[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Oleena wrote:
lol. Fine, no tree. What drives an elephant?
its called a mahout . . .[/quote]
Very good. Now what drives a gorilla?
Edit: BTW, recently I saw a video of a pet chimpanzee driving a car…
[quote]Oleena wrote:
Why is a woman so much more incrediably valuable and priceless than a man that she must cover herself in ways that he does not have to?
Would you prefer to live in a middle eastern country such as Pakistan or Iraq where this code of conduct is actually carried out to the letter? Why not?
Submit definition-
�¢??verb (used without object) 5. to yield oneself to the power or authority of another: to submit to a conqueror.
6. to allow oneself to be subjected to some kind of treatment: to submit to chemotherapy.
7. to defer to another’s judgment, opinion, decision, etc.: I submit to your superior judgment.
Obey definition (definition #4 on dictionary.com):4. to submit or conform in action to (some guiding principle, impulse, one’s conscience, etc.).
What was your point in pointing out that it doesn’t say obey?
Would it be biblical for a woman to go against something her husband has told her? Is it biblical for the husband to go against something the wife has told him to do? Why or why not to each?
- to submit or conform in action to (some guiding principle, impulse, one’s conscience, etc.).
First off all, read the definitions above. Secondly, it took you a long time to explain how this was not, IYO, supporting patriarchy. How many times throughout history do you think those original passages have been used to support patriarchy, both in individual marriges and whole societies?
Which bible scholar would you recommend? How many other bible scholars did you not recommend because they had it wrong? (in other words, as I stated in my original post, I grew up with bible scholars who had served as missionaries in Africa for their entire childhood. You are in essense saying that they had it wrong).
[/quote]
whew . . . I try and I try . . . patience, Iago, patience . . .
Why is the woman more valuable than the man? - wasn’t it your point that women were somehow worth less then man in the Bible? So you already acknowledge that women are elevated to the highest level possible while dirty old men are treated like common old dirt . . . modesty is not servility . . . and men are told to be modest as well . . .
The Muslim codes for treatment of women are exactly the opposite of what the Bible teaches . . . women are worthless, cannot own property, can be beaten and murdered practically at will . . . wrong religion and bad comparison . . .
Appreciate all the work you did to provide a definition - but you missed the point of my explanation regarding context and the insertion of the word submit (which could have also been the word love based on the verse’s poetic structure - see below). . . and you couldn’t understand the importance of the omission of the word “obey”? And where did I say anything about the woman having to do what a man told her? Didn’t you understand anything about the mutually cooperative relationship? No one is bossing anyone around - you are working together as one (I believe even you found that verse) . . .
OK even longer explanation beyond the context provided in my original post - the poetic layout of the passage indicates that the words “love” and “submit” are interchangeable . . .
Wives, submit to your husbands
as if to the Lord
mirrors
Husbands, love your wife
like Christ loved the church
The poetic parallel is there for a reason - and love includes the concept of submission (ie respect)
This interpretation (respect) is supported by other passages (remember to interpret scripture by other scriptures) - Fathers are told to submit to their children, and children are told to submit to their parents (Eph 6:1-4), servants are told to submit to their masters and masters are told to submit to their servants (Eph 6:5-8)- the whole point of Paul’s teaching is that we are to love one another and that no one is better than anyone else (Mark 9:35) and in fact Paul goes on to say this very fact: “There is no male or female. You are all equal in Christ Jesus.” - Galatians 3:28
Just because people choose to misinterpret the plain teaching of scripture (as you seem very willing to do) does not change the fact that the truth is there for the knowing - if you will just look and see . . .
sweetie - I have spent a lot of time explaining the very plain and basic teaching of Scripture to you in answer to a lot of questions that you have posted here (like the jealousy of God), something that quite a number of Christians could do (Katz and Push for a couple of local examples) if given the opportunity (and patience) . . . if this is the measure of the teaching you received, then either those who taught you did a poor job, or you missed some good lessons along the way. So yeah - if this was what you were taught - I would have to say they got it wrong.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
So god wasn’t aware before he gave them life that they were going to sin?
