Anyone Raised by a strict Fundamentalist family?

[Szass Tam]

Yep. My parents simply had no idea at all about what the internet really was, and I was able to completely hide my usage when they got an unlimited access account on AOL which they thought was just for e-mail.

I'm surprised, all the fundies I've known have been right up on the evils of the internet. My uncle, for example, always tried to lecture my mom on letting me have the internet (and later on letting me go to "liberal" university). Fortunately, we have nothing to do with him anymore, and haven't for some time, but we still get crazy tracts and "Come to Jesus!" notes on our door every few months.

One girl I was friends with in high school had an email address, but her parents read every single email she received, so I was warned not to email her anything. I also had to tell her we met at Bible camp the summer before and I had just moved to the area before they would let me take her to prom, and we were hounded the entire night by some girl from her church, who took offense to things as scandalous as slow-dancing or holding hands. Also, I had to claim I was 16, not almost-18, because apparently that was a problem.

Congrats on being able to get away from all that, Zeon.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Yep. My parents simply had no idea at all about what the internet really was, and I was able to completely hide my usage when they got an unlimited access account on AOL which they thought was just for e-mail.

I'm surprised, all the fundies I've known have been right up on the evils of the internet. My uncle, for example, always tried to lecture my mom on letting me have the internet (and later on letting me go to "liberal" university). Fortunately, we have nothing to do with him anymore, and haven't for some time, but we still get crazy tracts and "Come to Jesus!" notes on our door every few months.

One girl I was friends with in high school had an email address, but her parents read every single email she received, so I was warned not to email her anything. I also had to tell her we met at Bible camp the summer before and I had just moved to the area before they would let me take her to prom, and we were hounded the entire night by some girl from her church, who took offense to things as scandalous as slow-dancing or holding hands. Also, I had to claim I was 16, not almost-18, because apparently that was a problem.

Congrats on being able to get away from all that, Zeon.

Well, how old are you? This happened in the mid-90's.

[JohnM81]

Don't be such a nitwit. Technically, everyone is of the same heritage.

If you go back far enough sure. However when I speak about arabs and jews its a much MUCH shorter distance that we need to go back. Specifically, when you ask a jew who is the father of their nation they will say Abraham. He is also the father of the arabs. Short of Adam and the garden of eden you would be hard pressed to find a simular finding for other distinct ethnic groups.

However, you cannot deny that Jews were considered a distinct tribe in that time.

No not a distinct tribe. The Jews are actually a collection of twelve "tribes". Aside from that yes I agree they were considered by themselves a very distinct group and God used to look at them in the same way. This "group" was defined by the lineage of Abraham and Sarah. That is why when the new covenant came about with the messiah this verse was so earth shattering to jew and gentile alike:

Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

And with it smashed all race/ethnic biblical barriers for marriage. Anyone who holds on to opposition to inter-racial marriage does so in spite of scripture.

In fact, Jewish refusal to integrate into other societies is a well-known historical feature of the group.

Indeed it is.

I don't care about your insane religious ravings. They are not relevant to the point...

Indeed my so called "insane ravings" are relevant because they stem from what scripture actually says instead of what people think it says.

...which is that they did not need to "twist" the Bible to make it support racism. There is plenty of support for racism right there in the source document.

They sure do now that the time of the new covenant (the death and resurrection of Christ) has been ushered as it was fortold by the prophets of the old covenant.

If I am mistaken, please give me an example.

[Darth Wong]

If you go back far enough sure. However when I speak about arabs and jews its a much MUCH shorter distance that we need to go back. Specifically, when you ask a jew who is the father of their nation they will say Abraham. He is also the father of the arabs. Short of Adam and the garden of eden you would be hard pressed to find a simular finding for other distinct ethnic groups.

For the second time, this doesn't change the fact that they are considered a distinct ethnicity. Your spin-doctoring changes nothing, nor does your hair-splitting.

However, you cannot deny that Jews were considered a distinct tribe in that time.

