[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I don’t know that I would have approached this the same way Push did LOL…[/quote]
Yeah, me sailboat and I take a different tack sometimes…but boy oh boy do we ever slice through the water while I be a-swiggin’ on me rum…
(Somebody has to straighten out these Catholic heretics…remind me to kindle a fire…I wanna roast one 'em on the stake…)[/quote]
Swiss Guard is coming for you!
Although the Bible may say in various ways that women are somehow below men, one should not think of the Bible as an entity in and of itself. The Bible simply contains the words of men from a far gone age saying these things about women. Given that, if the Bible were to be written today with contemporary morals in mind, women would most certainly be given an equal status amongst men. The words may even be written by women, some of which may try to imply or outright claim that it is MEN who are inferior in some way. Who knows? The point is that it is imperative to keep in mind who wrote the Bible and in what times it was written before applying the lessons contained within it to life in the 21st century. We must interpret the Bible through contemporary set of lenses.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
…Do you really believe that a woman came from man, or do you think that story is just a Myth to explain original sin, because I follow in the latter. Same as Jews…
[/quote]More of this “Genesis is a myth” crap, huh? If the first three chapters of Genesis are a myth then why isn’t Proverbs 31? Or John 3:16? Or Jesus walking on the water? Or feeding the five thousand with two loaves and fish? Or that King David actually lived? Or that Christ actually died on the cross? Or that He rose again? Or that He’s coming again?
[/quote]
Well, I call it a Myth because that is what the religious studies folks call it, Myth has to much connotation for me personally, but if people have studied a little into religious studies and understand the vocabulary than I’ll use the correct terms.
Catholics do not see The Bible as a book, we see it as a Library (Bible comes from Library after all) of books. With different kinds of writing, different ways of reading, and different kinds of messages. I see Adam and Eve to be true to point, but I see it as a story to explain a point. Proverbs 31 is tradition, good practice.
The Gospels are pretty much recants of what Jesus said and did, why would that be a Myth? Like I said, the Gospels retell the story of what Jesus said and did, why would there be a need for a Myth of Jesus walking on the water. Makes no sense.
The stuff about King David is history, no need to make a Myth out of that, either. I am not following all these things do not need a Myth they happened relatively at the same time as they were written, creation was not.
Because Jesus is God, and he died for our sins on the Cross.
No transubstantiation is not a myth. Yes, they are merely priests but they follow a “line” from Jesus. The reason why the Protestants do not say their “communion” is the actual blood and body of Christ is because they know that you have to have a “mere priest” to do so.
John? Who are you talking to?
What a huge pond of quicksand? I do not care if someone believes what I believe, I will gladly tell them but if they do not wish to believe the same way I do, then that is their free will to do so. Most likely means I am not the most convincing person in the world.
However, I am glad you are willing to defend your faith.
True, but it is still in the same story of Adam and Eve. That is why I didn’t distinguish the lessons.
How is business, up there?
[quote]farmerson12 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
…Do you really believe that a woman came from man, or do you think that story is just a Myth to explain original sin, because I follow in the latter. Same as Jews…
[/quote]More of this “Genesis is a myth” crap, huh? If the first three chapters of Genesis are a myth then why isn’t Proverbs 31? Or John 3:16? Or Jesus walking on the water? Or feeding the five thousand with two loaves and fish? Or that King David actually lived? Or that Christ actually died on the cross? Or that He rose again? Or that He’s coming again?
Is salvation through Jesus Christ a myth? If not, why not?
Is transubstantiation a myth? The Catholic church teaches it’s not. So woman coming from man is a myth…but bread and wine touched by the hands of a mere priest in 2010 literally becomes the flesh and blood of God the Son and is not a myth?
John, where do you and the Catholics like you get off on these myth designations? Why should the “woman coming from man” idea be labeled a myth but the Second Coming not? You don’t realize what a huge pond of quicksand you have willfully walked into when you or your pope think you have this “divine right” to decide what Scripture is “mythological” and what is real.
The creation of woman is not in the same context as the original sin nor in the concept of original sin. Those are two separate events.
