Anyone Raised by a strict Fundamentalist family?

[Eleas]

In short, try to imagine people who truly, honestly believe that God is in the room, and that he's like a weary single mother with self-esteem issues who recently came into a lot of money. You have to be sooooo thankful and make sure she knows how much you love her, and respect her, and thank her for working sooooo hard for you. But you also want to sneak in a few requests while you're at it.

I like that metaphor, but there's one part where it diverges rather sharply from reality: in the case of the single mother, you sorta have to prioritize what to wish for. In the case of God, it's more as if by not asking for help and instead believing you could get through a serious situation by yourself without His help, you're being an impious bastard who might just deserve righteous smiting.

[BountyHunterSAx]

Well Im off to bed. Alyrium Denryle I will reply to you next because thats where Im at in reading the thread on page 6.

He (JohnM81) seems to be moments from pulling the "I can't respond to all these complaints at once" card. Also, this topic has stretched out with his debate in which he held:

*) Not only does the Bible not typecast women in a subservient role, but also women are given 'equitable'/'honorable' status in the bible.

*) The bible has no contradictions when the pertinent would-be contradictory verses are read in their original greek
- Further, he actually quotes a passage in Greek at one time.


As of yet there's no official word on how this is to be done, but I'm going to go ahead and say that either of these topics seems like a very Coliseum-worthy debate. Specifically the former question, since it's one that comes up less often so the road hasn't been quite as worn-down with canned responses. Further, let him know that he's perfectly at liberty (and in fact encouraged) to speak with anyone and everyone he can about his responses while keeping within the time limit. No need for him to say "Let me get back to you on that" or "I'm not wise enough to answer"

My 2cents.

-AHMAD

[JohnM81]

Except that no one uses Ahlma like that. It has that meaning, but it is an uncommon usage. The most common ancient word for virgin is Betula(sp)

Both words mean maid and/or virgin.

“It has that meaning”

Ok so now that we agree that the meaning of the word in Isa 7:14 does in fact mean maid and/or virgin what exactly are we disagreeing about?

Kind of like someone claiming to be Napoleon? What is your source for the Hebrew? If you are using a lexicon, you may want to try a native speaker. I have a Pocket Jew I might be able to recommend to you.

The first Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartesia the parts of my family that speak Hebrew, and Gesenius Lexicon.

7thus says the Lord GOD: "(O)It shall not stand nor shall it come to pass.

8"For the head of Aram is (P)Damascus and the head of Damascus is Rezin (now within another 65 years Ephraim will be shattered, so that it is no longer a people),

9and the head of Ephraim is Samaria and the head of Samaria is the son of Remaliah. (Q)If you will not believe, you surely shall not last."'"
The Child Immanuel
10Then the LORD spoke again to Ahaz, saying,

11"Ask a (R)sign for yourself from the LORD your God; make it deep as Sheol or high as heaven."

12But Ahaz said, "I will not ask, nor will I test the LORD!"

13Then he said, "Listen now, O (S)house of David! Is it too slight a thing for you to try the patience of men, that you will (T)try the patience of (U)my God as well?

14"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, (V)a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name [a](W)Immanuel.

15"He will eat (X)curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good.

16"(Y)For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, (Z)the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken.

………

Isaiah 8
Damascus and Samaria Fall
1Then the LORD said to me, "Take for yourself a large tablet and (A)write on it in ordinary letters: (B)Swift is the booty, speedy is the prey.

2"And I will take to Myself faithful witnesses for testimony, (C)Uriah the priest and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah."

3So I approached the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. Then the LORD said to me, "Name him [a](D)Maher-shalal-hash-baz;

4for (E)before the boy knows how to cry out 'My father' or 'My mother,' the wealth of (F)Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away before the king of Assyria."

For what you say to be true two things must be present in Isaiah 8 to fulfill the prophesy. First there must be a virgin birth. This isn’t described at all. All it says here is that a prophetess conceived a child. Secondly this child must be of the house of david according to Isa 7:13.

