Biblical question ...

[Xenon]

I was wondering what you thought of this Biblical passage. What's your interpretation. Why is the Bible full of these sorts of passages?

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."
1 Corinthians 14:34-35, KJV

[Valjean]

Eh, the bible is a bit sexist...of course, it contradicts itself too...

Of course, you also have the things added onto the bible by different people and when the bible was translated into english, it was made slightly poetic, causing some inaccuracies (examples: originally bible never told of the three wise men's journey, originally it was "wise magi" and not "three wise men" & "young woman Mary" and not "Virgin Mary")

[TranquilNightElf]

... I didn't know that the Bible had such passages.
That doesn't sound right.

[wraizyr]

Eh, the bible is a bit sexist...of course, it contradicts itself too...
Wrong as always.

Anyways, the rule at the time was that both men and women were to keep silent in church.
Paul, who writes specific, problem oriented letters, wasn't writing a general rule for only women, he was addressing a specific problem involving women specifically.

This link goes into the matter in more detail. (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fem09.html)
Now, I'm just curious, why do you think the Bible is "full" of these? I'd be interested in hearing a bunch of others.

Cheers,
wraizyr

That doesn't sound right.
Edit:That's because it's been taken out of context.

[Valjean]

Wrong as always.
Heh. If you think so.

[dunchy]

That's because it's been taken out of context.

Bingo.

[wraizyr]

Heh. If you think so.
Apparently I do, or so I've been told.^^

Of course, you also have the things added onto the bible by different people and when the bible was translated into english, it was made slightly poetic, causing some inaccuracies (examples: originally bible never told of the three wise men's journey, originally it was "wise magi" and not "three wise men" & "young woman Mary" and not "Virgin Mary")Could you provide sources or information for any of this?(In particular things supposedly being added in)

[TranquilNightElf]

Slightly off topic:
But then seeing there are so many versions of the Bible, it is very likely and entirely possible for additions, different interpretations, and the like to creep in right ?

[wraizyr]

But then seeing there are so many versions of the Bible, it is very likely and entirely possible for additions, different interpretations, and the like to creep in right ?No, the variations are mainly terms of wording and grammar, they do not say anything radically different, as far as I am aware.

[Frattimonde]

One reason why I don´t like christianity....

[TranquilNightElf]

To wraizyr:
Not overall maybe, but ( and I'm just curious for this point ) as you have said the Text in theXenon's post conveys a very sexist view as it is taken out of context, similarly the Bibles of different regions, different countries in different languages would overall be the same but in places of the text would reflect what was being preached there at the time the corresponding version was brought into being. I.e concentrating more on what were that country's/place major beliefs

[wraizyr]

Not overall maybe, but ( and I'm just curious for this point ) as you have said the Text in theXenon's post conveys a very sexist view as it is taken out of context, similarly the Bibles of different regions, different countries in different languages would overall be the same but in places of the text would reflect what was being preached there at the time the corresponding version was brought into being. I.e concentrating more on what were that country's/place major beliefsErrr, no, the Bible is a collection of specific writings, set in stone.Each book is a biography written by one person, or a letter written by one person; you don't have different books by different authors in different parts of the world.
I hope this answers your question.


Cheers,
wraizyr

[TranquilNightElf]

Well I found this link in which it states that there were many versions(mainly traslations). Versions that were popular among some people while others not.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15367a.htm

[wraizyr]

Well I found this link in which it states that there were many versions(mainly traslations). Versions that were popular among some people while others not.
Yes, but it appears the differences were mostly language, not actual content.

[TranquilNightElf]

Well actually, that's not specified, so probably, probably not. Of course, and I'm sure you're aware of this, many a times verbatim translations from one language into another causes the meaning to change dramatically.

Anyhow thanx. I'll have to dig more deep before I can come up with more hard facts.

[Kahuzal]

7:4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.

11:3Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

11:11In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.




Xenon, don't be such an ass about it, if you don't know about it then don't even go on about it.

Paul sent the letter before the division of Judaism and the followers of "the way", moasic law was still holds heavily within the followers until the council of Jerusalem. Moasic laws prohibit females from entering those places.

