. As such, it is not inherent to the religion.

This is one of the reasons why I've been telling the three of you to work on your reading comprehension.

Physician, heal thyself.

It was a serious question, the only one that you listed that I was familiar with was the gnostics.


Also, I will reiterate christianity is a religion. whether the were always multiple sects or not, they all share the common denominator of worshipping jesus.


While I am at it, everyone has avoided telling me which sect does not acknowledge the bible as their holy book. Could it be because there isn't one?

That kinda depends on how you define sect. I am a Christian. I believe in Christ as my savior. The Bible is not my holy book however. I don't read it. And I won't read it. I have a personal relationship with God and that's the way it should be.

Just as with most things, as soon as man organizes something, they go and screw it all up.

All of which have the bible as their holy book...


Oh and by the way as far as the never has been a single religion, since you seem to think you have all the answers:

How about you list all of the varied christian sects from the death of christ until say 500 AD...


It is a religion, same as judaism and islam are religons, the only sect of christianity that really qualifies as a seperate religion is the church of jesus christ and the latter day saints.

ebionism

pricillianism

arianism

marcionism

manicheism

montanism

christian gnosticism

donatism

nestorianism

among others.

not forgetting the coptics that started far before the consolidation of christian beliefs and still exist to this day.

And these sects have different beliefs. Some of these sects have misogynist beliefs. Some do not. Therefore, misogyny is not inherent to Christianity. Therefore, Christianity is not a misogynist religion.

Unless their bible does not contain those passages, yes it is. Did you miss the whole bit about cherry-picking? If so, just go back and re-read the thread

Which Bible? There are several. Different denominations use different Bibles.

I am most familiar with the KJV but if you can show me one where those passages either don't exist or are not misogynistic, feel free.

Liberals share the common denominator of pushing for progressive policies.
Does that mean that there is only one liberal political party?
What is your point? Other than avoiding actually addressing what I have said with anything more substantive than nuh-uh.
Which version of the Bible?
Any
Meanwhile, you still haven't addressed the difference between being a holy book and being the definitive basis of a religion.
Let me ask you this - where do these various denominations get the info on what god wants them to do?
Yes, it is. Here you have been asserting that anything in the Bible is inherently a part of Christianity as a whole, and then you go and use a definition of Christianity that does not require the Bible.
So?
This means....drum roll.....that the "It's in the Bible" does not directly translate into "It's inherently a part of Christianity." The only thing inherent in Christianity, according to your own posted definition, is the worship of Christ.
See above
Ah. I see. It is YOU who have been misunderstanding US.
Let me see if I've got this straight, you three can't manage to understand what I'm saying, so I don't understand what you're saying?
The problem we have been stating is that you are personally deciding that the Bible defines Christianity. This is not true. Christians define Christianity.
Christians decide what rules they want to follow.
Admitting that Christians may not believe in bigoted viewpoints leads directly to the conclusion that Christianity is not inherently bigoted. Why? Because a religion is defined by what its believers say it is. Bigotry is not a part of my Christianity. It is not a part of the Christianity that many others practice. As such, it is not inherent to the religion.
Fail

That kinda depends on how you define sect. I am a Christian. I believe in Christ as my savior. The Bible is not my holy book however. I don't read it. And I won't read it. I have a personal relationship with God and that's the way it should be.

Just as with most things, as soon as man organizes something, they go and screw it all up.

Thank you.

Let me ask you this - where do these various denominations get the info on what god wants them to do?

Prayer, reflection, the Church, just to name a few...I almost never read the Bible when I'm looking for guidance. I try to read it regularly, but I find that the three I listed are more useful for me. You keep referring to the Bible as the only source of Christianity. That is a belief among some Christians, I think it's called "sola sacrementa" or something like that. But plenty don't. Gift-of-God, Dempublicents1, and I are all examples of Christians who don't.

Fail

In other words, you cannot contradict what I have said and you have nothing to add to the conversation.

...But plenty don't. Gift-of-God, Dempublicents1, and I are all examples of Christians who don't.

Actually, I'm not Christian. But my mom is. She can fill in for me as an intelligent Christian feminist.

In other words, you cannot contradict what I have said and you have nothing to add to the conversation.

There's no polite way of saying it, is there? Dyakovo done got pwned, eh?

Why would any woman decide to become christian?

Because Jesus saves all? Those verses are simple to explain. You modern people fail to realize the context of the situations in which Paul was writing to. What was going on in Corinth? There was a lot of naughty stuff going on there, and much of it started with women. Paul was telling the men to take control from those women, who were promoting such filth. Good try though.

