Liberals, media, and gays need to know how this country was founded!!

reply to post by Gorman91


sorry, i forgot about this thread...
NT quotes against women, this should be child's play.

1 Peter 3:1 "Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands;"

1 Peter 3:2-3 "While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;"

1 Peter 3:7: "Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered."

Titus 2:4-5 "That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed."

1 Timothy 2:11-12 ""Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.""

1 Timothy 2:13-15 "For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Colossians 3:18 "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord."

Ephesians 5:22-24 "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing."

1 Corinthians 11:3 "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."

1 Corinthians 11:5 "But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man."

good enough for you?

and gorman, yes, paul was a roman, a flawed roman human... just like the flawed human-authored book he wrote a big part of

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


OK,

1 Peter 3:1 "Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands;"

Obviously said by man, not God, hence it is not "the word of God". Plus, at the time, if women acted another way, you'd get killed. Likewise, if the man didn't fend for his wife, he got killed too. It's a cultural thing, not the way of Jesus.

1 Peter 3:2-3 "While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;"

Not sure what this has to do with women. They where gold? So what, they still do today. Subjective to women how?

1 Peter 3:7: "Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered."

At the time, women were considered weaker. It goes back to cavemen days, where women worked the field, and men worked the hunt. This is, again, cultural, not God's words. It is the family economy. Once the dark ages ended, this became mainly just a bunch of useless words that are outdated.

Titus 2:4-5 "That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed."

Excellent, one where is states the word of God. This is cultural though. Would you prefer a women who is pure of sex and drunkenness, or Britney Spears? Obedience is, once again, cultural. Much of what God said, however, is blasted far to much. And seeing as it was written by Paul, a Roman, he had the bias of his culture. He can say word of God till the cows come home, he is still bias from his background.


1 Timothy 2:11-12 ""Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.""

Wonderful, good find. Unfortunately, Timothy had the Bias of being with Paul. He had the bias of Roman culture onto him. Still no words from Jesus.

1 Timothy 2:13-15 "For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Again, Timothy had the bias of being with Paul.

Colossians 3:18 "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord."

Colossians was written by Paul. The end.

Ephesians 5:22-24 "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing."

Written by Paul

1 Corinthians 11:3 "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."

Written by Paul

1 Corinthians 11:5 "But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man."

And, yep, written by Paul.

So, you see, you still have yet to find anything said by Jesus on the matter. Therefore, you still cannot prove your point.

But hey, not to be sexist, who get the testosterone? Who chooses trucks over dolls? Sure their are a few who go the opposite of this, but they primarily are small numbers. Women can do it, but men do it easier. Not being sexist here, it's juts the genetics of mankind. Women have to do exercise more to stay thin (scientific fact). I see this as something good though, for it encourages the women to be harder workers, thus encouraging men to get off their lazy asses. Genetically, men are lazy, and more physically strong naturally. I WISH women would stop this stereotype by more activity, as who are the most raped? It is a sin to be lazy, and thus, I see women as one of the fundamentall things keeping all men from sitting on their laz-e-boy sofas and watching the Jets. This can be called sexist, but as a matter of fact, it's saying that their wouldn't be a world as we know it without women.

I like activate women, as they are the only thing keeping th wheels of civilization turning.


Until you find JESUS saying it, good day to you sir.





Grammar korrectionz \/



[edit on 3-10-2007 by Gorman91]

[edit on 3-10-2007 by Gorman91]

Originally posted by Gorman91
Obviously said by man, not God, hence it is not "the word of God". Plus, at the time, if women acted another way, you'd get killed. Likewise, if the man didn't fend for his wife, he got killed too. It's a cultural thing, not the way of Jesus.

...and jesus didn't happen to say anything about it?
husbands back then were allowed to rape their wives, if a woman tried to resist she'd be killed
why didn't jesus inspire some thought against this?

and honestly, it's special pleading and moving back the goalposts, you excuse the people because it was their culture then tell me that i need to show that it's the way of jesus instead of just pointing out stuff from the NT

Not sure what this has to do with women. They where gold? So what, they still do today. Subjective to women how?

the whole speaking to their husbands in "chaste conversation, COUPLED WITH FEAR" part

At the time, women were considered weaker. It goes back to cavemen days, where women worked the field, and men worked the hunt. This is, again, cultural, not God's words. It is the family economy. Once the dark ages ended, this became mainly just a bunch of useless words that are outdated.

just like the rest of the bible, but the point is that the misogyny is still there.