No not a distinct tribe. The Jews are actually a collection of twelve "tribes". Aside from that yes I agree they were considered by themselves a very distinct group and God used to look at them in the same way. This "group" was defined by the lineage of Abraham and Sarah.

See above.

That is why when the new covenant came about with the messiah this verse was so earth shattering to jew and gentile alike:

Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

And with it smashed all race/ethnic biblical barriers for marriage. Anyone who holds on to opposition to inter-racial marriage does so in spite of scripture.

Bullshit. According to your bizarre interpretation, even the concept of male and female was "smashed" by Jesus. Clearly, this interpretation is groundless and unreasonable. All this passage says is that everyone is allowed to join the Christian church. It says nothing about all races being treated the same, or men and women being treated the same, or slaves and free men being treated the same. In fact, it's written by Paul, who elsewhere exhorts slaves to obey their masters.

In fact, Jewish refusal to integrate into other societies is a well-known historical feature of the group.

Indeed it is.

I don't care about your insane religious ravings. They are not relevant to the point...

Indeed my so called "insane ravings" are relevant because they stem from what scripture actually says instead of what people think it says.

Wrong. You are imprinting your own church's doctrines onto the text, rather than treating it as just another piece of literature. That's why you project preferred interpretations onto the text and then act as if this "meaning" flows naturally from it.

...which is that they did not need to "twist" the Bible to make it support racism. There is plenty of support for racism right there in the source document.

They sure do now that the time of the new covenant (the death and resurrection of Christ) has been ushered as it was fortold by the prophets of the old covenant.

If I am mistaken, please give me an example.

I did. This interpretation that all of the old rules were swept away is nonsense. Jesus himself denied it, and he outranks Paul.

[Alyrium Denryle]

During the times of the old covenant there are restrictions on marriage this is true. However the lines were not draw by race. Jews and Arabs are of the same heritage. All of this was fortold to change in the old testament (torah and book of the prophets). And it did during the coming of the messiah.

Except that Jesus does not meet the actual criteria laid forth in the Old Testament. If he did, and the world was united under universal adherence to the laws set forth in the written and oral torah, you would be out stoning homosexuals to death right now. And dont give me that bullshit about a second coming, because that is nowhere in the OT

If you go back far enough sure. However when I speak about arabs and jews its a much MUCH shorter distance that we need to go back. Specifically, when you ask a jew who is the father of their nation they will say Abraham. He is also the father of the arabs. Short of Adam and the garden of eden you would be hard pressed to find a simular finding for other distinct ethnic groups.

Do you have any actual evidence that some guy named Abraham actually founded both populations? And I dont mean the bible either. I mean actual genetic evidence.

There are actually a few populations who's origins we can definitively trace. native americans for example came across the bearing straight longer ago than you think the earth and universe have existed.

As for Adam and eve... non-existent entities.

But of course all of this is beyond the point, as your religious nutbaggery is irrelevant to the discussion.

No not a distinct tribe. The Jews are actually a collection of twelve "tribes". Aside from that yes I agree they were considered by themselves a very distinct group and God used to look at them in the same way. This "group" was defined by the lineage of Abraham and Sarah.

Those tribes were smaller subdivisions of a larger group. One tribe splitting into several. It happens when a group becomes of sufficient size. In any case you do not get to have your cake and eat it too.

Jews and muslims are either one lineage because they descent from Abraham, or they are not because of the difference in matriline.

Of course, this brings up another interesting question. Do you think your god is infallible because if you do that is rather incompatible with him changing his mind.

That is why when the new covenant came about with the messiah this verse was so earth shattering to jew and gentile alike:

As Mike said, you are twisting the interpetation of the text.

[Adrian Laguna]

JohnM81, his other crazy talk aside, is correct about there being a relationship between Arabs and Jews, they are both Semitic peoples. Though now-a-days that Arabs are more so than the Jews, even with their infamous insularity the latter have mixed a lot with the Caucasian peoples in Europe. It should, however, be noted that the people of Israel had no qualms about exterminating other Semitic groups, they spend most of the Old Testament post Exodus doing exactly that.

