Religious Irony Women's Rights and Christianity

[HemlockGrey]

This is not an equality-minded person, Cyril. According to Paul, the hierarchy of holiness is God, Christ, men, and then women, women ought to keep silent and remain obedient, and women must not "usurp authority" over men, but "be in silence".

Point. Which is why my belief is that the letters of Paul are as much holy writ as whatever my pastor might churn out.

[Darth Wong]

Point. Which is why my belief is that the letters of Paul are as much holy writ as whatever my pastor might churn out.

OK. So why is Paul's bullshit in the Bible, then? Why don't we add Pastor Chuck's stuff to the Bible too?

[ElBlanco]

Your god is obviously an asshole. Please refrain from spouting any more of his bullshit on this board.

How do you figure? My God tells me to respect my fellow human beings. He says as long as I do that, I can enjoy eternal bliss after death. He doesn't tell me to berate, insult or attack others. It doesn't even matter if everyone worships the same way. Is that an asshole?

As for bullshit, excuse me for being open minded.

[HemlockGrey]

OK. So why is Paul's bullshit in the Bible, then? Why don't we add Pastor Chuck's stuff to the Bible too?

Because the Emperor/Pope/Byzantine Emperor said so.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

If it was "misinterpreted", then why don't they get rid of it? Why do they keep teaching it as the Gospel Truth, and calling it the "Good Book"? If the Bible is a "Good Book", then so is Mein Kampf.

Like I said, it is still inspired by God. There is just some stuff that needs working on.

As for changing it, think of it this way, how hard is it to add an Ammendment to the Constitution? And thats only 200 years old and not the Word of God.

It's happened before, they can do it again. If they don't do it, then they are condoning the actions within the Bible. And that includes the murders, rapes, genocides, etc.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Point. Which is why my belief is that the letters of Paul are as much holy writ as whatever my pastor might churn out.

OK. So why is Paul's bullshit in the Bible, then? Why don't we add Pastor Chuck's stuff to the Bible too?

Because Chuck Sonneburg is cool, and the Pastors who love guilt trips won't stand for it.

[Durandal]

I think Chuck's summer blockbuster review involving the scathing of Freddie Prinze Jr. would make a fine addition to the "Good Book."

[Durandal]

How do you figure? My God tells me to respect my fellow human beings. He says as long as I do that, I can enjoy eternal bliss after death. He doesn't tell me to berate, insult or attack others. It doesn't even matter if everyone worships the same way. Is that an asshole?

Yes. You believe that God inspired those men to pen the words they did. Thusly, you believe that God "inspired" the Jews to crow about raping virgins and commiting cultural genocide on massive scales. Similarly, he inspired them to take slaves. What about the Bible's direct accounts of God's own actions? Killing innocent children instead of simply teleporting the Israelites out of Egypt? Forcibly making Pharaoh refuse to let the Israelites go so he could have an excuse to visit horrible plagues upon the population? Were those "divinely inspired" as well? Or, how about when he said he'd only save 144,000 people, total, and kill everyone else in the end? Or how about Jesus' compassionate message that slaves submit to their masters, and if their masters are Christian, to actually work harder for them? Was this "divine inspiration" as well?

What criteria do you use to judge whether a passage in the Bible is divinely inspired or not? Modern secular morality? Then why bother being a Christian? You've obviously got your own moral system, so why do you need to Bible around?

[Wicked Pilot]

My God tells me to respect my fellow human beings. He says as long as I do that, I can enjoy eternal bliss after death. He doesn't tell me to berate, insult or attack others. It doesn't even matter if everyone worships the same way.

ROTFLMAO!!!!


Goddamn that's the funniest thing I've heard all day!


Here's a hint, go down to the grocery store, carry some old woman's bags for her, and then when she tips you a quarter, you can go BUY A FUCKING CLUE!

[ElBlanco]

Yes. You believe that God inspired those men to pen the words they did. Thusly, you believe that God "inspired" the Jews to crow about raping virgins and commiting cultural genocide on massive scales.

No, I think God's message was misinterpretted. The Jews did those atrocities of their own free will

Similarly, he inspired them to take slaves.

No, they also did that on their own.

What about the Bible's direct accounts of God's own actions? Killing innocent children instead of simply teleporting the Israelites out of Egypt?

He didn't kill any children. And there is historical evidence that the Israelites weren't actually in Egypt, just under harsh Egyptian rule.

Forcibly making Pharaoh refuse to let the Israelites go so he could have an excuse to visit horrible plagues upon the population?