So what we have are two possible sections that act as the fulfillment of the prophesy. The accounting of Christ has passages that fulfill the name Immanuel, whole sections of books talking about his birth from a virgin, and lineage from the King David to Christ on both his mother’s side and father’s side.

On the other hand you have Isaiah 8 which provides none of these things that satisfy the prophesy. Your only ace is its physical location in the book of Isaiah. That’s pretty weak.

There is no indication anywhere of this Psalm being prophetic.

Quite irrelevant. Many times prophesy in scripture doesn’t come disclaimer that it’s a prophesy.

Also. I have spoken with a rabbi on this not long ago. It is not Pierced hands and feet, it is Like Lions at my hands and feet.

Your rabbi is right. The word pierced is simply the word used when it was translated into English. But the meaning of the word {Karah} is close to pierce.

However it might be lions at my hands and feet in modern Hebrew but we aren’t dealing with such. I will show you the literal meaning and also many places in scripture where it is used as such to prove its old Hebrew meaning.

First off Karah is like to dig, to open, or to dig through. So what the psalmist is saying is they will dig through or open my hands and feet which is what would literally happen if someone put spikes through your hands and feet.

The words strongs number is H3738. Now lets see how it is used else where in scripture…

Gen 26:25 And he builded 01129 an altar 04196 there, and called 07121 upon the name 08034 of the LORD 03068, and pitched 05186 his tent 0168 there: and there Isaac's 03327 servants 05650 [[digged 03738]] a well 0875.

Gen 50:5 My father 01 made me swear 07650 , saying 0559 , Lo 02009, I die 04191 : in my grave 06913 which I have [[digged 03738]] for me in the land 0776 of Canaan 03667, there shalt thou bury me 06912 . Now therefore let me go up 05927 , I pray thee, and bury 06912 my father 01, and I will come again 07725 .

Exd 21:33 And if a man 0376 shall open 06605 a pit 0953, or if a man 0376 shall [[dig 03738]]a pit 0953, and not cover 03680 it, and an ox 07794 or an ass 02543 fall 05307 therein;

Psa 40:6 Sacrifice 02077 and offering 04503 thou didst not desire 02654 ; mine ears 0241 hast thou [[opened 03738]] : burnt offering 05930 and sin offering 02401 hast thou not required 07592 .

Idiot, if the outcome is known there is no power of contrary choice.

No. There is still choice. Knowing the outcome means he also knows what choices will be made by us in advance. That doesn’t mean he actually forced our hand and made the choice for us.

The outcome was decided by one real choice. Gods. When he created the universe taking into account all of the infinite information at his disposal (assuming for the sake of argument that he exists at all) And because he knows the outcome, nothing that happens as a result of what he sets in motion can be unintended.

The outcome wasn’t decided when he created the universe taking into account all of the infinite information at his disposal. Rather, the outcome was known in the same instant he created the universe taking into account all the infinite information at his disposal.

God intended the fall of lucifer, he also intended the fall of man (even setting it up, knowing the outcome). Everything. Your theology breaks down.

No he knew of the fall of Lucifer before it happened. That doesn’t imply he intended it. He knew of the fall of man before it happened. That doesn’t imply he intended it either. The theology only breaks down when its forced to bend to your faulty logic.

Do you think I am an idiot? I read the geneologies. The one in Mat is the geneology of Jesus through Joseph going forward. The one in Luke is the same geneology, of jesus via joseph going backward, with different people in each one. Dont try to bullshit me.

No, I don’t think you are an idiot that is why I am confused how you admit the names in the two genealogies differ and yet you think they are the same geneology.

Perhaps you should reread it.