Excellent, one where is states the word of God. This is cultural though. Would you prefer a women who is pure of sex and drunkenness, or Britney Spears? Obedience is, once again, cultural. Much of what God said, however, is blasted far to much. And seeing as it was written by Paul, a Roman, he had the bias of his culture. He can say word of God till the cows come home, he is still bias from his background.

.....again you're pushing back the goalposts, you told me to find NT quotes, not quotes from your sky-fairy of choice.

Wonderful, good find. Unfortunately, Timothy had the Bias of being with Paul. He had the bias of Roman culture onto him. Still no words from Jesus.

you asked for words from the NT, not from jesus

Originally posted by Gorman91
Still nothin'. Anything on MULTIPLE new testament quotes against women?

that's what you asked for

Again, Timothy had the bias of being with Paul.

again, logical fallacy of special pleading

Colossians was written by Paul. The end.

you're repeating logical fallacies
the end.

Written by Paul

nothing was written by jesus or god. you can give an excuse to anything in the bible with this SPECIAL PLEADING.

Written by Paul

this is such an idiotic argument.

And, yep, written by Paul.

and yep, repeating a logical fallacy

So, you see, you still have yet to find anything said by Jesus on the matter. Therefore, you still cannot prove your point.

...my point is that the bible is sexist, you're pushing the goal posts back

how about this, find me a part of the bible that jesus wrote, then i can comment on what jesus has to say.
oh wait, he didn't....

how about this, show me a place where jesus says to treat women equally...

But hey, not to be sexist, who get the testosterone?

both genders get testosterone... just in different doses

Who chooses trucks over dolls?

that's cultural, not physiological.

Sure their are a few who go the opposite of this, but they primarily are small numbers. Women can do it, but men do it easier. Not being sexist here, it's juts the genetics of mankind. Women have to do exercise more to stay thin (scientific fact). I see this as something good though, for it encourages the women to be harder workers, thus encouraging men to get off their lazy asses. Genetically, men are lazy, and more physically strong naturally.

but they are still equals...
hmm

I WISH women would stop this stereotype by more activity, as who are the most raped?

....wow, just wow. fraking farking karking, damn-sith-spit wow. i thought the logical fallacies were bad, but this is just horrible.
pinning even a tiny fraction of the blame for rape on women.

Until you find JESUS saying it, good day to you sir.

until you find jesus saying it?

remember your words were:

Originally posted by Gorman91
Still nothin'. Anything on MULTIPLE new testament quotes against women?

jesus says NOTHING in the NT, people say jesus says this or that.... but jesus never wrote down ANYTHING so all quotes can be labeled as false because none came from during his lifetime (if he even existed)



your entire argument against all of my points stems from two logical fallacies, you have nothing here.

you can't blame the bias shown in the bible regarding women solely on the Roman Paul...

that bias is clearly indicated throughout the old testement as well...
and if you take the entire bible for it's word...well...

all agreements, oaths, ect. a women makes is subject to the approval of the husband (or other male guardian)....old testament

the man was not created for the women, but rather the women was created for the man....women were bought and sold.....man's property...

wives be submission to your husband....IN ALL THINGS!!.......

tie these all together, and add in the christian way to salvation and this is what you get...

salvation is granted by offering up your heart and soul.....but, well, a women's heart and soul was created for the man, she technically has nothing to offer...

and if she does offer it up to him, and well, makes an agreement with christ to live her life to christ's glory...well, that agreement is subject to the will of the husband, if he disagrees with her decision, it is null and void like any earthly contract....

and well, she is to be her husband's glory......so if her husband decides his glory should be out prostituting or whatever....well, she is to obey him in ALL THINGS...

thus all the ruckus over the status of women in the early church...what the earlier religion had taught ran in straight contrast to what the early church was trying to establish...mind you that some king way back got peeved at his wife when she refused to allow him to show her off to his company...and well, he kind of made is a kings command for all wives to be obedient to their husbands...thus it was an established Judean Law that wives be obedient.

so, christ really couldn't encourage the people to disobey these laws. instead he laid it all on the man's feet...if you divorce your wife..and she marries another, well you have caused her to commit adultery through your neglect of her.. look and see what the desciples response to this one was, and well, you kind of get the idea of what the attitude toward women and divorce was....men would not marry a women without an easy exit if they didn't like the situation...but they didn't want the women to have such an easy exit out of the situation if they found themselves not liking the same situation. their society was rigged so that the women needed a male guardian to survive and if the divorce did occur, the women were generally barred from remarrying. They were considered adulterers.