He didn't force Pharoah to do a damn thing. Pharaoh did it of his own free will. God tried to change his mind but misery was the only thing Pharaoh would listen to. Remember, Pharaoh himself chose the tenth plague, not God.

Or, how about when he said he'd only save 144,000 people, total, and kill everyone else in the end?

That is one interpretation of Revelations. I have heard of a lot of different ways to look at it. Remeber, numbers have symbolic significance, not always literal.

Or how about Jesus' compassionate message that slaves submit to their masters, and if their masters are Christian, to actually work harder for them? Was this "divine inspiration" as well?

That was one of St. Paul's Epistles. Christ never condoned slavery. When Paul said that, people were expecting Judgement Day to come at any minute, so they shouldn't make any big changes except to be better Christians

What criteria do you use to judge whether a passage in the Bible is divinely inspired or not? Modern secular morality? Then why bother being a Christian? You've obviously got your own moral system, so why do you need to Bible around?

Its all divinely inspired, just a lot is misunderstood. God doesn't want us killing each other.

I figure out the message through one easy method:

Does it follow the Ten Commandments?

Anything in the Bible that contradicts that, is a misunderstood message.

You people are another side of the same coin from the fundamentalists some times. One thing doesn't make sense, so you throw it all out.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

I always wondered how we Norsemen got suckered into this shit. I should've known it had something to do with the women...

[Darth Wong]

No, I think God's message was misinterpretted. The Jews did those atrocities of their own free will

No, God ordered them to do it. Of course, the Bible might be a big lie, but you're only willing to concede that on a selective basis, aren't you?

He didn't kill any children. And there is historical evidence that the Israelites weren't actually in Egypt, just under harsh Egyptian rule.

Of course he didn't kill any children, because he didn't exist. But you cannot make statements about what he did and did not do when the only evidence of his existence is the book which you alternately cite as divinely inspired or worthless bullshit, depending on what's convenient at the time.

That was one of St. Paul's Epistles. Christ never condoned slavery.

No, just eternal torture of unbelievers.

Its all divinely inspired, just a lot is misunderstood. God doesn't want us killing each other.

And what evidence do you base that on? Quotes from the same Bible which you admit is not guaranteed to have even the most remotely factual basis?

I figure out the message through one easy method:

Does it follow the Ten Commandments?

Anything in the Bible that contradicts that, is a misunderstood message.

And how do you know the Ten Commandments are not misunderstood? How do you know they don't have a hierarchy? Moses came down from the mountain after receiving the Ten Commandments and IMMEDIATELY had 3000 people killed for worshipping a golden calf; are you arguing that gospel truth and "misinterpretation" were so close together that they almost overlapped in that chapter? Why don't we simply conclude that the whole damned thing is misinterpretation?

Any scheme of morality in which "thou shalt not kill" is all the way down at commandment #6 is nothing to be proud of.

You people are another side of the same coin from the fundamentalists some times. One thing doesn't make sense, so you throw it all out.

No, we point out that you cannot appeal to the authority of something which is not completely inerrant, and the Bible is not completely inerrant. Therefore, you must do something more than simply make claims or quote the Bible when you try to say something about God, or even when you assume that God exists at all.

[neoolong]

Yes. You believe that God inspired those men to pen the words they did. Thusly, you believe that God "inspired" the Jews to crow about raping virgins and commiting cultural genocide on massive scales.

No, I think God's message was misinterpretted. The Jews did those atrocities of their own free will

So what, they interpreted the first time correctly, but not the second time? Please. You can't just make it what you want it to be.

Similarly, he inspired them to take slaves.

No, they also did that on their own.

So you get to pick and choose what is divine inspiration and what is not? You can't justify it like that without proof.

What about the Bible's direct accounts of God's own actions? Killing innocent children instead of simply teleporting the Israelites out of Egypt?

He didn't kill any children. And there is historical evidence that the Israelites weren't actually in Egypt, just under harsh Egyptian rule.

What's your point? The Tenth Plague. Wasn't it killing of the first born? God did it right?

Forcibly making Pharaoh refuse to let the Israelites go so he could have an excuse to visit horrible plagues upon the population?

He didn't force Pharoah to do a damn thing. Pharaoh did it of his own free will. God tried to change his mind but misery was the only thing Pharaoh would listen to. Remember, Pharaoh himself chose the tenth plague, not God.

Please, you're justifying mass murder as punishment for the actions of one man. Is it justified to kill innocents based on the actions of one man who did something bad? It's like if I killed everyone in France if a Frenchman punched me in the face.