[/quote]
Wow. I take time usually to read up on the various beliefs of branches of Christianity but I never know that catholics/pope believe that. Interesting[/quote]
You should continue to read up on Catholicism, yes we do not believe the story of Adam and Eve is completely true, and we do believe in evolution. We do believe that our Eucharist is the blood and body of Christ, so did Protestants 400 years ago.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I don’t know that I would have approached this the same way Push did LOL. However, while were at it, regardless of what the Roman catholic or any other church says, 1st Corinthians 11:3 indisputably states that “the man is the head of a woman” which far from being a license for tyranny or an indication of inferiority is an awesome loving responsibility on his part and a covering of safety on hers. IF the Bible is to be taken as the source for the Christian representation in this thread. If not then who cares? It’s whatever anybody thinks.[/quote]
Sorry on the head is the head of a woman, I read it as head of woman, which made no sense.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Although the Bible may say in various ways that women are somehow below men, one should not think of the Bible as an entity in and of itself. The Bible simply contains the words of men from a far gone age saying these things about women. Given that, if the Bible were to be written today with contemporary morals in mind, women would most certainly be given an equal status amongst men. The words may even be written by women, some of which may try to imply or outright claim that it is MEN who are inferior in some way. Who knows? The point is that it is imperative to keep in mind who wrote the Bible and in what times it was written before applying the lessons contained within it to life in the 21st century. We must interpret the Bible through contemporary set of lenses.[/quote]
What? You should stop reading into the Bible in such strange demeanor. Anyone that reads the Bible and thinks humans as inferior needs to do a little more reading. We are the fucking bosses of this shit, except for the Lord of course. We are made perfectly, with free will, how better does it get? And no, if the Bible was written today it would not be written by women.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I don’t know that I would have approached this the same way Push did LOL…[/quote]
Yeah, me sailboat and I take a different tack sometimes…but boy oh boy do we ever slice through the water while I be a-swiggin’ on me rum…
(Somebody has to straighten out these Catholic heretics…remind me to kindle a fire…I wanna roast one 'em on the stake…)[/quote]
I here declare a drinking contest, ain’t scared of drinking against a Catholic are ya?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Although the Bible may say in various ways that women are somehow below men, one should not think of the Bible as an entity in and of itself. The Bible simply contains the words of men from a far gone age saying these things about women. Given that, if the Bible were to be written today with contemporary morals in mind, women would most certainly be given an equal status amongst men. The words may even be written by women, some of which may try to imply or outright claim that it is MEN who are inferior in some way. Who knows? The point is that it is imperative to keep in mind who wrote the Bible and in what times it was written before applying the lessons contained within it to life in the 21st century. We must interpret the Bible through contemporary set of lenses.[/quote]
What? You should stop reading into the Bible in such strange demeanor. Anyone that reads the Bible and thinks humans as inferior needs to do a little more reading. We are the fucking bosses of this shit, except for the Lord of course. We are made perfectly, with free will, how better does it get? And no, if the Bible was written today it would not be written by women.[/quote]
Getting rowled up are ya?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I don’t know that I would have approached this the same way Push did LOL. However, while were at it, regardless of what the Roman catholic or any other church says, 1st Corinthians 11:3 indisputably states that “the man is the head of a woman” which far from being a license for tyranny or an indication of inferiority is an awesome loving responsibility on his part and a covering of safety on hers. IF the Bible is to be taken as the source for the Christian representation in this thread. If not then who cares? It’s whatever anybody thinks.[/quote]
Sorry on the head is the head of a woman, I read it as head of woman, which made no sense.[/quote]
Ok, fair enough there. No, every man is not the head of every woman. Women are commanded to submit to “their own husbands” and husbands to “love their wives as themselves”. Ephesians 5:22-33.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I don’t know that I would have approached this the same way Push did LOL…[/quote]
Yeah, me sailboat and I take a different tack sometimes…but boy oh boy do we ever slice through the water while I be a-swiggin’ on me rum…
(Somebody has to straighten out these Catholic heretics…remind me to kindle a fire…I wanna roast one 'em on the stake…)[/quote]
I here declare a drinking contest, ain’t scared of drinking against a Catholic are ya?[/quote]
Better watch it Push. These Catholics have Bizzares and can drink like a fish. Best way to raise funds for the diocese I hear.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Although the Bible may say in various ways that women are somehow below men, one should not think of the Bible as an entity in and of itself. The Bible simply contains the words of men from a far gone age saying these things about women. Given that, if the Bible were to be written today with contemporary morals in mind, women would most certainly be given an equal status amongst men. The words may even be written by women, some of which may try to imply or outright claim that it is MEN who are inferior in some way. Who knows? The point is that it is imperative to keep in mind who wrote the Bible and in what times it was written before applying the lessons contained within it to life in the 21st century. We must interpret the Bible through contemporary set of lenses.[/quote]
What? You should stop reading into the Bible in such strange demeanor. Anyone that reads the Bible and thinks humans as inferior needs to do a little more reading. We are the fucking bosses of this shit, except for the Lord of course. We are made perfectly, with free will, how better does it get? And no, if the Bible was written today it would not be written by women.[/quote]
First of all, I never said that humans themselves are inferior to anything else (nor are some humans inferior to other humans) or that they may be considered so in some contemporarily-written version of the Bible. My point is that the Bible serves as a guide for how to live our lives in the way God intends (or something to that effect if you believe in God), and as such, we should not view it 100% literally.