[Darth Wong]

JohnM81, his other crazy talk aside, is correct about there being a relationship between Arabs and Jews, they are both Semitic peoples. Though now-a-days that Arabs are more so than the Jews, even with their infamous insularity the latter have mixed a lot with the Caucasian peoples in Europe. It should, however, be noted that the people of Israel had no qualms about exterminating other Semitic groups, they spend most of the Old Testament post Exodus doing exactly that.

The problem is that it's like pretending all Caucasians are one race, and dismissing any evidence of historical intra-Caucasian racism on that basis. You can't say something isn't racism just by claiming that the two groups involved have some common ancestry.

[Alyrium Denryle]

JohnM81, his other crazy talk aside, is correct about there being a relationship between Arabs and Jews, they are both Semitic peoples. Though now-a-days that Arabs are more so than the Jews, even with their infamous insularity the latter have mixed a lot with the Caucasian peoples in Europe. It should, however, be noted that the people of Israel had no qualms about exterminating other Semitic groups, they spend most of the Old Testament post Exodus doing exactly that.

Oh, they are one clade... one that diverged from the rest of the human population longer ago than he thinks the universie is old... and it was not a guy named Abraham that started it all either. In fact, the jews started out as break-away sumerian group if I remember my anthro correctly.

[Napoleon the Clown]

From personal experience:

1. No television whatsoever.
2. Levitical diet (unique to my family's weird-ass sect).
3. Always wear dresses, cover your head in church.
4. Only G-rated videos, no matter how old, same for movies.
5. Home-schooling.
6. Cut off contact with all non-christian friends.
7. Severe punishment for any contact with members of the opposite sex (beating).
8. Burning any books that aren't appropriate (such as RPG books of any kind), burning dolls which are considered satanic (like Cabbage Patch dolls), and other things like that.
9. No contemporary music of any sort--musical media from post-1950 or so will be burnt.
10. Mandatory attendence to Sunday School, church, and wedsneday Bible study with no exceptions permitted.
11. Rigid curfew.
12. No meeting with friends without parental supervision.
13. Disagreeing with any of the above or disputing it will garner a beating.
14. Talking back to your parents will garner a beating and a warning that you've sinned such that you'll go to Hell if you don't beg God for forgiveness.
15. Absolutely no privacy permitted except when changing/bathing, etc: The door to my bedroom was removed, for example, so I could never be alone.

The fact that something like that is permitted to go on is a damning condemnation of the American system. This is WORSE than the polygamist ranch of the Mormon sects. That list literally left me speechless for a minute. I cannot imagine what it must have been like, living in that environment for years.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

You don't know the fuckers too well, do you? While the whole list isn't true for them as a whole, much of it is true for the general population. #4 is practiced by some of the "mainstream" Mormons, though the "No R rated movies, period." thing is far more common. #5 is generally unnecessary as they far prefer to live in communities that are dominated by fellow FLDS'ers. #6 goes beyond what the Duchess experienced. When possible, they cut off all contact with non-FLDS people, including family. #7-9 I'm not too sure of, but I would imagine there are homes where this is the case. #10 is pretty similar, overall, though it will again very, I imagine. #11 is likely the case, I'd need to talk to the relative that escaped these fuckers to see. #12, I dunno for sure. Considering the level of control held over the children's lives in the first place, this may be considered pointless. #13-15 depend upon how beat-happy the parent is.

Add on the whole sexual abuse thing and I think the polygamist sect of Mormons wins out on the abuse thing. Duchess' experience is truly deplorable and I'm glad she's escaped with as few scars (mental and otherwise) as she has, but the children and women in general under the FLDS cult are victims of extreme abuses. I have extended family that is part of that cult, and as such there's a special hatred in my heart for Warren Jeffs as well as that cult as a whole. Fundies are fucking deplorable, and the FLDS cult is more deplorable than most other fundie groups I've done reading on.

[Broomstick]

Do you have any actual evidence that some guy named Abraham actually founded both populations? And I dont mean the bible either. I mean actual genetic evidence.