This is what I was saying about Pakistan and Iraq, which you totally ignored. Those cultures hold the man completely responsible. If a woman does something wrong in public, the man receives the consequence, up to being beaten and put in prison for her actions. Those cultures function exactly the way the bible, even according to you, describes. Do once again, would you like to live in either of those countries? Why or why not?
[/quote]
What does knowing that man would sin have to do with the consequences of those choices?
Didn’t ignore it - answered that comment in the post above . . . .
anything else?
So the thing that bothers you about agnosticism is not that it’s inaccurate, but that it’s portrayed as a religion when in fact it’s just an idea?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
…For example, I find agnosticism to be a supremely unconvincing posture. And I think atheism is fundamentally incoherent and/or impossible.
Makes sense to me.
Agnosticism is seen by its proponents as the “religion” of the secular intellectual; the deep thinker; the ponderer; the careful, “tolerant” man. In reality it is one or both of the following:
- a pussy for bailing out; incapable of making a tough decision so no decision is made.
Both atheists and agnostics possess:
- a display of arrogance (look at this thread for evidence) against the Creator. This, in effect, opens the door toward establishing Man as god. If God can be dismissed through whatever mechanism one cares to choose then Man can fill the vacuum. Man ascends and becomes greater than God or in essence, god (see Isaiah footnote below). God becomes irrelevant or non-existent or distant (deism).
A. Mechanisms?
A1. Evolutionism.
A2. The Bible is inaccurate. Choose your reason.
A3. The Bible is inconsistent. “”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”"
A4. God doesn’t meet my/His own standards. See Oleeme’s posts in this thread.
A5. Assurance that God is a fairy tale, myth, mysticism, crutch, etc.
A5. Bitterness toward God for something He has or hasn’t done for them and/or others.
A6. God fails to supernaturally sew limbs back on amputees. [Rolls eyes]
- Check out the fall of Lucifer/Satan in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28.
[/quote]
[quote]Oleena wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Oleena wrote:
lol. Fine, no tree. What drives an elephant?
its called a mahout . . .
Very good. Now what drives a gorilla?
Edit: BTW, recently I saw a video of a pet chimpanzee driving a car…
[/quote]
sokwe kocha
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Oleena wrote:
Am I shaking my fist at god, or at a definition written in a book that has dictated how many people believe/act for thousands of years?
Both?
[/quote]
How can I shake my fist at something which I don’t think exists?
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Oleena wrote:
Why is a woman so much more incrediably valuable and priceless than a man that she must cover herself in ways that he does not have to?
Would you prefer to live in a middle eastern country such as Pakistan or Iraq where this code of conduct is actually carried out to the letter? Why not?
Submit definition-
�?�¢??verb (used without object) 5. to yield oneself to the power or authority of another: to submit to a conqueror.
6. to allow oneself to be subjected to some kind of treatment: to submit to chemotherapy.
7. to defer to another’s judgment, opinion, decision, etc.: I submit to your superior judgment.
Obey definition (definition #4 on dictionary.com):4. to submit or conform in action to (some guiding principle, impulse, one’s conscience, etc.).
What was your point in pointing out that it doesn’t say obey?
Would it be biblical for a woman to go against something her husband has told her? Is it biblical for the husband to go against something the wife has told him to do? Why or why not to each?
- to submit or conform in action to (some guiding principle, impulse, one’s conscience, etc.).
First off all, read the definitions above. Secondly, it took you a long time to explain how this was not, IYO, supporting patriarchy. How many times throughout history do you think those original passages have been used to support patriarchy, both in individual marriges and whole societies?
Which bible scholar would you recommend? How many other bible scholars did you not recommend because they had it wrong? (in other words, as I stated in my original post, I grew up with bible scholars who had served as missionaries in Africa for their entire childhood. You are in essense saying that they had it wrong).
whew . . . I try and I try . . . patience, Iago, patience . . .