Although I'm an atheist, I'm not going to side with some one who's just trying to be a moron, however, I should have come to realize that you'll never change...

[TheGreatBrain]

Well the Bible, in many places, reflects the views of those who wrote it and not necessarily those of God (assuming he exists). I guess even God can't count on everyone to take perfect dictation. The Bible is only a guide, it doesn't give all the answers. One has to figure out the way they're going to view the world on their own.

[Spartan-II]

Well the Bible, in many places, reflects the views of those who wrote it and not necessarily those of God (assuming he exists). I guess even God can't count on everyone to take perfect dictation. The Bible is only a guide, it doesn't give all the answers. One has to figure out the way they're going to view the world on their own.This is probably the most intelligent post ive read ..

[Xenon]

I fail to see how it is out of context. Neither the preceeding verses nor the following verses speak more about women... so those verses are in actuality the entirety of the passage regarding women.

I Corinthians 14 --the whole Chapter (http://www.cforc.com/kjv/1_Corinthians/14.html)

So, is "God's Word" then subject to interpretation? What if I interpret it differently than you do? Who's right?

There are many versions of the Bible which are also contextually different. Not just grammatically different. Catholics, Jehova's Witnesses (another cult), Seventh Day Adventists (cult here too), and Mormons (yep, another cult) to name a few have widely divergent versions of the Bible. Some have more books and more "Authors" and some have less. Some have different stories alltogether. Take the Book of Mormon for example. Mormons believe that there is the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Book of Mormon which make up the "Bible" as a collection. Mormons believe Jesus came to America... pretty fucked up, huh? Catholics have the "Macabees I and II" and also "Sirach" and a couple of others not found in the Protestant versions. Jehova's Witnesses will even tell you that the Bible prohibits blood transfusion, smoking, voting at political elections, and celebrating special days such as Christmas, birthdays and constitution days. I mean, WTF?!

[Kahuzal]

Exactly. That text was written by saul/paul (changed his name) who used to jail the christans/"followers of the way" until he had some jesus experice or somthing like tha,. Not by some godly devine person who has a magical telepathic link to god and knows it's wills and wishes because some alien being screwed his head with a probe, and then the tinfoil hat blah blah NO.

[Xenon]

Regardless of who wrote it, it's in the Bible isn't it? I bet ProtossChick99 believes in what Paul/Saul said.

I would wager I know the Bible better than most people. The Bible was the only book I was allowed to read for many years as a child. I know most of it almost by heart.

[wraizyr]

I fail to see how it is out of context. Neither the preceeding verses nor the following verses speak more about women... so those verses are in actuality the entirety of the passage regarding women.The social/religious context.It was considered wrong to talk when somebody was teaching.

So, is "God's Word" then subject to interpretation? What if I interpret it differently than you do? Who's right?The one who didn't strip the quote of its social context.

There are many versions of the Bible which are also contextually different. Not just grammatically different. Catholics, Jehova's Witnesses (another cult), Seventh Day Adventists (cult here too), and Mormons (yep, another cult) to name a few have widely divergent versions of the Bible. Some have more books and more "Authors" and some have less. Some have different stories alltogether. Take the Book of Mormon for example. Mormons believe that there is the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Book of Mormon which make up the "Bible" as a collection. Mormons believe Jesus came to America... pretty fucked up, huh? Catholics have the "Macabees I and II" and also "Sirach" and a couple of others not found in the Protestant versions. Jehova's Witnesses will even tell you that the Bible prohibits blood transfusion, smoking, voting at political elections, and celebrating special days such as Christmas, birthdays and constitution days. I mean, WTF?!Right.And those are corrupt versions which are not canonical; or else they are cases of people taking the Bible out of context, same as you.
Think our canon is random? (http://www.tektonics.org/lp/otcanon.html)
You're starting to buy into your own unsupported assertions. (http://www.tektonics.org/lp/ntcanon.html)

I would wager I know the Bible better than most people.And judging from your ignorant comments so far, I'd wager you don't;this "objection" is nothing I haven't heard many times before.And there's more to knowing the Bible than just cold reading it.