Luke: jesus, joseph and mary, heli, matthat, levi, melchi janna joseph, mattathias, amos, naum, esli, nagge, maath, mattathias, semei, joseph, juda, joana, rhesa, zorobabel, salathiel, neri, melchi, addi, cosam, elmodam, er, jose, eliezer jorim matthat levi simeon juda joseph jonan eliakim melea menan mattatha nathan david

Matthew: jesus joseph jacob matthan eleazar eliud achim sadac azor eliakim abiud zorobabel salathiel jechonias josias amon manasses ezekias achaz joatham ozias joram josaphat asa abia roboam solomon david

I am pretty sure the OT meant a literal Elijah returning as a herald. You know you are a pretty terrible literalist...

And here we see John the baptist being a herald for the coming of Christ:
Matt 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and [with] fire:

Not according to the rabbi I know.... I am pretty sure he knows his hebrew better than you or your christian lexicon

Sorry to burst your preconceived bubble but I am using a Hebrew lexicon. And the transliteration is 'elohiym which is the plural form of 'elowahh which literally means God.

You were the one making claims about the heritage of semites.

The only evidence I offer is that of historical record traced through the bible. Take it or leave it doesn’t matter to me. In the end many arabs and jews even today admit they decend from the same man. At this point in the thread this is quickly becoming a side point. That I am not going to dwell to much upon.

[JohnM81]

Every Christian picks and chooses which parts of the bible to follow and which not to. Or they let their church pick and choose for them. Some pick the good parts, some pick the bad. Or are you denying this claim?

I would deny that claim

Are you seriously claiming that you follow the Bible word for word, even ignoring the contradictions?

What I am saying is I don't pick the parts of the bible to follow. What I am saying is that scripture is very clear on which parts to follow at this point and how to follow them. Its not a matter of me picking rather its a matter of the actual book instructing me.

[Terralthra]

What I am saying is I don't pick the parts of the bible to follow. What I am saying is that scripture is very clear on which parts to follow at this point and how to follow them. Its not a matter of me picking rather its a matter of the actual book instructing me.

So, when the book instructs you whether or not to follow the old Hebrew laws set down in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, do you follow Jesus' instructions:

Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.

Or, do you follow Paul's instructions?

Ye are not under the law, but under grace.

But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

So, which (mutually exclusive) instruction of the scripture do you follow?

[Lagmonster]

That's what I figured. The last time I was in that situation, I just played along. I may be a blunt and confrontational person by nature, but I can read people well enough to know when a confrontation is just not worth the bother.

A favoured fundie tactic when confronted by someone who refuses to validate their beliefs, participate in their rituals, etc. is to play the victim card: they will paint your refusal to join them in prayer to their god as a personal insult and in some cases, will accuse you of emotional assault.

[Darth Wong]

That's what I figured. The last time I was in that situation, I just played along. I may be a blunt and confrontational person by nature, but I can read people well enough to know when a confrontation is just not worth the bother.

A favoured fundie tactic when confronted by someone who refuses to validate their beliefs, participate in their rituals, etc. is to play the victim card: they will paint your refusal to join them in prayer to their god as a personal insult and in some cases, will accuse you of emotional assault.

That would be precisely the wrong tactic to use with me. Try to call it a social courtesy and I'll probably play along, but accuse me of being a bad person for not sharing their beliefs, and I will go on the warpath. By the time I'm done, they'll be the ones who are afraid to bring up the subject. That's how I handled all my fucking fundie in-laws after a while. None of them dare bring up the subject of religion with me any more.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Both words mean maid and/or virgin.

“It has that meaning”

Ok so now that we agree that the meaning of the word in Isa 7:14 does in fact mean maid and/or virgin what exactly are we disagreeing about?

If a word has different meanings my pungent little friend, you cannot necessarily claim it is one. If that is the case, you have to go to which word is most likely to be used for the meaning in question. In this case, Ahlma aint it. Bethula is.

That brings us to this.

On the other hand you have Isaiah 8 which provides none of these things that satisfy the prophesy. Your only ace is its physical location in the book of Isaiah. That’s pretty weak.