Or, how about when he said he'd only save 144,000 people, total, and kill everyone else in the end?

That is one interpretation of Revelations. I have heard of a lot of different ways to look at it. Remeber, numbers have symbolic significance, not always literal.

And you know which are symbolic and which are literal how? And you have what proof to back it up?

Or how about Jesus' compassionate message that slaves submit to their masters, and if their masters are Christian, to actually work harder for them? Was this "divine inspiration" as well?

That was one of St. Paul's Epistles. Christ never condoned slavery. When Paul said that, people were expecting Judgement Day to come at any minute, so they shouldn't make any big changes except to be better Christians

Oh really, and you know this how? Besides, it still shows that Paul screwed up and didn't retract the statement.

What criteria do you use to judge whether a passage in the Bible is divinely inspired or not? Modern secular morality? Then why bother being a Christian? You've obviously got your own moral system, so why do you need to Bible around?

Its all divinely inspired, just a lot is misunderstood. God doesn't want us killing each other.

And you know the difference between what is right and what is misunderstood. Right.

I figure out the message through one easy method:

Does it follow the Ten Commandments?

Anything in the Bible that contradicts that, is a misunderstood message.

You people are another side of the same coin from the fundamentalists some times. One thing doesn't make sense, so you throw it all out.

How do you know that the Ten Commandments are not the contradiction? Do you have proof or are you just "intepreting" the Bible to suit your beliefs?

I throw out the Bible because you cannot prove the events in the Bible necessary for God to exist.

[Kosh_The_Vorlon]

Big double standard as far as I am concerned...

Wow, never see those in the Bible...

[Master of Ossus]

What about the Bible's direct accounts of God's own actions? Killing innocent children instead of simply teleporting the Israelites out of Egypt?

He didn't kill any children. And there is historical evidence that the Israelites weren't actually in Egypt, just under harsh Egyptian rule.

ROTFL! The Israelites weren't in Egypt, just under harsh Egyptian rule? Any place that the Egyptians ruled over is almost by definition an Egyptian territory. The only exception would be a puppet state of the kind that Egypt never maintained.

[EmperorMing]

Big double standard as far as I am concerned...

Wow, never see those in the Bible...

[Kosh_The_Vorlon]

Big double standard as far as I am concerned...

Wow, never see those in the Bible...

Sarcasam detector broken?

[Peregrin Toker]

Rome didn't scorn sex at all; remember the bath houses and orgies? It was patriarchal, but nowhere near as mysoginistic as Paul. Paul's hatred of women and of sex was his problem, and it is simply ridiculous to blame it on Rome (if Caesar shared Paul's opinions on strong women, he wouldn't have been interested in Cleopatra, would he?). It never ceases to amaze me how people will make flimsy excuses for the Bible.

I didn't try to blame it on Rome or make an excuse for the Bible - I'm not even a theist - I just wanted to emphasize that St. Paul changed the Bible to reflect his views.

BTW, never did I generalize about the Roman Empire, nor attempt to!!! The Romans who lived in the cities were probably quite open-minded, but those living off the land were probably more backwards.....

[EmperorMing]

Wow, never see those in the Bible...

Sarcasam detector broken?

Yeah. Down for a tune up...

[pecker]

slighly on-topic:

The Bible is simply a collection of ancient texts dealing with events over thousands of years. Now, you cannot seriously be surprised that they contradict eachother.

However, as they are all seperate entities under one binding, you cannot use the falsehood of one to prove the falsehood of another. Especially if you don't think they were divinely inspired. The fact that Gensis is not fact does not automatically mean that the Gospel of Luke is is not fact. You have to take each account on it's own. And if, after looking at each and every book in the Bible and coming to a conclusion, yopu can THEN state the Bible is false. If all but one book in the Bible is proven false, you still need to prove that oen last book false.

Granted, many Book in the Bible are hinged on one another, so the falshood of one will affect the other. However, the falsehood of the Book of Job has little to do with the acts of the Apostles. To simply say "The Bible is full of contradicitons and mistakes, therefore the whole is false" is to do your brain, logic, science, and everythign you stand for a disservice.

[neoolong]

slighly on-topic:

The Bible is simply a collection of ancient texts dealing with events over thousands of years. Now, you cannot seriously be surprised that they contradict eachother.