Don't know if there was an actual man named "Abraham", but there really is genetic evidence that the Jews and Arabs are closely related peoples.

Not that this means there is any love lost between them. Nor are they unique in that regard - the Japanese and Koreans likewise have a common genetic origin but both sides would rather not admit that. I don't know if the Jews and Arabs get points or not for at least admitting a common origin, it certain seems to make no difference in their willingness to kill each other.

No not a distinct tribe. The Jews are actually a collection of twelve "tribes"

Why do you put "tribes" in quotes here? Do you dispute that there were 12 tribes of Israel? Doesn't it say as much in the Bible?

JohnM81, his other crazy talk aside, is correct about there being a relationship between Arabs and Jews, they are both Semitic peoples. Though now-a-days that Arabs are more so than the Jews, even with their infamous insularity the latter have mixed a lot with the Caucasian peoples in Europe.

The Jews also intermixed with black Africans to make the Falashim and there was even a very Chinese looking group in Beijing for centuries. Wherever the Jews have settled for a long time - and they settled pretty much everywhere in the old world - they've come to resemble the locals even if culturally they continue to hold themselves apart.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Don't know if there was an actual man named "Abraham", but there really is genetic evidence that the Jews and Arabs are closely related peoples.

Hon, you are talking to a biologist I know. But there are two important things I was getting at.

1) The semitic lineage diverged from the rest of the human population before this guy thinks the world existed, and in fact, 8 separate patrilines make up this clade.

2) The jews are actually on offshoot of a much larger group that contains the other present day semitic people.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Ghetto Edit:

8 different patrilines (based on Y chromosome mutations) make up the Jewish and arab clade, due to inter-breeding with other groups. However they share 1 major patriline with arabs and other semites (also the most common)

It is also worth noting that there is no evidence that a single male originated both the jewish and arab groups at the same time, unless you trace Y chromosome mutations back father than our new friend here thinks the earth existed to a point where the entire population was subject to a genetic bottleneck and founder effects...

[Broomstick]

He is hampered by his need to make the facts fit the Bible.

[Setzer]

<snip>

Not that this means there is any love lost between them. Nor are they unique in that regard - the Japanese and Koreans likewise have a common genetic origin but both sides would rather not admit that. I don't know if the Jews and Arabs get points or not for at least admitting a common origin, it certain seems to make no difference in their willingness to kill each other.

<snip>

IIRC, their respective beliefs are that Japan was once part of Korea, or Korea was once part of Japan, depending on who you ask. It's like how the Brits used to own Calais. So it really isn't ethnic hatred. They just want to restore the rightful ruler of the region... whoever it is.

[JohnM81]

For the second time, this doesn't change the fact that they are considered a distinct ethnicity. Your spin-doctoring changes nothing, nor does your hair-splitting.

I fail to see why you are bringing this point up again. If you re-read my post I agreed that they saw themselves (and so did God!) as a distinct group. However, as distinct as they are they were the same “race” as the two peoples both came from Abraham.

Bullshit. According to your bizarre interpretation, even the concept of male and female was "smashed" by Jesus. Clearly, this interpretation is groundless and unreasonable. All this passage says is that everyone is allowed to join the Christian church. It says nothing about all races being treated the same, or men and women being treated the same, or slaves and free men being treated the same. In fact, it's written by Paul, who elsewhere exhorts slaves to obey their masters.

Let me start off by saying this part of what you wrote is absolutely correct:
“All this passage says is that everyone is allowed to join the Christian church.”

And yet you don’t make the connection between those who are now allowed to come before God through his son and establishing universal worth of all races. What stronger proclamation of equality of races is there for a religious man (in this case the author of Galacians) to say all races are now equally allowed to partake in our religious ceremonies AND spend all eternity together in the afterlife. After all that is what they were preaching about, eternal afterlife.

Wrong. You are imprinting your own church's doctrines onto the text, rather than treating it as just another piece of literature. That's why you project preferred interpretations onto the text and then act as if this "meaning" flows naturally from it.