Seeing as there is not separation in the narrative No. It is not.

The accounting of Christ has passages that fulfill the name Immanuel, whole sections of books talking about his birth from a virgin, and lineage from the King David to Christ on both his mother’s side and father’s side.

And again, no virgin birth is necessarily implied by the wording, and is in fact contradicted by contemprary usage of the word Ahlma. All that is strictly required is that the child not be born of an older woman, who's name is immanuel.

I would also ask if you are capable of making an honest argument. Get your head out of your rectum. The passage in Isaiah 7 is not a messianic prophecy. It is a prophecy given describing a sign for a contemporary victory. Trying to tack on all the other messianic prophecy is dishonest and you know it.

I will get into your patent dishonesty regarding the descent of jesus in a minute. Not that I need to even entertain the idea that we can take anything in the new testament as being true. But purely for my own amusement...

Quite irrelevant. Many times prophesy in scripture doesn’t come disclaimer that it’s a prophesy.

By that logic, just about any strange passage throughout your poorly edited holy book could be considered prophetic. You can twist anything in the book into a prophecy and have Jesus fullfill it post-hoc How intellectually honest of your religion's founders.

Your rabbi is right. The word pierced is simply the word used when it was translated into English. But the meaning of the word {Karah} is close to pierce.

Not in context of an actual language. WHat you are looking at there is an idiomatic expression.

The words strongs number is H3738. Now lets see how it is used else where in scripture…

What is this? Bible code bullshit?

However it might be lions at my hands and feet in modern Hebrew but we aren’t dealing with such.

Except my Rabbi friend was not discussing modern hebrew.

No. There is still choice. Knowing the outcome means he also knows what choices will be made by us in advance. That doesn’t mean he actually forced our hand and made the choice for us.

Hear that sound? That is the sound of my point flying in a sublime arc right over your head.

Active force is not required. Only knowledge. If the outcome is known with 100% accuracy, even if God came down and told you that a decision is bad, even if you had no desire to carry out the actions, even if you had the option of repeating that same day over and over again for all eternity until you get it right, you still could not change the outcome, because to do so would contradict the perfect foreknowledge of god.

The outcome wasn’t decided when he created the universe taking into account all of the infinite information at his disposal. Rather, the outcome was known in the same instant he created the universe taking into account all the infinite information at his disposal.

Nice weasel, but an unsuccessful one. Omniscience is not selective like that. Of course, even if that were true, he still should have known that Man would fall and not put the tree of knowledge in the garden.

Of course that whole story is a load of bullshit anyway, fun thing about that... how the fall of mankind is required for your theology to work and yet the story is demonstrably untrue...

No he knew of the fall of Lucifer before it happened. That doesn’t imply he intended it. He knew of the fall of man before it happened. That doesn’t imply he intended it either. The theology only breaks down when its forced to bend to your faulty logic.

Hardly faulty. I am not the one who is participating in the olympics gymnastics competition trying to make my theology work.

If you (the impersonal, non-specific you) perform an action, knowing the consequences, you by definition intended those consequences unless one of two conditions are met

1. there is a gun to your head, and you are being forced to commit the action

2. You have two options and you must pick one.
An example of this is if you are the conductor of a train, and you have two sets of tracks. One with a drunk guy passed out on them, and the other with a bunch of Helen Kelleresque kids. You can switch tracks and run over the drunk guy, or you can not do so, and kill the kids. You can do either or, with the intent of saving one group, without intending to kill the other.

God does not meet these conditions. And as an omniscient being, must by definition have intended every consequences of the creation of existence. Including sin.

As for the geneologies, please be intellectually honest and not misrepresent your own holy book.