and well, he commanded the husband to love his wife as himself...
if the man couldn't honestly say that he would want to live in the situation he had created for the women, well.....it was his duty to change it into something that he found acceptable for himself. if he wanted free will to chose the religion he followed, then he should grant the women the freedom to do the same...if he wanted freedom, not to be owned, her should seek to release his wife from the bondage the Isrealis of old had placed on her...

be subject to your husbands lest the word of God be blasphemied.....
if you read some of the other gospels that didn't meet the grade to be included in the bible, you will find that paul and a few other of the deciples were being chased out of town because the wives were leaving their husbands and traveling with the deciples. they knew that the jewish doctrine of the time had been used to subjugate them, and they knew that Christ had to free THEM.... they wanted that freedom now!! and well......to say that the doctrines were wrong was blasphemy, which by the way, as careful as Christ was, this is what he was crucified for. you can't change a society overnight, especially one that ties so closely into the family structure. the seed was planted with christ's words, it took time to root and grow is all.

Alright, you win. I mis said, I meant only Jesus in the NT. But you CAN discredit some words due to biases of background. I read all the holy books, and you must sort out the biases and the good from all books. Mohamed says some evil and very good things. I didn't really look into the bible all that much because I'm tired. Use your common sense though. Unlike church tradition, the bible didn't change during the reformation, so there are a lot of left behind, unreformed things. All religions must reform, and I have no doubt that as all religions reform, there will be a world religion created. Find something that Jesus said himself, that he is quoted to have said. you'll find, I think, nothing against anyone except a few people who are bad or immoral. I know when I'm unprepared and I haven't read the Bible in a while, so I forgot alot. I'm currently looking at other books.

I'll leave with this quote, posting it for the 4th time now. it's from a guy I met in SE Asia:

"You forgot one thing, religion always wins! It is like a flood. If you think plugging the Dam's holes with toothpaste will do anything, live in that fantasy. The water always finds a way. Forget which one IT is, the flood of religion always wins. Look at Russia. The Communists tried for 80 or so years to stop religion, and they got no where, Your Christian God now calls his flock from China, not Europe. An I can already see the revival of religion in Europe. Look at your world, when Europe crumbles, they will find help in God once again. It is funny to see this people think they can stop the flood. They will all drown, as have so many others."

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Oh yea, about the testosterone and boys choosing trucks, etc. YOU FINNALY GOT IT!!! EVERYTHING of the US is built around refromed biblical culture. The Romans had their culture which was, er, not the best with the mass orgys and gladiator battles and the whole "kill yourself if you fail in battle". So, when Christianity was adopted, its middles eastern culture was integrated and mixed into the Roman's This created a stable culture for a while, until corruption set in. But the masses are what we are looking at, not the pope, not the empower, not the church, it is the mases. Western culture was created. Women were put down, but thus learned to become more powerful by going above and beyond to get to the top(Catherin the great, John or Arc, etc). Men became lazy and abusive, but once the women got to the top, they had to become better people, and thus created what we call chivalry and other things, all the way up to 1900's culture and onward. the 70's equal rights for all movement was based around the hippies, who adopted a life of Christ: to live in poverty and spread peace. They became the modernizers. Unfortunately, many lost their ways in pot, subcultural living, and communism. Although, Jesus WAS the first communist, this became an important part of our culture. If those hippies never learned from peaceful protests, which they learned from Gandhi, who learned some from Christ, then all the reformations, all the women rights, all the black rights, all the rights you know of, would not exist. This is the entire thing I'm getting at. Use your common sense to sort out the pre reformation stuff, and learn from the true word of God. I know I'm contradicting much of my anti-Koran talking earlier, but I'm in a better mood now, and you must look at all books of all faiths and see the true meaning of God's word, whether it be from a Koran or a Bible.

Being a universalist, I believe all religion gets you to heaven; It's just God in different masks.

[edit on 4-10-2007 by Gorman91]

The ten commandments and Moses have more to do with Judaism than christianity. Christ preached seperation of church and state and tolerance for all men regardless of faith, creed or choice of sexuality. Christ hated no one. The problem with current Christianity is it follows the preaching of men over Christ's example.