[Xenon]

Hah! You've tripped yourself up already Wraizyr. The Mormons, Catholics, SDA, and JW might beg to differ on whose "version" of the Bible is the accurate one. As far as I can tell each of these established faiths disagree on the canonization process and even on the total number of authors of the Bible. The book of Sirach which was mentioned in your first link doesn't even make it into the Protestant, Lutheran, Methodist or Baptist versions of the Bible. If you Christians can't even agree on which Bible is supposed to be used, how can you expect us to believe in it as the "Word of God made manifest"?

The social/religious context of the verses of the Bible are even more widely disputed than the actual verses themselves. For example, most Christians can agree that Saul/Paul wrote those words; however, the differences in interpretation even in one particular sect of Christianity are wide and varied.

You say it's out of context. OK. That's your opinion and your belief. I prefer to believe that the Bible is a mysoginistic collection of handed down fables and parables with enough contradictions to choke a hippopotamus.

[Scauthra]

The male writeds back during the writing of the bible wanted to put woman in thier place.

Thankfully America is slowly evolving more and more past a dumb fucking book.

Note: If you remember correctly, Jesus was an arab. Most arab countires today still give woman very, very, very low, or no rights.

The book was written by arabian christians, is what I am getting at.

[Schwitzer]

I think the problem is when people start regarding the Bible is "the word of God"; or a concrete text on what is right and wrong. Coupled with it being written in a time when discrimination was up through the roof, and you get a group of people grudgingly holding on to out-dated values simply because it says so in a damned book.

I'm not saying everything written in the Bible is absolute crap, I'm just reinforcing TheGreatBrain's comment that you need to think for yourself. You know, use some logic and common sense on this. Or go and stone a few adulterous women, because the Bible's all for that.

[GrassDragon]

The book was written by arabian christians, is what I am getting at.
Actually most of it (or maybe all...) was written by arabian jews. Christianity wasn't formed at that time.

Sidenote: My church (Disciples of Christ is the denomination) encourages it's members to interpret the bible themselves, instead of having a "clergy member" explain it or interpet it for them. I like that.

[Xenon]

Actually, Jesus was a Jew of the line of King David... and yes, I remember correctly.

Interestingly enough, Arab women had more rights than Christian women for centuries. It's only in the last 150 years or so that Christian women have outstripped (no pun intended, although you can also see it that way if you like) their Arab sisters in a very few ways.

For example, during the Dark Ages, women in Europe and most of the world were not allowed to own property, and if their husbands divorced them there was no recourse and he did not have to support either the woman or the child. However, during that same time Arab wome could be owners of properties and businesses, and if divorced they would be looked after monetarily with thier future secured by the husband having to pay child-support as well as giving her the house they lived in. Mohammed's wife was one of the richest people in Arabia when he married her and she was the head of the local "business association" for the city they lived in. She was one of the most respected people in the city.

Ironically, it's only been now that the vast multitude of people have cast off biblical morals and ethics for secular ones that women in western society have any socio-economic standing at all. Don't forget, that until the 19th Ammendment to the Constitution in 1920 most American women could not vote. That means women in America have had the right to vote for less than 100 years!

It wasn't until the mid-1870's that most married women in America could do what they wanted and own what they wanted to. Married women could not hold, buy, or sell property, sue or be sued, enter into contracts, or retain their own wages prior to the 1870's. Up until that time upon marriage a woman became the property of her husband and everything she owned or any income she made belonged to him from the time of her marriage until her death. It wasn't until the early 1900's that all women could own property in America.

The Arab women had been enjoying all of the above-mentioned rights since they were written into Shari'a (Muslim Law) in the late 490's CE.

The fallacy that women under Islam have no rights is a convenient little bit of propaganda to make you believe that Muslims are evil monsters who mistreat women and eat babies. Kind of like Weapons of Mass Distruction. It causes a knee-jerk reaction of the negative kind. Simple but effective; obviously at least you (Scauthra) bought it.

GrassDragon: Interesting sidenote here as well: Under Islam, no one but you, the reader, can interpret the Koran. Apparently, only Allah (God) really knows what it means. It is in fact unlawful for anyone to explain the Koran to you. It must be interpreted in private and personally.