Luke 3:23-38 (New American Standard Bible)
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Genealogy of Jesus
23(A)When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of (B)Joseph, the son of Eli,

24the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,

25the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Hesli, the son of Naggai,

26the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda,

27the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, (C)the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri,

28the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,

29the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi,

30the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,

31the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David,

32(D)the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon,

33the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah,

34the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, (E)the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,

35the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Heber, the son of Shelah,

36the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, (F)the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,

37the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan,

38the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

There is no mention of mary there asshole.

Matthew 1:1-17 (New American Standard Bible)
New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Matthew 1
The Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah
1The record of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, (A)the son of David, (B)the son of Abraham:

2Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of [a]Judah and his brothers.

3Judah was the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, (C)Perez was the father of Hezron, and Hezron the father of Ram.

4Ram was the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon the father of Salmon.

5Salmon was the father of Boaz by Rahab, Boaz was the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse.

6Jesse was the father of David the king. David (D)was the father of Solomon by Bathsheba who had been the wife of Uriah.

7Solomon (E)was the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, and Abijah the father of Asa.

8Asa was the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, and Joram the father of Uzziah.

9Uzziah was the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, and Ahaz the father of Hezekiah.

10Hezekiah was the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amon, and Amon the (F)father of Josiah.

11Josiah became the father of Jeconiah and his brothers, at the time of the (G)deportation to Babylon.

12After the (H)deportation to Babylon: Jeconiah became the father of Shealtiel, and Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel.

13Zerubbabel was the father of Abihud, Abihud the father of Eliakim, and Eliakim the father of Azor.

14Azor was the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eliud.

15Eliud was the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob.

16Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, (I)who is called the Messiah.

Do you not know how to read? Do we need to send you back to grammar school? This geneology plainly traces the geneology through Joseph, not Mary. And of course, all of that is immaterial if there is a virgin birth.

Now, stop being a pod-pulling solipsist. If you are going to insult my intelligence, at least do it honestly and call me an idiot, rather than try to pull stunts like that.

And here we see John the baptist being a herald for the coming of Christ:
Matt 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and [with] fire:

And he is not Elijah.

The only evidence I offer is that of historical record traced through the bible.

A record which, Old or New testament, is demonstrably untrue.

[Alyrium Denryle]

That's what I figured. The last time I was in that situation, I just played along. I may be a blunt and confrontational person by nature, but I can read people well enough to know when a confrontation is just not worth the bother.

A favoured fundie tactic when confronted by someone who refuses to validate their beliefs, participate in their rituals, etc. is to play the victim card: they will paint your refusal to join them in prayer to their god as a personal insult and in some cases, will accuse you of emotional assault.

That would be precisely the wrong tactic to use with me. Try to call it a social courtesy and I'll probably play along, but accuse me of being a bad person for not sharing their beliefs, and I will go on the warpath. By the time I'm done, they'll be the ones who are afraid to bring up the subject. That's how I handled all my fucking fundie in-laws after a while. None of them dare bring up the subject of religion with me any more.

I wont even play along in the name of social courtesy. I will simply say "sorry, I am an atheist" and politely step out of the circle and roll my eyes until they are done. Their eyes should be closed, so I can even make silly faces of do hand puppets to amuse myself...

[JLTucker]

The words strongs number is H3738. Now lets see how it is used else where in scripture…

What is this? Bible code bullshit?

He's referring to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. "H" means "Hebrew" and "3738" is the code next to the word "Kârâh". Here's what is in the concordance:

Kârâh, kaw-raw'; a prim. root; prop. to dig; fig. to plot; gen. to bore or open:-dig, x make (a banquet), open.

Now, all of those numbers mixed in with the scriptures he posted are also references to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Just thought I would clarify, although it would have been fucking nice had he done so.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Does not seem to actually mean a damn thing. Other than that the same work was used a few times to mean different things, and also parts of idiomatic expressions.

[Big Orange]

I haven't seen all this thread, but all I can say is that I feel very badly for the Duchess to be 'brought up' (if you could call it that) in such a mean, tedious and petty enviroment.