There is also the fact the country was clearly founded by Masons not christians.

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
Imagine that, propaganda in America.

Atheist but still nationalist... Okay, patriot...

As a french man grown up in a practically atheistic nation day after day flood by american songs and soaps for half a century, i feel christian in an absolute free, personal way, - say radically anticlerical.
But I also feel, nolens volens, as a transatlantic yankee, if not some sort of colonised people (i know official history, please people don't blast with some "We freed you bloody froggy fries from the very Hitler " - France took arm against nazis in the first days of war - that's not highlighted official worldwide history though... and without dollars forgery in the thirties and other good wealthes, no Hitler would have rise economy in a 7 yrs rush, - nevermind).

Christism is not a source of power : that's the very antidote (to all kind of power). So would I doubt of a christian state, while the idea of a Jewish State sounds c[h]ristal-clear.


Three rash points :

- E Pluribus Unum : great motto.

- Catholicism, protestantisms : not christic.

- USA : Masonic State.

As masons are socially and politically speaking ultra-hierarchists, the worm was in apple from the very begining.

reply to :
post by Skyfloating


Jews are statistically and historically one of the less murderish nation of humankind, and probably one of the most peacemaking through respect for knowledge and advancement of worldwide Etat de Droit. The psychology you prone is the ultimate fruit of a western world resulting of a calcified pagan republic/empire and Yeshua Ben Yoseph teachings.

*

...Same problem that MadnessInMySoul's blindness to :

1. see that Locke was riding the wave of judeochristianism as all europeans did for more than 15 centuries,

2. or that Art. 11 of Tripoli T. silently yell what it officially disclaims... 10 years to put it on paper when founders where on the blocks of quiting Old Europa for thirty years ?...

- Concrete exemple for point 2 :
ATS' Terms And Conditions Of Use
1b.) Profanity: You will not use profanity in our forums, and will neither post with language or content that is obscene, sexually oriented, or sexually suggestive nor link to sites that contain such content.

But... MadnessInMySoul writes on ATS. ATS is not a Christian lobby. But ATS is actually ruled by absolutely christian (not "christic" in my words) principles. The Price for violating these Law is the Hell of Banishment. But MydnessInMySoul still feels an atheist moderator on ATS... O America...

*

... Same problem with MajorMalfunction's tendency to :

1. address christians with ultra-activism born with communities who fondamentally find a structural, social argument in Yeshua's heritage (and so Moshe), as the defense of the weakest, "the widow and the orphan".

2. +2000 "AD" views of women's in the Tanakh based on exemplary biased read of the Bible. > cf. coming thread on 'Bible and Women'.

3. In the name of ATHEISM asking for the removal of all signs from public properties (which I agree fully with, or not at all while letting everybody put whatever everywhere : street-concept-art...).


- concrete exemple for point 3 : MajorMalfunction wanna destroy all idols in its country... like Moche did 3000 yrs ago.

*

One more time : CHRISTIANISM IS NOT CHRISTISM AS CHRIST SPIRITUALLY CONDEMN ALL KIND OF SOCIAL POWER TO RISE EVERYONE TO HIS HIGHEST POTENTIAL.

DOES ANYONE HAVE EVER HEARD OF CHRISTIAN ANARCHISM ???

*

That Universe does exist is rather undebunkable. That our intelligences are its byproduct is dismissable if we agree it's its upper, if not final, flower. Intelligences that is statistically dispatched equally between all ethnies (>as many Hi-IQ in Papouasie as in NYC).

Christ announces the paradigm that current humanity still tries to implement, slowly, hardly. A world where animal, vital egoism is left for an Harmonic Society. Read Charles Fourier, french anarchist and much more, spread it in Harvard, Berkeley, Yale...

Anyway atheists are'nt... They just pretend to be in order to get rid of moral coercition that ensues from ALL HUMAN SOCIETY trapped in the entropy of timed matter. To really put the spirit above the matter is the CHRISTIC challenge.

Let's call it MYSTIC NEGUENTROPY.

.

Some so-called atheists here quoted are probably far more Christic Mystical Neguentropists than are christian most of today christians.

.

Well. Champagne Pour Tout Le Monde ! AnarchoChristianism Rules ! Let's sing, dance and make love all over the Earth to cover it with happy healthy babies !