Why is the woman more valuable than the man? - wasn’t it your point that women were somehow worth less then man in the Bible? So you already acknowledge that women are elevated to the highest level possible while dirty old men are treated like common old dirt . . . modesty is not servility . . . and men are told to be modest as well . . .[/quote] Would a woman who slept with many men before she was married be viewed as having elevated worth according to the bible? It’s a difference in expectations. For years it was said “Men are just dirt, they can’t help being horny” and yet the woman who gave into her lustful nature was considered at fault. This may not be what you interpret the bible as saying, but it is the way numerous societies before you have, which IMO holds much more significance. What does it matter what you think if the book itself can so easily be misinterpreted and hurt many people? You are 1 out of 6 billion!
[quote]The Muslim codes for treatment of women are exactly the opposite of what the Bible teaches . . . women are worthless, cannot own property, can be beaten and murdered practically at will . . . wrong religion and bad comparison . . .[/quote] Actually, women are seen as more valuable than men according to the Islamic religion http://muslim.families.com/blog/the-mother-in-islam
[quote]Appreciate all the work you did to provide a definition - but you missed the point of my explanation regarding context and the insertion of the word submit (which could have also been the word love based on the verse’s poetic structure - see below). . . and you couldn’t understand the importance of the omission of the word “obey”? And where did I say anything about the woman having to do what a man told her? Didn’t you understand anything about the mutually cooperative relationship? No one is bossing anyone around - you are working together as one (I believe even you found that verse) . . .
OK even longer explanation beyond the context provided in my original post - the poetic layout of the passage indicates that the words “love” and “submit” are interchangeable . . .
Wives, submit to your husbands
as if to the Lord
mirrors
Husbands, love your wife
like Christ loved the church[/quote] Do you really not see how a woman loving her husband like the lord and a husband loving the wife like christ loves the church are different? Christ guides and instructs the church! It is not an equal relationship between christ and the church! It’s an analogy that the husband should be to the wife as christ is to the church, which is the opposite of what we are to god the lord)
[quote]The poetic parallel is there for a reason - and love includes the concept of submission (ie respect)
This interpretation (respect) is supported by other passages (remember to interpret scripture by other scriptures) - Fathers are told to submit to their children, and children are told to submit to their parents (Eph 6:1-4), servants are told to submit to their masters and masters are told to submit to their servants (Eph 6:5-8)- the whole point of Paul’s teaching is that we are to love one another and that no one is better than anyone else (Mark 9:35) and in fact Paul goes on to say this very fact: “There is no male or female. You are all equal in Christ Jesus.” - Galatians 3:28
Just because people choose to misinterpret the plain teaching of scripture (as you seem very willing to do) does not change the fact that the truth is there for the knowing - if you will just look and see . . .
sweetie - I have spent a lot of time explaining the very plain and basic teaching of Scripture to you in answer to a lot of questions that you have posted here (like the jealousy of God), something that quite a number of Christians could do (Katz and Push for a couple of local examples) if given the opportunity (and patience) . . . if this is the measure of the teaching you received, then either those who taught you did a poor job, or you missed some good lessons along the way. So yeah - if this was what you were taught - I would have to say they got it wrong.[/quote]
You have no even answered my most basic question with an answer that I didn’t antisipate/state that someone would try to answer it with from the get-go. All of your interpretations are ones that I have seen before, and it looks like you go to a LOT of effort to shape words to mean what you see as right. Meanwhile, free will is on the tip of your tounge, but you have not answered the question of what is the point of free will if god already knew who would sin and who would not before he brought them into existance. You act as if god had no choice in bringing everyone into existance, and you will not consider that even yourself would not bring a child into the world at a point in time when you knew you wouldn’t be able to afford one. In your opinion, just the gift of life makes up for the fact that many will burn in hell. If so, why don’t you go out and father as many children as possible right now?
Well aren’t you a sweet bundle of sarcastic anger at the naughty atheists who would dare to question the morals of god as described in the bible? Btw, how do you know that you picked the right religion?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Oleena wrote:
So the thing that bothers you about agnosticism is not that it’s inaccurate, but that it’s portrayed as a religion when in fact it’s just an idea?