Actually, it’s an interpretation that has supporting verses in the bible and agrees with the original Greek. You fail to see the connection of that verse because you don’t look at the author as a person who is religious and places nothing above the value of fellowship of worship and who has access to eternal life.

I did. This interpretation that all of the old rules were swept away is nonsense. Jesus himself denied it, and he outranks Paul

Jesus didn’t deny it at all. You are referring to this verse (correct me if I am wrong)?
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. (KJV)
Mat 5:17 Nomizo me hoti erchomai kataluo nomos e prophetes erchomai ou erchomai kataluo alla pleroo. (Greek Transliteration)

If you had gone back to the Greek and looked up the meaning of the words there wouldn’t be any confusion here.
Pleroo (fulfill) – To Render Full, To Complete, To End.

Christ was saying he didn’t come to destroy the law but to fulfill and end it in the way it was foretold it would be in the very law he is talking about.

And further add to my point about at what point are Christians no longer under the law (out of Christ’s mouth):
Luke 16:16 The law and the prophets [were] until John (the Baptist): since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

[JohnM81]

Except that Jesus does not meet the actual criteria laid forth in the Old Testament. If he did, and the world was united under universal adherence to the laws set forth in the written and oral torah, you would be out stoning homosexuals to death right now. And dont give me that bullshit about a second coming, because that is nowhere in the OT.

You make quite the claim and yet you don’t quote the torah or the books of the prophets to show how Jesus didn’t meet the criteria or why we would still be under the law. I wonder if this assertion you are making is from what scripture actually says or what you think it says.

Do you have any actual evidence that some guy named Abraham actually founded both populations? And I dont mean the bible either. I mean actual genetic evidence.

Do have actual genetic evidence? No I don’t. However there have been studies that show that genetically Jews, Palestinians, and Syrians have a common genetic link. I am not a geneticist so without actually doing more research on this topic I can’t comment much further.

Of course, this brings up another interesting question. Do you think your god is infallible because if you do that is rather incompatible with him changing his mind.

Yes, I do think God is infallible. I don’t think infallibility is incompatible with changing one’s mind if what determines the need for new course of action is man’s fallen nature. Or if it serves an even larger purpose that was determined from the beginning.

[JohnM81]

Why do you put "tribes" in quotes here? Do you dispute that there were 12 tribes of Israel? Doesn't it say as much in the Bible?

You are reading too much into simple quotes. No I don’t dispute it.

[Broomstick]

What stronger proclamation of equality of races is there for a religious man (in this case the author of Galacians) to say all races are now equally allowed to partake in our religious ceremonies AND spend all eternity together in the afterlife.

Supposedly there is no longer a distinction of that sort drawn between male and female, either, yet women historically women have NOT been equal in the christian church, not any christian church. Women have, at various times, been barred from so much as speaking in church, singing in church, from even attending church for 40 days after the birth of a child, and until very recently never allowed to officiate as priestess or minister.

Why should I respect the institution of a church that not only fails to live up to its ideals, but who's regulations fly in the face of its holy book?

Other races may have been "equal" in participating in church, as in "come in, sit down, and pray", but in many instances if a man wasn't of the proper ethnicity he would be in the back pews as a second-class christian, just like the women were second-class christians and in most cases still are.

[JohnM81]

It is also worth noting that there is no evidence that a single male originated both the jewish and arab groups at the same time, unless you trace Y chromosome mutations back father than our new friend here thinks the earth existed to a point where the entire population was subject to a genetic bottleneck and founder effects...

That’s an interesting bit of information. Could you point me to the primary research that you are referencing so I could read it?

[Darth Wong]

For the second time, this doesn't change the fact that they are considered a distinct ethnicity. Your spin-doctoring changes nothing, nor does your hair-splitting.

I fail to see why you are bringing this point up again. If you re-read my post I agreed that they saw themselves (and so did God!) as a distinct group. However, as distinct as they are they were the same “race” as the two peoples both came from Abraham.