In order for it to be relevant in a society that is far, far different from the one in which it was written and the one it describes, we must allow for a viewpoint that is relevant to today’s society in some instances. While it shall always be considered bad to kill, some things (like gender equality issues) may not be forever bad or moral or whatever.
For the most part, in western society women are viewed as the equal of men. There may be material inequalities like physical size or average salary, but as humans ourselves we are considered to be equals. If it says otherwise in the Bible, then so be it; but this standard will necessarily be rejected by virtually all women who have grown up in an environment where they are told from the start that they are not inherently inferior to men. It will also be rejected by men who hold the same views, thus becoming irrelevant to much of today’s society.
If the Bible becomes irrelevant in one area because it must be viewed literally and thru ancient eyes, then it is not a leap to presume that society will continue to see more irrelevancies in the Bible, even some that are incorrectly interpreted as such. The message of the Bible, or any other holy/sacred text, is not intended to exclude or become dated. It is intended to encourage people to live life in the manner that God intended, not drive them from this text and its message because it cannot relate to a growing, changing society. It must remain able to span any and all generations.
As for man being created perfectly, well we may have been, but somewhere along the line we changed to a species that is incapable of true perfection. We are still the dominant species on this planet, but we are far from perfect.
Regarding your claim that women would never write or participate in the writing of such a document today: that’s absolutely comical. There are women in Washington and our state capitals writing and shaping all sorts of documents and so forth that we apply to our lives everyday. It isn’t inconceivable at all, nor is it ridiculous to assume, that women may in fact participate in the writing of the Bible (or a similar such text) were it to be written today instead of two millenia ago.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Although the Bible may say in various ways that women are somehow below men, one should not think of the Bible as an entity in and of itself. The Bible simply contains the words of men from a far gone age saying these things about women. Given that, if the Bible were to be written today with contemporary morals in mind, women would most certainly be given an equal status amongst men. The words may even be written by women, some of which may try to imply or outright claim that it is MEN who are inferior in some way. Who knows? The point is that it is imperative to keep in mind who wrote the Bible and in what times it was written before applying the lessons contained within it to life in the 21st century. We must interpret the Bible through contemporary set of lenses.[/quote]
What? You should stop reading into the Bible in such strange demeanor. Anyone that reads the Bible and thinks humans as inferior needs to do a little more reading. We are the fucking bosses of this shit, except for the Lord of course. We are made perfectly, with free will, how better does it get? And no, if the Bible was written today it would not be written by women.[/quote]
Also, while free will may be the most preferable of conditions in which we would choose to live, free will by nature mandates that we are not perfect and is therefore not a perfect situation for us to live in. We do not make perfect choices with our free will and many rarely ever make the “perfect” choice. Free will may be as good as it gets, and it may be as good as it possibly can ever get since man cannot achieve inherent perfection, but the existence of free will in mankind does not make us perfect. It simply allows to live in a way that is entirely of our own choosing, a condition that guarantees the possibility and/or existence of imperfections in any area of our life.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Although the Bible may say in various ways that women are somehow below men, one should not think of the Bible as an entity in and of itself. The Bible simply contains the words of men from a far gone age saying these things about women. Given that, if the Bible were to be written today with contemporary morals in mind, women would most certainly be given an equal status amongst men. The words may even be written by women, some of which may try to imply or outright claim that it is MEN who are inferior in some way. Who knows? The point is that it is imperative to keep in mind who wrote the Bible and in what times it was written before applying the lessons contained within it to life in the 21st century. We must interpret the Bible through contemporary set of lenses.[/quote]
What? You should stop reading into the Bible in such strange demeanor. Anyone that reads the Bible and thinks humans as inferior needs to do a little more reading. We are the fucking bosses of this shit, except for the Lord of course. We are made perfectly, with free will, how better does it get? And no, if the Bible was written today it would not be written by women.[/quote]
First of all, I never said that humans themselves are inferior to anything else (nor are some humans inferior to other humans) or that they may be considered so in some contemporarily-written version of the Bible. My point is that the Bible serves as a guide for how to live our lives in the way God intends (or something to that effect if you believe in God), and as such, we should not view it 100% literally.