____________________________________________________________
MadnessInYourMind : Shaoul aka Paul jewish was.








[edit on 20-11-2007 by Rigel]

Originally posted by Rigel
reply to :
post by Skyfloating

 

Jews are statistically and historically one of the less murderish nation of humankind, and probably one of the most peacemaking through respect for knowledge and advancement of worldwide Etat de Droit. The psychology you prone is the ultimate fruit of a western world resulting of a calcified pagan republic/empire and Yeshua Ben Yoseph teachings.

have you not read the parts of their holy text praising their genocidal conquest of canaan?

*

...Same problem that MadnessInMySoul's blindness to :

1. see that Locke was riding the wave of judeochristianism as all europeans did for more than 15 centuries,

and of greek ideas... seems like locke had a thing for greek political philosophy

2. or that Art. 11 of Tripoli T. silently yell what it officially disclaims... 10 years to put it on paper when founders where on the blocks of quiting Old Europa for thirty years ?...

um...
i can't really make sense of this statement
but the treaty of tripoli is unanimously approved standing sovereign law...
so...
yeah

not to mention a few things
like christmas not being a national holiday until the 19th century
etc etc many points that i've repeated over and over again

- Concrete exemple for point 2 :
ATS' Terms And Conditions Of Use
1b.) Profanity: You will not use profanity in our forums, and will neither post with language or content that is obscene, sexually oriented, or sexually suggestive nor link to sites that contain such content.

But... MadnessInMySoul writes on ATS. ATS is not a Christian lobby. But ATS is actually ruled by absolutely christian (not "christic" in my words) principles. The Price for violating these Law is the Hell of Banishment. But MydnessInMySoul still feels an atheist moderator on ATS... O America...



profanity?
profanity isn't something that's against christian values...
i mean, if you're going to be insanely shortsighted and say that anything within the bible means it's something exclusively christian, you have a point. however, the terms of service seem to center around things that are found in many culture.
why do the japanese have such similar terms of service on their discussion boards when they aren't a christianity influenced society.
oh yeah, because this point fails horribly.

the principles aren't CHRISTIAN, they're CULTURAL CONSTANTS

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
have you not read the parts of their holy text praising their genocidal conquest of canaan?

You should remind us as well that those wicked Jews killed the Lord, ate little children, stole for centuries all Europa's wealth and elaborated Protocols to then conquer the entire whole wide world.

When atheist doesn't explain that Moshe never existed, they remind us of some Canaan "genocide"...

The purpose of the Kingdom of Israel never was any form of conquest, even if it could be achieved only by the conquest of Canaan, presented as a Promised Land by God specially to legitimate it - at least from a rational, if not simply sceptic, read. The fact is nonetheless that the hebraïc ethic is a revolution comparing with Medes's, Perse's, Assyrian's or even at this time Egypt (even if it used to be a not imperialist country as others) hierarchical and imperialistic societies.

The Christ's entire parabole (be it true or "midrashically mythicised") say long about jewish goals in terms of social paradigm as of personnal ethic and spirituality.

and of greek ideas... seems like locke had a thing for greek political philosophy

I again suggest you analyse the political structures proned by the Tanakh and how much this question founds the entire Bible purpose as a dynamic, evolutive problematic (until christism, - please see my thread about Dubourg's theory for that point) , then compare'em to what Locke suggests. And not to forget Thomas More.

2. or that Art. 11 of Tripoli T. silently yell what it officially disclaims... 10 years to put it on paper when founders where on the blocks of quiting Old Europa for thirty years ?...


um...
i can't really make sense of this statement
but the treaty of tripoli is unanimously approved standing sovereign law...
so...
yeah

I won't insist much on that pretty ashaming part of your national history...

Let's give the mike to some Yale guy :

As even a casual examination of the annotated translation of 1930 shows, the Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic; and even as such its defects throughout are obvious and glaring. Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase, "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion," does not exist at all. There is no Article 11. The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point

I'll add that America has a two centuries history of "europeanity", and that all europeans see you, ricans, as a bunch of us thrown out upon the big blue as a wide-scale sociopolitic, selforganising, golemesque experimentation

Btw the youthness of USA make it a teeny nation, playing with power like a little girl does with matches - or a GWB administration with planes. American arrogance in all ways explains what's been discussed in other threads about a -rather paranoïd though- concern as for a supposed anger from the rest of the world. The world don't hate America, - that's perhaps the opposite...