Note: Some parts of the New Testament were written by Greeks, Romans, and Arabian Jews in Aramaic, Greek, and Old Latin; but most if not all of the Old Testament was written by Jews in Hebrew and Aramaic which was the language of then Palestine.

[wraizyr]

Hah! You've tripped yourself up already Wraizyr. The Mormons, Catholics, SDA, and JW might beg to differ on whose "version" of the Bible is the accurate one. As far as I can tell each of these established faiths disagree on the canonization process and even on the total number of authors of the Bible. The book of Sirach which was mentioned in your first link doesn't even make it into the Protestant, Lutheran, Methodist or Baptist versions of the Bible. If you Christians can't even agree on which Bible is supposed to be used, how can you expect us to believe in it as the "Word of God made manifest"?We Christians can agree.Simply because somebody says,"I'm a Christian," doesn't make one a Christian.Life isn't that simple.I don't consider those denominations you listed above to be Christian, so it's a non-issue.

The social/religious context of the verses of the Bible are even more widely disputed than the actual verses themselves. For example, most Christians can agree that Saul/Paul wrote those words; however, the differences in interpretation even in one particular sect of Christianity are wide and varied.Really?I'd like to see some dispute from Christians who are worth listening to, care to provide?

You say it's out of context. OK. That's your opinion and your belief. I prefer to believe that the Bible is a mysoginistic collection of handed down fables and parables with enough contradictions to choke a hippopotamus.Fine then, but don't make threads like this bitching because you don't get social/cultural "subtleties" contained in the Bible.

I think the problem is when people start regarding the Bible is "the word of God"; or a concrete text on what is right and wrong. Coupled with it being written in a time when discrimination was up through the roof, and you get a group of people grudgingly holding on to out-dated values simply because it says so in a damned book.
The male writeds back during the writing of the bible wanted to put woman in thier place.
Heck no. Claims about sexism are misplaced. (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/femalex.html)

And on a lighter note... (http://www.tektonics.org/guest/angrywomyn.html)

[Xenon]

1 Timothy Chapter 2:

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all submission.
12 But suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Ergo, women should be seen but not heard.

Wraizyr: Just because you don't think that other Christians are "real Christians" or "Christians worth listening to" doesn't mean that those people aren't Christians or that their opinions don't matter. Basically, what you are saying is that regardless of any facts, and regardless of what others think you've been told what opinion to have on the matter and you'll blindly stick to it no matter what. See, that's just stupidity right there.

Heck yes, the Bible is Misogynistic and no appologist can prove different. (http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=368)

[wraizyr]

Let the woman learn in silence with all submission.
Same as above, this rule was for both men and women.
But suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.The lexical work of Kroeger (WS:WAB:225-244) and Kroeger/Kroeger (WS: ISNW:87-104), although complex, documents one important strand of meaning as being "to proclaim as the originator or source of something" (op.cit.). Liefeld summarizes Kroeger in WS:WAB:246: "If Kroeger's understanding of authenteo is correct, the most straightforward translation of the verse would be, 'I do not permit a women to teach or to declare herself the originator of man.'"

WS:ISNW:103 states it thus: "If we were to read 1 Timothy 2:12 as 'I do not allow a women to teach nor to proclaim herself author of man,' we can understand the content of the forbidden teaching as being the notion that woman was somehow responsible for the creation of man."

For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
How is this anti-woman?(Hint:It's not, but you're desperate for material)

And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. So, the woman was tricked, and did not know better.Adam knew better, but sinned anyways.If anything, this would reflect more poorly on Adam.

Ergo, women should be seen but not heard.
Ergo, Xenon is running out of material to misinterprate.

Wraizyr: Just because you don't think that other Christians are "real Christians" or "Christians worth listening to" doesn't mean that those people aren't Christians or that their opinions don't matter.No, but because they don't believe Christian principles, it does mean they aren't Christians.And it means you can't cite them as dissenters within Christianity.