If they saw themselves as a distinct ethnicity, then my point stands, moron. It was racism for them to ban intermarriage.

Let me start off by saying this part of what you wrote is absolutely correct:
“All this passage says is that everyone is allowed to join the Christian church.”

And yet you don’t make the connection between those who are now allowed to come before God through his son and establishing universal worth of all races.

That's because there is no such connection, any more than there is a connection to equality of the sexes or the banning of slavery, which I pointed out and which you pointedly ignored in your reply. I pointed out the only statement which is actually contained in the text. The rest is your personal doctrine.

What stronger proclamation of equality of races is there for a religious man (in this case the author of Galacians) to say all races are now equally allowed to partake in our religious ceremonies AND spend all eternity together in the afterlife. After all that is what they were preaching about, eternal afterlife.

Actually, it’s an interpretation that has supporting verses in the bible and agrees with the original Greek. You fail to see the connection of that verse because you don’t look at the author as a person who is religious and places nothing above the value of fellowship of worship and who has access to eternal life.

Still ignoring the point I made about gender and slavery, I see.

I did. This interpretation that all of the old rules were swept away is nonsense. Jesus himself denied it, and he outranks Paul

Jesus didn’t deny it at all. You are referring to this verse (correct me if I am wrong)?
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. (KJV)
Mat 5:17 Nomizo me hoti erchomai kataluo nomos e prophetes erchomai ou erchomai kataluo alla pleroo. (Greek Transliteration)

If you had gone back to the Greek and looked up the meaning of the words there wouldn’t be any confusion here.
Pleroo (fulfill) – To Render Full, To Complete, To End.

Christ was saying he didn’t come to destroy the law but to fulfill and end it in the way it was foretold it would be in the very law he is talking about.

Then why are you quoting Paul, who clearly didn't get the message because he continued to quote from Leviticus in his epistles?

And further add to my point about at what point are Christians no longer under the law (out of Christ’s mouth):
Luke 16:16 The law and the prophets [were] until John (the Baptist): since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

See above, wanker.

[JohnM81]

Supposedly there is no longer a distinction of that sort drawn between male and female, either, yet women historically women have NOT been equal in the christian church, not any christian church.

Careful, the verse isn’t removing distinctions. Rather it’s a proclamation of allowing any race/gender can gain salvation through Chirst. As you will see later on, this verse doesn’t remove the requirements of specific roles in the church for men and women. However, what it does say is that Christ came for the salvation of all peoples/genders and in doing so defines intrinsic worth in them also.

Women have, at various times, been barred from so much as speaking in church, singing in church, from even attending church for 40 days after the birth of a child, and until very recently never allowed to officiate as priestess or minister.

Biblically speaking, women are barred from “teaching” a congregation of men and women. Not speaking, singing, and attending is not biblical.

Why should I respect the institution of a church that not only fails to live up to its ideals, but who's regulations fly in the face of its holy book?

If a human made institution (a church) doesn’t live up to its ideals or the scriptures you should not respect it at all and I wouldn’t either.

Other races may have been "equal" in participating in church, as in "come in, sit down, and pray", but in many instances if a man wasn't of the proper ethnicity he would be in the back pews as a second-class christian, just like the women were second-class christians and in most cases still are.

Scripture mandates various roles for men and women in church this is true. Anything beyond that is not biblical.

[Broomstick]

Scripture mandates various roles for men and women in church this is true. Anything beyond that is not biblical.

And that is why I thank God I was never a christian, because the role of women in that cult was clearly that of wombs with legs, no more than chattel, and any other quality of humanity they have was of no importance, their duty was to squeeze out child after child and if they couldn't do that, they were worthless.

Why would I want to be part of of anything that dehumanizes me in such a manner?

If men and women are equal before God they should be able to assume equal responsibilities - oh, that's right, women aren't equal in your cult, they're subhuman. Only men are real people. How sick.

Why shouldn't women teach? What are you afraid you will learn if we do?