As far as "submitting" to a husband, it doesn't mean meet his every desire, and bow before him. It was talking to a people who lived in a male dominated society, and submitting meant saying that the husband was the ultimate authority of the household. AND the man was to treat his wife better than himself, so as not to abuse the relationship.

You forget about all the great women in the faith, starting with the OT women, and going on with people like the Marys, Lydia, etc.. Nice way to cherry pick the bible though.


ebionism

pricillianism

arianism

marcionism

manicheism

montanism

christian gnosticism

donatism

nestorianism

among others.


All heresies. Their view points were drastically different, in the important parts, from the Apostles, and Church fathers. That is why we don't use them. Jesus said to watch out for false teachers. Those people fall under that category

Actually, I'm not Christian. But my mom is. She can fill in for me as an intelligent Christian feminist.
My mistake. But you know a Christian who doesn't, that's good enough. :)



There's no polite way of saying it, is there? Dyakovo done got pwned, eh?

I almost never disagree with Dyakovo, and think he is one of the more reasonable people on here (probably because I almost never disagree with him). He actually brought up so good points; however, he is unwilling to accept that his idea of Christianity is not shared by most Christians. Always a bad place to start a discussion.

All heresies.

According to you, perhaps. Or according to some of the church leaders at the time.

But there are certainly things that the church has declared heretical that many believe.

Their view points were drastically different, in the important parts, from the Apostles, and Church fathers.

Were they? We don't have actual writings from each of the Apostles. In fact, we probably don't have the gospel directly from any of them.

All of the Apostles started churches. All of those churches were different from each other and used different texts, etc. up until Constantine. I think it's a bit presumptuous to assume that all of the "heresies" were different from what the Apostles taught, particularly given the fact that some of them weren't settled within the Catholic Church until centuries later.

According to you, perhaps. Or according to some of the church leaders at the time.

But there are certainly things that the church has declared heretical that many believe.



Were they? We don't have actual writings from each of the Apostles. In fact, we probably don't have the gospel directly from any of them.

All of the Apostles started churches. All of those churches were different from each other and used different texts, etc. up until Constantine. I think it's a bit presumptuous to assume that all of the "heresies" were different from what the Apostles taught, particularly given the fact that some of them weren't settled within the Catholic Church until centuries later.

You haven't read the church fathers, have you? You read them, and from their text alone you can get an almost exact copy of the current New Testament. Where did they get their authority? They were handpicked by the apostles, whom they quoted nonstop, and the apostles got their authority from Christ. That is why we use the text that we do now. Its not because the "orthodox" views won out. It was that way from the beginning. And only when Christianity got really involved in greek culture, did we see such things as the gnostic gospels.

You haven't read the church fathers, have you?

Yes, I have.

And I recognize them as human beings, just like anyone else. They are fallible.

Pretending that Christian belief was ever homogeneous in nature is simply false. It never has been. Nor should we expect it to be. Human beings will never be the ultimate authority on what is and is correct.

And I don't think we should assume that the theology that "won" and became most popular is necessarily true, any more than I think we should assume that the preacher around the corner has some sort of connection to the divine that we don't have. Jesus taught that we have a personal connection with God. I think we should use it.

All heresies. Their view points were drastically different, in the important parts, from the Apostles, and Church fathers. That is why we don't use them. Jesus said to watch out for false teachers. Those people fall under that category

yes but that wasnt the question.

I almost never disagree with Dyakovo, and think he is one of the more reasonable people on here (probably because I almost never disagree with him). He actually brought up so good points;

:D Thank you...

however, he is unwilling to accept that his idea of Christianity is not shared by most Christians. Always a bad place to start a discussion.

It's taken this long to get to where GoG, Ash, and Dem understand (or almost - not sure if they get what I am saying yet) what my point is, so we'll see how it goes from here... ;)

Well, I was going to pose this question to Dem and GoG, but since apparently GoG is not a christian, I'll pose it to Dem alone...

Do you follow any of the rules in the bible?
(Bear with me hear there is a point to this question)

Well, I was going to pose this question to Dem and GoG, but since apparently GoG is not a christian, I'll pose it to Dem alone...

Do you follow any of the rules in the bible?
(Bear with me hear there is a point to this question)

Seems like a rather silly question. You'd be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't, Christian or non-Christian.

But yes, I do.

Any women? Yes, they probably would.

Me personally? As soon as it's ski-season in hell.

Seems like a rather silly question. You'd be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't, Christian or non-Christian.

But yes, I do.