Basically, what you are saying is that regardless of any facts, and regardless of what others think you've been told what opinion to have on the matter and you'll blindly stick to it no matter what. See, that's just stupidity right there.No, it means I've thought my opinion through.Fancy that, reasoning and critical thinking are stupidity, thanks for the info Xenon, I'll try to avoid it in the future.(Not really)

Heck yes, the Bible is Misogynistic and no appologist can prove different. (http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=368)
That article was worthless.First up, it dismisses the statement of equality because it mentions that we are in Christ, and also isn't worded the way the author of the article would like.:rolleyes: As for the few versus cited, they contain no misogyny, as defined below.Simple as that.
mi·sog·y·nis·tic
Of or characterized by a hatred of women.
Nowhere in the Bible, thanks.


Cheers,
wraizyr

[Xenon]

Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
1Cor 11:9

No, but because they don't believe Christian principles, it does mean they aren't Christians.And it means you can't cite them as dissenters within Christianity.

Proof that Catholics, Mormons, SDA and JW are not "Christians"? Please and Thanks.

Chris·tian
One who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ

As far as I know, a christian is anyone who professes a belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ. Last I heard, Catholics, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, and Jehova's Witnesses all professed to believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ. Oh, but I forgot, they disagree with your interpretation of the Bible, so they aren't "christians". How convenient.

Wait a second, two can play that game! I declare that you sirrah are the "fake" christian. How dare you uppity Protestants who split off from the Catholic Church, the One True Church to form your heretical sect declare us not to be Christians! We invented Christianity fool!

[GrassDragon]

No, but because they don't believe Christian principles, it does mean they aren't Christians.And it means you can't cite them as dissenters within Christianity.
How can you say they don't believe Christian principles? Catholics (as an example) came BEFORE Protestants, they were the ones who came up with those Christian principles first. As far as I know the only principle required to make you a Christian is that you believe in God and Jesus; everything other than that just determines what denomination you are. So the cults Xenon named are Christian, even if you don't want them to be.

[Xenon]

They aren't really cults anyways... they're sects. But wraizyr probably sees them as cults.

sect
a) dissenting or schismatic religious body; especially : one regarded as extreme or heretical
b) a religious denomination

cult

1 : formal religious veneration : WORSHIP
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>
5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

[wraizyr]

Believing in Jesus isn't some general vague thing, he said that he was the son of God, and we are all sinners.The only way we can escape the consequences of our sins is to repent of them via faith in Jesus Christ, not by our own works and good deeds.
Mormonism:We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
Catholics have the sacraments;confessional system and whatnot.

I'm going to want to do research on the other two mentioned at a later date, but if you don't accept the Bible as true, then you are not a Christian.The Bible is the foundation of our knowledge as Christians.

Unfortunately, I am quite sleep deprived, and will have to continue this debate at a later time.Goodnight.


Cheers,
wraizyr

[Xenon]

I'm going to want to do research on the other two mentioned at a later date, but if you don't accept the Bible as true, then you are not a Christian.

You're assuming that the denominations mentioned don't accept the Bible as being true. As far as I know, they all accept the Bible as being true. Maybe you should do your research before you make blanket judgements? Just a thought.

Mormons recognize the Bible as being the "Word of God". They believe that Jesus is the son of God, and that through faith in him they will "get in to heaven", or whatever. Go and tell a Mormon he isn't Christian and he'll laugh at you. Either that, or punch you in the throat.

The Bible is the foundation of our knowledge as Christians.

Yes, but that's the crux of the matter now isn't it? What version of the bible? You're arguing in circles here trying to backpedal your way out of an untenable position. All of them are Christians. They disagree on some points in their interpretations of what the Bible is actually saying. Silly Christians, arguing semantics amongst yourselves. I bet Jesus is shaking his head in dismay at what Christians have misinterpreted from his teachings.

Just because I don't belong to the Christian faith doesn't mean I don't see Jesus as being a great man by the way...

In any event, the context of the passages I highlighted earlier are clear to me. Women should know their place according to Christian and Jewish doctrines and teachings. Hell, according to Leviticus, you can't even touch a woman who is on her period. If you do, you're an unclean abomination to God because women on their period are "unclean" for a period of seven days. If you even sit down or touch somewhere a woman on her period has sat, you're unclean until the evening passes, assuming of course that you've taken a shower and burned your clothes.