In order for it to be relevant in a society that is far, far different from the one in which it was written and the one it describes, we must allow for a viewpoint that is relevant to today’s society in some instances. While it shall always be considered bad to kill, some things (like gender equality issues) may not be forever bad or moral or whatever.
For the most part, in western society women are viewed as the equal of men. There may be material inequalities like physical size or average salary, but as humans ourselves we are considered to be equals. If it says otherwise in the Bible, then so be it; but this standard will necessarily be rejected by virtually all women who have grown up in an environment where they are told from the start that they are not inherently inferior to men. It will also be rejected by men who hold the same views, thus becoming irrelevant to much of today’s society.
If the Bible becomes irrelevant in one area because it must be viewed literally and thru ancient eyes, then it is not a leap to presume that society will continue to see more irrelevancies in the Bible, even some that are incorrectly interpreted as such. The message of the Bible, or any other holy/sacred text, is not intended to exclude or become dated. It is intended to encourage people to live life in the manner that God intended, not drive them from this text and its message because it cannot relate to a growing, changing society. It must remain able to span any and all generations.
As for man being created perfectly, well we may have been, but somewhere along the line we changed to a species that is incapable of true perfection. We are still the dominant species on this planet, but we are far from perfect.
Regarding your claim that women would never write or participate in the writing of such a document today: that’s absolutely comical. There are women in Washington and our state capitals writing and shaping all sorts of documents and so forth that we apply to our lives everyday. It isn’t inconceivable at all, nor is it ridiculous to assume, that women may in fact participate in the writing of the Bible (or a similar such text) were it to be written today instead of two millenia ago.[/quote]
well, sorry that your bible turned out to be such a disappointment for you. Glad mine is still relevant, inspired and applicable to today. Good luck with your outdated bible . . .
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
…Do you really believe that a woman came from man, or do you think that story is just a Myth to explain original sin, because I follow in the latter. Same as Jews…
[/quote]More of this “Genesis is a myth” crap, huh? If the first three chapters of Genesis are a myth then why isn’t Proverbs 31? Or John 3:16? Or Jesus walking on the water? Or feeding the five thousand with two loaves and fish? Or that King David actually lived? Or that Christ actually died on the cross? Or that He rose again? Or that He’s coming again?
Is salvation through Jesus Christ a myth? If not, why not?
Is transubstantiation a myth? The Catholic church teaches it’s not. So woman coming from man is a myth…but bread and wine touched by the hands of a mere priest in 2010 literally becomes the flesh and blood of God the Son and is not a myth?
John, where do you and the Catholics like you get off on these myth designations? Why should the “woman coming from man” idea be labeled a myth but the Second Coming not? You don’t realize what a huge pond of quicksand you have willfully walked into when you or your pope think you have this “divine right” to decide what Scripture is “mythological” and what is real.
By the way, the creation of woman is not in the same context as The original sin nor in the concept of original sin. Those are two separate events.
[/quote]
I personally hate it when people pull this crap. Oh about that part…God made it up…sure he actually specifies when something is a parable else where but this is different.
Follow the bible or just go to hell (literally =D)
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]forbes wrote:
…It even mentions that a the woman came from the man and is beneath him…[/quote]
No, the Bible never mentions woman is beneath man.
[/quote]
Cowgirl > Missionary
Oh, this quote I gotta see.