Why do you follow some rules and not others (for example the stuff from the OP)?

And once again please bear with me here...

Why do you follow some rules and not others (for example the stuff from the OP)?

And once again please bear with me here...

Because I do not believe that all of the rules must or should be followed. In fact, there are some that I believe absolutely should not be followed.

Because I do not believe that all of the rules must or should be followed. In fact, there are some that I believe absolutely should not be followed.

And yet they are there for all christians to follow (or not)...

That is the basis for my statement that christianity is a religion that promotes bigotry...
Unfortunately, not all christians are as reasonable as you (or for that matter most of the christian NSers) are.

Now, before you say it, I know you disagree about christianity being a religion, but do you see what my point is now?

And yet they are there for all christians to follow (or not)...

As are the rules written down or stated from the pulpit by any preacher.

That is the basis for my statement that christianity is a religion that promotes bigotry...

....which doesn't make sense.

You might say that some Christianity promotes bigotry, in that some Christians do so. But in order to say that Christianity itself promotes bigotry, that bigot must be inherent to the religion - in that the religion could not exist without it.

The religion can exist without it, so the bigotry is not inherent. It is something that some Christians choose to include in their religion and others do not.

Unfortunately, not all christians are as reasonable as you (or for that matter most of the christian NSers) are.

Now, before you say it, I know you disagree about christianity being a religion, but do you see what my point is now?

I've seen your point from the start. I just disagree with it.

If you acknowledge that following the Bible in its entirety is not necessary for a religion to be Christianity, you have no basis on which to equate Bible passages that promote bigotry to Christianity promoting bigotry.

You could certainly say that the Bible promotes bigotry, as there are definitely places where it does. But you have no basis for jumping from that to the statement that bigotry is inherent in Christianity.

Because I do not believe that all of the rules must or should be followed. In fact, there are some that I believe absolutely should not be followed.So are you free to choose which rules to follow? Then why have rules at all?

So are you free to choose which rules to follow? Then why have rules at all?

because the rules are made up by the different denominations, not by jesus.

except for a very few that are specifically spoken by jesus which must be taken very seriously--no divorce except for grounds of infidelity, no hurting children, forgiving when you are asked to forgive--that kind of thing.

because the rules are made up by the different denominations, not by jesus.

except for a very few that are specifically spoken by jesus which must be taken very seriously--no divorce except for grounds of infidelity, no hurting children, forgiving when you are asked to forgive--that kind of thing.

Which begs the question...
How do you know that they were spoken by Jesus?

Which begs the question...
How do you know that they were spoken by Jesus?

that, as you well know, is an entirely different question.

and, as you should well know, i think that NO words were spoken by jesus.

Women decide to be christians because the Christianity doesn't silence women in this day and age, I cannot say about before. Finally, why are you just talking about Christianity, Islam is way worse. (not trying to hijack thread)

that, as you well know, is an entirely different question.

and, as you should well know, i think that NO words were spoken by jesus.

Yes I do know, the question was more meant for the believers...

Which begs the question...
How do you know that they were spoken by Jesus?

How do you know Abraham Lincoln deliveredthe Gettysburg Address?

because the rules are made up by the different denominations, not by jesus.

except for a very few that are specifically spoken by jesus which must be taken very seriously--no divorce except for grounds of infidelity, no hurting children, forgiving when you are asked to forgive--that kind of thing.?? you distinguish between the words put in the mouth of jesus by the evangelists and the words put in the mouth of jesus by others?

How do you know Abraham Lincoln deliveredthe Gettysburg Address?

He smoked pot?:D

How do you know Abraham Lincoln deliveredthe Gettysburg Address?

Are you implying Lincoln is the son of god?

Are you implying Lincoln is the son of god?

lol

Are you implying Lincoln is the son of god?

ZOMG! Lincöln is actually Jesus?!:eek:

ZOMG! Lincöln is actually Jesus?!:eek:

Zombie Lincoln... and his stovepipe hat of eternal grace.

Which begs the question...
How do you know that they were spoken by Jesus?

Know is a strong word. Believe would be more accurate. We cannot know for certain that Jesus spoke those words any more than we can know for certain that God exists. But we can find reason to believe that Jesus spoke them, through a personal connection with God.

Zombie Lincoln... and his stovepipe hat of eternal grace.

ZOMG! Zombie Lincoln! We're doomed!!