[Protosschick99]

*Reads thread*

lolz--This is great :D Xenon, stop trying, this is just making my walk with God stronger :) If I could, I would break it down for you so you can understand why it is okay for women to prach--But why bother since all you're going to do is stay set in what you believe?

I pray in the Name of Jesus that someone enters into your life and shows you the truth :) In Jesus Name you'll be at the right place at the right time and recieve the gospel correctly!

Since you say that you have extensive knowledge of the Christian Bible and all it's terms, I believe that you will be an awesome addition to the Kingdom of God! You may think otherwise but I know that you have a calling to the ministry along with everyone else who posts here on this forum.

I now accept you as a prayer assignment into my life Xenon--As God as my witness you will be on my heart everyday. :)

Anywayz, Just because of your sex that does not mean that you should be excluded from anything. Because it does say in the Bible:

"There is neither man nor woman, slave nor free, jew nor greek."

It's something along those lines--I don't exactly know it by heart or where it's at, but if ya give me time I can find it for ya--But basically it says that God is not a respector of persons, just cuz you're a woman or a man or whatever, doesn't mean anything.

The way I see it, if a donkey can be used by God to minister to someone, why would He hesitate to use a woman? :)

[Xenon]

Oh man! You're absolutely right. I need Jesus in my life. I am sorry for all my doubts and heckling. I, Xenon recant everything I have ever said contrary to the teachings and preachings of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior and accept him into my heart and life as my personal friend and confidant. My guide to being a better person. In Jesus Name I Pray. Amen.

Yo. I was jacked. I was so wrong. Can you please forgive me ProtossChick99?

Your touching story and reminder about Balaam's Ass has reminded me of my roots and my desperate need for the love of Jesus in my life.

[Scauthra]

Yo. I was jacked. I was so wrong. Can you please forgive me ProtossChick99?

Don't submit, Satan would be sad.

/endasshole

[Protosschick99]

Stop faking :P

[Scauthra]

Stop faking

I would but it's so hard ;-;

[Protosschick99]

Sorry, that was directed towards Xenon :P

[Scauthra]

Sorry, that was directed towards Xenon

Oh.. so that's how it is! ;-;

[Schwitzer]

So... is anyone going to refute all the arguments Xenon's raised, or are we content to go off waffling and trying to convert him?

[bluemicrobyte]

it appears that were content with waffling, but pc, could you in depth-ly explain this strange and unusual passage to me? I was going to ask my pastor next sunday but WB seems soo much faster :)

[TranquilNightElf]

Well theXenon does put forth decisive arguments, and I concur along the following lines:

1. There have been and are many versions and revisions of the Bible and the idea that the only things that have changed throughout the centuries in all of those versions are just grammatical and languages changes just doesn't hold water. Different Christians have different beliefs. Which brings me to .
2. There are different groups of people who are Christian in their own rights, and it is not right for one to judge and say who is a true Christian or not.

[Seraph_Knight]

-deleted-

[Xenon]

Xenon, you are taking a nice look and finding things in the old testiment that people this day in age disagree with. Surely, someone as you who has read the bible would read later on about what Jesus says, and speaks about the laws.

Seraph_Knight: Idiot. Since when is 1st Corinthians or 1st Timothy part of the Old Testament?

I don't believe I have quoted other passages from the Old Testament (you misspelled it) except as an aside or supportive point to agree with something that that New Testament says and which I quoted. Now who's taking things out of context? You're just mad because there are things in your beloved Bible which aren't so cool as you would expect them to be. The Word of God should be immutable and unchangeable. As true today as it was yesterday. Jesus should be the only yardstick by which to measure things; (if you're a Christian anyway) but if Jesus never opined on a particular topic, then you need to harken back to the Old Testament to get your Judeo-Christian moral code.

Matthew 6:5-8 seems to apply to HFF from what I can see from their website...

[wraizyr]

it is not right for one to judge and say who is a true Christian or not.It is if that person is not a follower of Christ.