[Qwerty 42]

My extended family is staunchly fundamentalist, but the unwritten rule is that religion does not get discussed because my parents and a few others in the family are secular.

[wautd]

Shit, two days ago there was a docu on TV about this very topic. I saw the trailer but forgot to watch. Trailer went something like "ooh, you need to be punished, it's time for the rod" while appearing to smile/enjoying to do it. That sure way to fuck up someone's childhood and/or create the next generation of fundamentalistic scum

[Darth Wong]

Shit, two days ago there was a docu on TV about this very topic. I saw the trailer but forgot to watch. Trailer went something like "ooh, you need to be punished, it's time for the rod" while appearing to smile/enjoying to do it. That sure way to fuck up someone's childhood and/or create the next generation of fundamentalistic scum

Not all fundies beat the hell out of their kids. There's certainly an extremist element which does that and thinks it's righteous, but I've known some fundie families which believe in the whole "sola scriptura" thing but also refuse to hit their kids. There is often a confusing spectrum of specific beliefs in the fundie community (consider the fact that some of them are hardline socialists while others are laissez-faire capitalists). The points of commonality are what I mentioned earlier: their odd tendency to blur the lines between metaphor and literalism, and their tendency to describe and communicate with God as if he's a real person (with a generous streak but also an intense psychological need for validation) standing in the room listening to them.

[Surlethe]

There was a short discussion about the spectrum of fundie beliefs on the very first page of this thread, IIRC. With almost every sort of belief, except the advocation of sola scriptura, you will find a wide spectrum in fundamentalists.

[tim31]

Mike, reading your description of Typical Fundie Behavior had me in stitches at the image of you sitting patiently as steam started wisping out of your facial orifices from the effort.

And then a shoe dropped: for a long time, whenever I've eaten at my grandparent's place, we would have to say grace. It was simple, but it was Always Done. But when I was there two months ago, we didn't. My cousin is no longer living with them. Interesting...

[Aaron]

Mike, reading your description of Typical Fundie Behavior had me in stitches at the image of you sitting patiently as steam started wisping out of your facial orifices from the effort.

And then a shoe dropped: for a long time, whenever I've eaten at my grandparent's place, we would have to say grace. It was simple, but it was Always Done. But when I was there two months ago, we didn't. My cousin is no longer living with them. Interesting...

A few years ago I attended a dinner at my wifes cousins house, his wife is very religious (pentacostal IIRC) and she insisted on saying grace and didn't respond well to my "lets not and pretend we did" comment. I wound up gathering up the kids and leaving the table while they did their little voodoo and came back when they were done. I still get rude looks from her, fortunately I only see her at x-mas.

[JohnM81]

So according to you, it is impossible for Jews and Arabs to have any racist feelings toward each other? It is impossible to even consider them distinct ethnicities, just because they have some common ancestry?

Being they are the same race it wouldn’t be racism. Rather it would simply be prejudices against Arabs. Look, I don’t know what you mean by “distinct ethnicities”, but what it comes down to is Jews and the Arabs described in scripture are of the same race hence not racism.

Because your rebuttal does not seem to have anything at all to do with what I said. It honestly looks like you were answering something that someone else wrote.

Ok you tell me if I got this correct…

You said racism is evident in the bible where the old testament told Jews not to marry with the Arabs when they entered Palestine.

I said no that restriction on marriage was not “racism” being both were of the Semitic race. And it’s no longer an issue because Galatians establishes equality amongst races.

You said that isn’t what the verse means because it also establishes equality amongst the sexes and yet scripture clearly says women should acknowledge the authority of the man in the family

Am I right?

My reply to is this, it is true that scripture tells women to acknowledge that the man is the head of the household. But this doesn’t mean women are worth less than a man. As a teenager I had to obey my parents even as I was 18 years old. That doesn’t mean I had less worth than my parents. They would have willing given their lives for me. That shows my worth in their eyes.