So that’s what you got out of that? Hmmmmmm…maybe your boyfriend really is the sharper knife in the drawer.
[/quote]
When have I shaken my fist at anything that was not a reference to the bible?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Oleena wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Oleena wrote:
Am I shaking my fist at god, or at a definition written in a book that has dictated how many people believe/act for thousands of years?
Both?
How can I shake my fist at something which I don’t think exists?
You been doin’ it, baby, you shore nuf been doin’ it.
[/quote]
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Oleena wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Oleena wrote:
lol. Fine, no tree. What drives an elephant?
its called a mahout . . .
Very good. Now what drives a gorilla?
Edit: BTW, recently I saw a video of a pet chimpanzee driving a car…
sokwe kocha[/quote]
lol. But you get my point. No one has to drive a gorilla or an elephant for them to move around, have cultures, make tools, have a language, etc. So what’s up with that? How are they doing it?
So you admit that it’s impossible to know until you die?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Oleena wrote:
There is a strong theme in the bible, starting with the creation story and going all the way to Revelation where there is the analogy of the great, evil prostitute tempting the kings of the earth, of women holding power over men with their bodies, and thus needing to hide their bodies and submit to men’s will.
The marrige laws in the bible say that the man is to be the head of the woman and the woman is to listen to what her husband has to say, and do accordingly. The man, of course, is to do this out of love, but this is clearly not an equal relationship because otherwise it would state that the man should also listen to his wife and do what she tells him to. Many church congregations in the past 100 years didn’t allow women to be preachers and some still don’t.
“But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ,” (1 Cor. 11:3). One example. I have to go to work, but I’ll find more later…
Another one of your reasons why you angrily shake your fist at God?
Oleeme, you should give this up. You have stated your case why you hate Him. He has disappointed and disaffected you in so very many ways. He seems inconsistent and has not forthrightly answered all your questions about Him.
All you have to do is hang on a few years, if you have them - we never know - and you will find out for sure. When your brain fails to complete it’s electromagnetic circuits, your heart ceases to beat, and they plant your shell six feet under, many of these mysteries will be revealed.
In those last few microseconds of your life on earth, you’ll know. I believe you’ll know. If you’re correct in all your assumptions you’ve mentioned here your EM impulses will tell you as the circuit breakers begin to trip. You’ll know you’re nothing more than carbon and hydrogen and few other elements and then SNAP it’s all over. You will have spent a life giving a mythological god the finger but it won’t matter; he’s not there to see your outstretched digit. And then all will be well with you and your world.
If you are wrong, He will be there and you will find out what the melding of a righteous Judge and a loving God looks like. You can then plead your case directly to Him. You will have your chance. And you can tell Him all the things you’ve told us here. You can really let Him have it. You can stomp and rant. You can remind Him what a poor job you think He’s done. And since buffhardback has exhibited tremendous potential as a lawyer here on this thread, you might even want him to represent you if the court will allow it. I think not; I think you’ll have to represent yourself but this was an appropriate place to comment on his jurisprudential abilities.
And then you can wait while your case is adjudicated.
Maybe your overpowering arguments will convince Him you are right and He will have no choice but to find you “not guilty.” Maybe.
Either way, you’ll find what you seek someday.
[/quote]
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Oleena wrote:
So god wasn’t aware before he gave them life that they were going to sin?
This is what I was saying about Pakistan and Iraq, which you totally ignored. Those cultures hold the man completely responsible. If a woman does something wrong in public, the man receives the consequence, up to being beaten and put in prison for her actions. Those cultures function exactly the way the bible, even according to you, describes. Do once again, would you like to live in either of those countries? Why or why not?
What does knowing that man would sin have to do with the consequences of those choices?
Didn’t ignore it - answered that comment in the post above . . . .
anything else?[/quote]
I’ve already answered this. God knowing that man would sin has nothing to do with the consequences. We are not talking about what happens after man sins, we are talking about god’s decision to make man in the first place. You still haven’t answered the last paragraph of the last question I asked you at all.