Now, apparently I went off on a bit of an irrelevant tangent last night, I don't have the time right now to thoroughly examine those few religions;if they follow the Bible, cool.If they want to make additions, then sorry, but no.
Old Testament Canon (http://www.tektonics.org/lp/otcanon.html) New Testament Canon (http://www.tektonics.org/lp/ntcanon.html)

I bet Jesus is shaking his head in dismay at what Christians have misinterpreted from his teachings.Most likely.
Just because I don't belong to the Christian faith doesn't mean I don't see Jesus as being a great man by the way...Seems illogical, but alright.Come to think of it, how would you define "a great man"?

In any event, the context of the passages I highlighted earlier are clear to me.And you clearly got them wrong.Respect for teachers when speaking was the rule, Paul was writing to reinforce that to specific people.

Hell, according to Leviticus, you can't even touch a woman who is on her period.If you do, you're an unclean abomination to God because women on their period are "unclean" for a period of seven days.Of greatest importance is the fact that you fail to mention; immediately before this commandment for women, God orders the exact same thing for men who are bleeding, or to use the exact term, "Have an issue."(Leviticus 15)Great goo-ga-malloo, God is discriminating against everybody! :O


Second of all, the term "abomination" is not in the Bible, that is an addition by yourself.

Thirdly, I believe the Bible mentions cleaning with water, but not burning.

[Xenon]

I guess it depends on what version of the Bible you're reading. Anyway... it's been fun arguing with the Christian Fundamentalists here on the forums. It's been a real blast reminding me of why I myself am not a Christian any more.

I think Jesus was a wonderful philosopher. A great man. Someone on par with other great men like Confucius, Ghandi, Mohammed, Plato, or Krishna. Not the Son of God, but a good man; a great man. I don't know how to further simplify it. Jesus turned out wonderful considering he was the son of a carpenter named Joseph and his wife Mary.

PS: Didn't Jesus say "by their works, ye shall know them"?? I think anyone including Non-Christians can tell who the hypocrites and who the real Christians are.

[wraizyr]

I guess it depends on what version of the Bible you're reading.
I've been reading the KJV, I was under the impression you're doing the same;which version were you using?
It's been a real blast reminding me of why I myself am not a Christian any more.Yes, it's been quite... informative.
<_<
>_>
I think Jesus was a wonderful philosopher. A great man. Someone on par with other great men like Confucius, Ghandi, Mohammed, Plato, or Krishna. Not the Son of God, but a good man; a great man. I don't know how to further simplify it.
Okay, I was just wondering if you mean you consider him particularly superior to other humans.
PS: Didn't Jesus say "by their works, ye shall know them"?? I think anyone including Non-Christians can tell who the hypocrites and who the real Christians are.
Yes, but to be a Christian, one must live by Christian standards; these include accepting Jesus as one's personal savious, the only thing that can save you from your sins, and so on.

[Xenon]

So then, most "Christians" aren't really "Christians" at all... they just pay lip service to the standards and subvert the teachings of Jesus to fit whatever they themselves feel. I wouldn't hesitate to say that most people who profess to be Christian aren't really Christians.

By the way, if all you have to do to get to heaven is believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and repent of your sins, then what's to stop me from living my life as I see fit and taking the chance that I'll have the opportunity to "repent" some time near the end of my natural lifetime?

Of course, it's a gamble... I could be hit by a bus and die tomorrow...

PS: Can you show me where Jesus said I had to live by a set of standards?

[Seraph_Knight]

-deleted-

[wraizyr]

So then, most "Christians" aren't really "Christians" at all... they just pay lip service to the standards and subvert the teachings of Jesus to fit whatever they themselves feel. I wouldn't hesitate to say that most people who profess to be Christian aren't really Christians.There are certainly many who profess, but aren't;however, there is simply no way we can possibly judge whether or not most professing Christians actually are Christians.
By the way, if all you have to do to get to heaven is believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and repent of your sins, then what's to stop me from living my life as I see fit and taking the chance that I'll have the opportunity to "repent" some time near the end of my natural lifetime?Theoretically, nothing;however, I'd have to question your sincerity and the honesty of your repentance in such a scenario.
PS: Can you show me where Jesus said I had to live by a set of standards?
Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

[Xenon]

By the way, if all you have to do to get to heaven is believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and repent of your sins, then what's to stop me from living my life as I see fit and taking the chance that I'll have the opportunity to "repent" some time near the end of my natural lifetime?Theoretically, nothing;however, I'd have to question your sincerity and the honesty of your repentance in such a scenario.
Lucky for me, my sincerity or lack thereof wouldn't be decided by you now would it. I suppose that if Jesus forgives me, it would be unChristian of you not to. Wouldn't it?