:D

?? you distinguish between the words put in the mouth of jesus by the evangelists and the words put in the mouth of jesus by others?

well to start with im making the assuption (for purposes of these posts only) that the bible reflects the words of jesus and the words of the evangelists.

most of the words of jesus are in parables and are thus subject to great amounts of interpretation. but there are some few--like when the rich man asked what he should do to get into heaven and jesus told him to sell his stuff, give it to the poor and follow him--that need to be taken more seriously because they are NOT parables.

the life suggestions of st paul in his letters to his various congregations do not have the force of law at all in my mind but are there to help illustrate reasonable suggestions of how to live a christian life.

christianity like all the other abrhamic religions are desert religions, life sucks in a desert and if you are going to survive you need clear cut rules and clear cut boundaries, long story short men must provide and women must raise children, that’s the whole point of the bible in my opinion survival of the family, the rest is just filler, to provide a few tips and inspire fear, both in there to sell the religion to other desert people, and later other people by changing some passages here and there.


btw why is the old testament even in the bible if most christians say its obsolete, its kida like still having a floppy drive on your computer...cant use that for anything other than lemmings, not the bible can be compared to a computer in any way, internet pwns spirituality...

so why is the OT excluded christians?

and is the revelation taken serious by anyone other than those creationist nuts?

and is it only the rules from the OT or the stories as well?

why did jesus damn the fig tree to hell for not having figs out of the season?

why not rewrite the bible to fit this age of internet, porn, nambla and emission free cars?(and other evils)

and catholics please explain to me .. the pope mobil??? (talk about lack of faith

i hope i am not ignored despite my strange humor, since my questions are serious, although off topic

ZOMG! Zombie Lincoln! We're doomed!!

:D

Only if we can't take his Stovepipe Hat of Eternal Grace™ away from him...
:p

well to start with im making the assuption (for purposes of these posts only) that the bible reflects the words of jesus and the words of the evangelists.

most of the words of jesus are in parables and are thus subject to great amounts of interpretation. but there are some few--like when the rich man asked what he should do to get into heaven and jesus told him to sell his stuff, give it to the poor and follow him--that need to be taken more seriously because they are NOT parables.

the life suggestions of st paul in his letters to his various congregations do not have the force of law at all in my mind but are there to help illustrate reasonable suggestions of how to live a christian life.but don't you think that paul and the evangelists are equally unreliable?

How do you know Abraham Lincoln deliveredthe Gettysburg Address?

silly things like historical evidence, witnesses, and all that jazz based in reality.

but don't you think that paul and the evangelists are equally unreliable?

They're more reliable than just guessing, and faster than praying.

but don't you think that paul and the evangelists are equally unreliable?

personally? yes. i think that all those "letters" were written to support certain religious views in the war over orthodox christianity.

for the purposes of this thread i think they represent their own opinions and their own societies.

personally? yes. i think that all those "letters" were written to support certain religious views in the war over orthodox christianity.

for the purposes of this thread i think they represent their own opinions and their own societies.
I don't think your personal belief is wrong. Just by reading the letters you can see they are definitely attacking heresies in the various churches. Now, orthodox Christians would also say that these letters are right, and that the problems Paul or one of his associates describes were very real.

I don't think your personal belief is wrong. Just by reading the letters you can see they are definitely attacking heresies in the various churches. Now, orthodox Christians would also say that these letters are right, and that the problems Paul or one of his associates describes were very real.

yeah

supposedly there is some question as to whether or not the actual religious communities existed at the time frame indicated. im not enough of an expert in the ancient world (meaning i know nothing) to say if thats likely true or not.

silly things like historical evidence, witnesses, and all that jazz based in reality.

Sorry I am going to have to call you out on that one there is more than just the bible that gives some weight to Jesus and his life, including recordings of Jewish Scolars and Roman Scribes.

Sorry I am going to have to call you out on that one there is more than just the bible that gives some weight to Jesus and his life, including recordings of Jewish Scolars and Roman Scribes.

Provide them then...

Sorry I am going to have to call you out on that one there is more than just the bible that gives some weight to Jesus and his life, including recordings of Jewish Scolars and Roman Scribes.

***can of worms alert***


would you care to substantiate that with some contemporary writers who had some first hand or close to first hand knowlege of jesus?

Religion scares me, but by far the scariest thing about religion is Zionism. Particularly staunch Christian support of Zionism. Zionism - everybody loses except the banks.

Religion scares me, but by far the scariest thing about religion is Zionism. Particularly staunch Christian support of Zionism. Zionism - everybody loses except the banks.

Was that anti-Semitic, or something else I'm missing entirely?

Was that anti-Semitic, or something else I'm missing entirely?

thats how it read to me.