Is it sexist by today’s definition? Yes no argument there.
Does that denote not equal in worth? No.

[Darth Wong]

OK JohnM81, let's stop wasting time. Give me your definition of "race". Because I can pretty much guarantee you that it doesn't match the one in the dictionary. You keep insisting that any shared ancestry means that two groups must be the same race, and that is simply not true. Your entire argument is based upon a falsehood.

[Rye]

Being they are the same race it wouldn’t be racism.

There's no quick definition of where race starts and ends and where racism and culture strictly delineate. Suffice it to say, everyone on Earth has a black ancestor, this does not stop people being racist to black people.

Rather it would simply be prejudices against Arabs. Look, I don’t know what you mean by “distinct ethnicities”, but what it comes down to is Jews and the Arabs described in scripture are of the same race hence not racism.

Going by the Bible, the jews around the time of exodus are an extended family that more often than not keep their culture and blood isolated and "pure" by racist standards. That's why they have all that monarchy idiocy and charicature rival ethnicities and their cultures as devilish, or barbaric or whatever.

You said that isn’t what the verse means because it also establishes equality amongst the sexes and yet scripture clearly says women should acknowledge the authority of the man in the family

Am I right?

My reply to is this, it is true that scripture tells women to acknowledge that the man is the head of the household. But this doesn’t mean women are worth less than a man. As a teenager I had to obey my parents even as I was 18 years old. That doesn’t mean I had less worth than my parents. They would have willing given their lives for me. That shows my worth in their eyes.

Is it sexist by today’s definition? Yes no argument there.
Does that denote not equal in worth? No.

Given the men can marry as many women as they want and women do, the question of the worth of men and "functionally child-like" chattel women seems to be straightforward and one-sided.

[Rye]

Shit, that "women do" in the last paragraph should be "women can't". D'oh.

[JohnM81]

hell, the gospels don't even agree on Jesus' last words

Oh please, of all the supposed contradictions you bring up that one? No where in the gosspels do the authors claim to have written down every word Christ said. So yes they each record different parts of the events on that day and yet the vast majority of his words do match up.

[Darth Wong]

hell, the gospels don't even agree on Jesus' last words

Oh please, of all the supposed contradictions you bring up that one? No where in the gosspels do the authors claim to have written down every word Christ said.

Yeah sure, they each recorded different parts of what happened just before his death, and ignored the parts that the other guys wrote down. This is precisely what I meant when I said that people like you would reach for any pitiful explanation, no matter how absurd, and justify it simply by saying that it's not impossible.

So yes they each record different parts of the events on that day and yet the vast majority of his words do match up.

[JohnM81]

You're still insisting that it's impossible for any kind of racist behaviour to occur between Jews and Arabs.

Being they are the same race if we are talking about the incidents in the OT no its not “racism”. It is prejudice yes, but as I have been trying to say for a while now… no not racism.

You still don't realize how ridiculous this position is? How the hell does it follow that it's impossible for two ethnic groups to be racist toward each other if they have any shared ancestry?

My position is ridiculous because I’m actually using the term racism according its actual definition? Oh ok.

Your entire argument is based upon this absurd non sequitur.

No, my argument is based off of the actual definition of the word. Your argument is based off what you assume what I mean instead of what I am saying.

Let's get this straight, moron: the presence of shared ancestry does not automatically mean that there cannot be any ethnic distinctions. I suppose you're going to say that there was no racism toward the Irish when they started arriving in America, because Irish and British have common ancestry too. Is that what you think?

Ethnic Distinctions? What is that? You have started throwing around this term as if it’s the criteria for distinguishing various races. Explain to me what you mean by this?

If you are claiming that the Irish and English are the same race (I would agree) then its not racism. Racism is according to Merriam-Webster’s as prejudice or discrimination based off of race. In that case its simple prejudice based off of culture and birth location.