However, as they are all seperate entities under one binding, you cannot use the falsehood of one to prove the falsehood of another. Especially if you don't think they were divinely inspired. The fact that Gensis is not fact does not automatically mean that the Gospel of Luke is is not fact. You have to take each account on it's own. And if, after looking at each and every book in the Bible and coming to a conclusion, yopu can THEN state the Bible is false. If all but one book in the Bible is proven false, you still need to prove that oen last book false.

Granted, many Book in the Bible are hinged on one another, so the falshood of one will affect the other. However, the falsehood of the Book of Job has little to do with the acts of the Apostles. To simply say "The Bible is full of contradicitons and mistakes, therefore the whole is false" is to do your brain, logic, science, and everythign you stand for a disservice.

If a person holds that the Bible, the whole Bible, is literal truth you can find one part of it that is incorrect and that destroys their argument. And while other parts may be accurate, these must still be held to the same standards as evidence if it is to be used as such. Therefore, just saying it is true beacuse it's God's word is not enough. Though there are errors in pretty much every book as far as I can tell.

[pecker]

slighly on-topic:

The Bible is simply a collection of ancient texts dealing with events over thousands of years. Now, you cannot seriously be surprised that they contradict eachother.

However, as they are all seperate entities under one binding, you cannot use the falsehood of one to prove the falsehood of another. Especially if you don't think they were divinely inspired. The fact that Gensis is not fact does not automatically mean that the Gospel of Luke is is not fact. You have to take each account on it's own. And if, after looking at each and every book in the Bible and coming to a conclusion, yopu can THEN state the Bible is false. If all but one book in the Bible is proven false, you still need to prove that oen last book false.

Granted, many Book in the Bible are hinged on one another, so the falshood of one will affect the other. However, the falsehood of the Book of Job has little to do with the acts of the Apostles. To simply say "The Bible is full of contradicitons and mistakes, therefore the whole is false" is to do your brain, logic, science, and everythign you stand for a disservice.

If a person holds that the Bible, the whole Bible, is literal truth you can find one part of it that is incorrect and that destroys their argument. And while other parts may be accurate, these must still be held to the same standards as evidence if it is to be used as such. Therefore, just saying it is true beacuse it's God's word is not enough. Though there are errors in pretty much every book as far as I can tell.

That's why I put in that is you don't think it to be divinely inspired. All I'm saying is that alot of people seem to think that pointing out a few errors disproves the whole work, which it does not.

[neoolong]

slighly on-topic:

The Bible is simply a collection of ancient texts dealing with events over thousands of years. Now, you cannot seriously be surprised that they contradict eachother.

However, as they are all seperate entities under one binding, you cannot use the falsehood of one to prove the falsehood of another. Especially if you don't think they were divinely inspired. The fact that Gensis is not fact does not automatically mean that the Gospel of Luke is is not fact. You have to take each account on it's own. And if, after looking at each and every book in the Bible and coming to a conclusion, yopu can THEN state the Bible is false. If all but one book in the Bible is proven false, you still need to prove that oen last book false.

Granted, many Book in the Bible are hinged on one another, so the falshood of one will affect the other. However, the falsehood of the Book of Job has little to do with the acts of the Apostles. To simply say "The Bible is full of contradicitons and mistakes, therefore the whole is false" is to do your brain, logic, science, and everythign you stand for a disservice.

If a person holds that the Bible, the whole Bible, is literal truth you can find one part of it that is incorrect and that destroys their argument. And while other parts may be accurate, these must still be held to the same standards as evidence if it is to be used as such. Therefore, just saying it is true beacuse it's God's word is not enough. Though there are errors in pretty much every book as far as I can tell.

That's why I put in that is you don't think it to be divinely inspired. All I'm saying is that alot of people seem to think that pointing out a few errors disproves the whole work, which it does not.

It does disprove it in the context of my use. I don't think it is meant to be divinely inspired and so literal truth either. Therefore, by showing one part to be false it means that other parts may be false meaning that evidence must be used if one wanted to use the Bible.

[Darth Wong]

An error in the Bible does not prove that it is 100% false. It merely proves that it is not 100% true, which in turn means that you cannot appeal to its authority.

[pecker]

An error in the Bible does not prove that it is 100% false. It merely proves that it is not 100% true, which in turn means that you cannot appeal to its authority.

Yes. I'm not speaking of using it as a source. Not in debates, but in real life, I've come across more than person who ahs tried to prove to me the Bible is false by pointing out errors and contradiction, and it's just something that irks me.

Now, there are some major problems in the Bible. But when people start using things like "Mark said there were 3 people at the tomb, and Luke said there were 2" or some such nonsense, I notice.