Edit: This is the part that still remains undiscussed>what is the point of free will if god already knew who would sin and who would not before he brought them into existance? You act as if god had no choice in bringing everyone into existance, and you will not consider that even yourself would not bring a child into the world at a point in time when you knew you wouldn’t be able to afford one. In your opinion, just the gift of life makes up for the fact that many will burn in hell. If so, why don’t you go out and father as many children as possible right now?
[quote]Oleena wrote:
Would a woman who slept with many men before she was married be viewed as having elevated worth according to the bible? It’s a difference in expectations. For years it was said “Men are just dirt, they can’t help being horny” and yet the woman who gave into her lustful nature was considered at fault. This may not be what you interpret the bible as saying, but it is the way numerous societies before you have, which IMO holds much more significance. What does it matter what you think if the book itself can so easily be misinterpreted and hurt many people? You are 1 out of 6 billion!
You have no even answered my most basic question with an answer that I didn’t antisipate/state that someone would try to answer it with from the get-go. All of your interpretations are ones that I have seen before, and it looks like you go to a LOT of effort to shape words to mean what you see as right. Meanwhile, free will is on the tip of your tounge, but you have not answered the question of what is the point of free will if god already knew who would sin and who would not before he brought them into existance. You act as if god had no choice in bringing everyone into existance, and you will not consider that even yourself would not bring a child into the world at a point in time when you knew you wouldn’t be able to afford one. In your opinion, just the gift of life makes up for the fact that many will burn in hell. If so, why don’t you go out and father as many children as possible right now?
[/quote]
Yes . . . she does have the same elevated worth . . .
Well, if you want to know what other people believe ask them - but if you ask me, you will get what I believe - that is the point of asking me the question - you get my answer. I won’t apologize if my answer doesn’t fit with your expectations or views of what other people believed - The book doesn’t hurt people, people hurt people - and yes, I am just one - but I am me and I have chosen for myself through much research and reasoning the best possible world view and I am perfectly at peace with my Christianity.
Apparently, according to you, even if my understanding of Christianity answers your questions - you don’t care, because you would rather have the views of other people which don’t answer your questions about Christianity or better yet affirm your hatred of Christianity. So as I said much earlier - you don’t really want to have an honest discussion, you only want a chance to voice your hatred of Christianity - well go for it - But I will continue to answer with my understanding of scripture - not so much for your sake, but for the sake of any one else who might mistake your warped views for the real thing . . .
I don’t shape the meanings - I read, ask questions, research, study the original languages/manuscripts and form a rational understanding of what is contained in scripture - as every person should do for themselves . . .
Yes, God had a choice on whether or not to bring every soul into existence and He chose to. I have never said any different. I would gladly bring any child into this world that God saw fit to bless me with.
Once again - your problem with scripture/God/Christianity boils down to the punishment - eternal damnation. The punishment is too great for the sins committed . . . but I have explained my views on that question and the granting of life to people who will choose to do wrong . . . you willingly pass by and assume your original views and deride mine as being 1 in 6 billion . . .
so pass on and stop asking me questions since you don’t want my answers . . .
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
lol - i love the irony of talking with you guys.
Go read some books. Try to understand (not just read) my posts. Then get back to me.
My library (with every title read at least once) now has several thousand books . . . everything from archaeology to zoology . . . from Arianism to Zoroastrianism . … from anarchy to socialism . … from Buddhism to Taosim . … from history to language studies . . .
So, thanks, but I picked up the reading thing in kindergarten . . . [/quote]
I wish your posts were indicative of that.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Oleena wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Oleena wrote:
lol. Fine, no tree. What drives an elephant?
its called a mahout . . .
Very good. Now what drives a gorilla?
Edit: BTW, recently I saw a video of a pet chimpanzee driving a car…
sokwe kocha
lol. But you get my point. No one has to drive a gorilla or an elephant for them to move around, have cultures, make tools, have a language, etc. So what’s up with that? How are they doing it?
[/quote]
As I said before - if you do not acknowledge a difference between man and animals - my answer won’t matter to you . . . and you have already said you don’t care what my answers are . . . go ask someone else who will reaffirm your views . . . .