[JohnM81]

If they saw themselves as a distinct ethnicity, then my point stands, moron. It was racism for them to ban intermarriage.

Hardly, seeing themselves as a distinct group doesn’t make them a specific race. That alone is my only point from the beginning, the line wasn’t drawn by race. Were there marriage restrictions of the group before the new covenant was established? Yes, I said this in the beginning. Whether you feel this is fair or unfair is not the point.

That's because there is no such connection, any more than there is a connection to equality of the sexes or the banning of slavery, which I pointed out and which you pointedly ignored in your reply. I pointed out the only statement which is actually contained in the text. The rest is your personal doctrine.

Frankly the connection couldn’t be any more apparent. But if one wishes not to see it then no amount of explaining will suffice.

I didn’t ignore your pointing out of slavery or equality of men and women for reasons of deception. Rather your remark had nothing to do with the topic of marriage restrictions.

Wong wrote:

It says nothing about all races being treated the same, or men and women being treated the same, or slaves and free men being treated the same. In fact, it's written by Paul, who elsewhere exhorts slaves to obey their masters.

I never claimed the verse even spoke the issue of equality of the sexes or slavery. Look Mike, you want to talk about slavery and equality of the sexes pertaining to the bible I would be more than happy to oblige. But we are talking about restrictions on marriage.

You tell me what do you want to talk about and I will answer, but I don’t want to go off on wild tangents with you leading the way.

If you want to talk about sexual equality, slavery, or marriage restrictions tell me and I will address it in my next post.

Then why are you quoting Paul, who clearly didn't get the message because he continued to quote from Leviticus in his epistles?

Paul quotes the torah for several reasons, but without a specific example on your part I can’t say in a matter of fact way. Generally speaking, he quotes the torah because he is showing how Jesus fulfilled the OT prophesies or he is trying to make a point and draws upon acknowledged inspired scriptures.

I wrote:
And further add to my point about at what point are Christians no longer under the law (out of Christ’s mouth):
Luke 16:16 The law and the prophets [were] until John (the Baptist): since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

You replied:

See above, wanker.

See above? The book of Luke wasn’t written by Paul.

[Broomstick]

I have a feeling it wasn't written by Luke, either.

[JohnM81]

And that is why I thank God I was never a Christian, because the role of women in that cult was clearly that of wombs with legs, no more than chattel, and any other quality of humanity they have was of no importance, their duty was to squeeze out child after child and if they couldn't do that, they were worthless.

Why would I want to be part of of anything that dehumanizes me in such a manner?

If men and women are equal before God they should be able to assume equal responsibilities - oh, that's right, women aren't equal in your cult, they're subhuman. Only men are real people. How sick.

Why shouldn't women teach? What are you afraid you will learn if we do?

You are portraying the classic straw man argument where you assert things I never said and then rebuke them as if they were my words. They never were.

Your straw man elements:
1. “because the role of women in that cult was clearly that of wombs with legs”
Because not being able to teach in a church turns you into a breading machine? Riiight.

2. “no more than chattel”
If women were no more than chattel why were men instructed to love their wives in a fashion that if need be they would die for them? Why were men instructed to place the needs of their wives ahead of their own desires? Chattel you say?

3. “quality of humanity they have was of no importance”
Again, if women had no importance I guess it would have been a really hard sell to tell men to serve their wives by putting their needs ahead of their own and be ready to die for them. Hrmmm.

4. “their duty was to squeeze out child after child and if they couldn't do that, they were worthless.”
Please point me to the post where this was said…

5. “they're subhuman”
what?

6. “Only men are real people.”
huh?

Why shouldn't women teach? What are you afraid you will learn if we do?

I am not sure why scripture says women can’t teach in church. But it does. And at the end of the day our agreement with a particular mandate doesn’t even speak to the issue of does God exist, who is God, and what power does this God hold over me. Because in the end a person can be in complete disagreement with how God wants a society to run and find out that God does truly exist and at that point disagreements become a moot point.

Once upon a time weren’t we talking about marriage restrictions?