I supposed I wasn't clear enough. I was trying to ask you if all I had to do was believe in Jesus and repent of my sins to get into heaven. After all, Jesus will forgive everything won't he?

Matthew 5:31-32 also says; "It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."

So... divorce for any other reason is unlawful? What about abuse? What about incompatibility? What about any other plausible reasons? Oh yeah, I forgot... we can pick and choose what precepts to follow and which to ignore.

Seraph_Knight: Thanks. Those were some wonderful contradictions you posted. I am continually impressed by the volume of contradictions the Bible contains.

[wraizyr]

Lucky for me, my sincerity or lack thereof wouldn't be decided by you now would it. I suppose that if Jesus forgives me, it would be unChristian of you not to. Wouldn't it?Correct on all points.

I supposed I wasn't clear enough. I was trying to ask you if all I had to do was believe in Jesus and repent of my sins to get into heaven. After all, Jesus will forgive everything won't he?I understand it, I'm simply stating that you can't scam God.

Matthew 5:31-32 also says; "It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."

So... divorce for any other reason is unlawful? What about abuse? What about incompatibility?
First up, I would say that "incompatibility" is a spoiled, modern reason, used by those who don't want to take responsibility for their actions.Can you cite a good case where incompatibility is an irreversible reason for divorce?

As to abuse, I'm not sure, I'll have to do some research/sleep and get back to you later.


Cheers,
wraizyr

[Seraph_Knight]

-deleted-

[ShadowGonissa]

I was wondering what you thought of this Biblical passage. What's your interpretation. Why is the Bible full of these sorts of passages?

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."
1 Corinthians 14:34-35, KJV
Actually, this is Paul speaking from his own opinions, based on how church operated in the past. For some reason, when it came to women's rights Paul was uncertain. His entire point here was not to create conflict in the church. However, God must have had some reason to let this be in the Bible, even though it's opinion. I don't understand it myself, but I know I will later on.

[Xenon]

However, God must have had some reason to let this be in the Bible, even though it's opinion.

Too bad God didn't write the Bible or have anything to do with "letting it be in the Bible"...

[wraizyr]

Alrighty, thanks to Elric for hooking me up with the relevant scholarship.Here is a comment or two on the matter of divorce:

""Divorce" is the dissolution of a marriage; where "marriage" means the fusion of honor of two families for political and economic reasons, divorce usually means a feud between families. To "make one's wife an adulteress" in this case means to dishonor oneself by acting as a pimp and offering one's wife for sexual union with other males. To "commit adultery" by marrying a divorced woman means to dishonor her previous husband who has given up rights to her. Such statements are exaggerations of sorts, and make little literal sense in the culture." (46)
Malina, Bruce J. & Rohorbaugh, Richard L. Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels. Minneapolis, MN:Ausburg Fortress. 2003


For some reason, when it came to women's rights Paul was uncertain.
Actually... (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fem09.html)

[Seraph_Knight]

-deleted-

[Xenon]

In my opinion, the only book God probably wrote, was the Song of Solomon. My God is a Sexy God. Yeah!

[Kaervek]

So then, most "Christians" aren't really "Christians" at all... they just pay lip service to the standards and subvert the teachings of Jesus to fit whatever they themselves feel. I wouldn't hesitate to say that most people who profess to be Christian aren't really Christians.

There are no Christians anymore. The only true Christian died on the cross.

[wraizyr]

A.Well, given that a Christian is a follower of Christ, isn't that a little illogical?
B.Isn't that a Nietzche quote?

[Kaervek]

A.Well, given that a Christian is a follower of Christ, isn't that a little illogical?
B.Isn't that a Nietzche quote? a.) With regards to the quote of Xenon's which it was directed, I think it fits nicely. Not to mention I find it rather truthful, as much as Webster might disagree (which isn't much).

b.) Paraphrased, yes.