[1/2]


[edit on 23-11-2007 by Rigel]

[edit on 23-11-2007 by Rigel]

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

profanity?
profanity isn't something that's against christian values...
i mean, if you're going to be insanely shortsighted and say that anything within the bible means it's something exclusively christian, you have a point. however, the terms of service seem to center around things that are found in many culture.
why do the japanese have such similar terms of service on their discussion boards when they aren't a christianity influenced society.
oh yeah, because this point fails horribly.

the principles aren't CHRISTIAN, they're CULTURAL CONSTANTS

Here in contemporary France we really don't care about such a "profanity" thing meant as some word policie, sort of pc behaviour ruling until repression or coercition. No moral value is given to "bad words", they just taint the speech of the speaker - and therefore on french boards you won't find people bannished for some strictly formal speech problems like so. You'll have to be really pervert to be so thrown away from any forum, I mean.

Anyway France is as much as USA entirely founded upon a judeo-christian tradition and history, and so morality.

I insist that the most radical social-protesting groups like gays, lesbians, animal defenders, whatever are all rooted in an ethic hthat is made possible by the core of christianity.

Oppositely, all who explains that some universal simili-christic values are the apanage of all humanity forget that modern India leaks daughter because of the killing of the newborn girlies because that they're just girls, , or, in the past, that Roman, Greek or Carthagean cults used to imply the sacrifice death of the first born baby. Not to mention the cult of war and wargods that shaped the entire society around the figure of the ruling king as a military chief, and the imperialist war that ensued endlessly as the constant history of these various while strangely ressembling civilisations...

The socio-hierarchy of modern western nations is in many respects the very inheritance of roman empire, which used of christianism as way to overgo its first historical manifestations to reshape in a wide sphere of influence which was Europa from Atlantic to Ural for centuries, then later Americas - both N and S.

On the other hand, that's an (alas ?) uncontestable evidence that the common denomination of the all western world is its christianity : spanish, yankee, english, french, german, italian, east-europeans and even russian are all CHRISTIANS. Period.

The question is... ARE THEY REALLY ?

The answer is : NO. As real christianism implie some sort of ... ANARCHISM.

We're far from it.

















[edit on 23-11-2007 by Rigel]

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
show me a place where jesus says to treat women equally...

Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Philip, Gospel of Mary + Official Gospel between the verses or not.

reply to post by Rigel


could you please date those gospels, tell me the language they were written in, and then provide a quote?

Originally posted by Rasputin13
Let me first say that I take offense to the assumption that if you're a Christian then you're automatically anti-gay and/or anti-athiest. Being Christian does not automatically mean that you're Catholic or a radical evangelical.

I agree with what you had to say, but I just had to add something. I was raised Catholic, but I tend to look at all religions and beliefs in order to learn as much as I can about spirituality and God. I think that every religion has a little piece of the overall puzzle (some have more than others, i.e., the Eastern religions) and that it is important to put them all together. But I digress...

The point of this post is this: Please also don't assume that just because a person is Catholic that it means they are anti-gay. While I know that a number of Catholics are anti-gay (just like a number of people of many faiths are), I personally believe that it is wrong. Jesus loved everyone, and you cannot tell me that he would turn his back on someone because they were gay. Sorry... wouldn't do it. So I am not going to do it either.

Just had to throw another .02 into this pile of change.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Rigel

 

could you please date those gospels, tell me the language they were written in, and then provide a quote?

You asked for ref, you got ref.

reply to post by Rigel


no, i asked for a quote. i said show me where jesus says it, not what book he says it in.

and then i asked for further reference, i want to know the date, language, and quote.

is that too much to ask?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul



Could the Mary-Madeleine episode answer your question "Who never sinned send the first stone to her" (personal "quicky" translation) ?
Moreover, according to official gospels, Jesus was followed untill his death by a pretty pack of women. I let you interpret this.

To answer more directly :

- Gnostic apocryphs were written in coptic or greek in the form we discovered them. They originate in aramean versions not recovered but cited by early catholic fathers. They were supposedly written between 50 (Thomas, Mary) and 150-300 (Philip).

- But still greek is perhaps not the original langage of catholic Gospels : a scholar like Bernard Dubourg, to cite him again, considered they had been copies from originals in hebrew : Dubourg also founds all his theory upon the hebrew retroversions he obtained from the greek texts, showing how much the text makes much more sense than it does in greec - even in gematria.

- Now a quote of what Jesus of Nazareth -would/could- have lively said.
Gospel of Thomas, logion 22 :

Jesus saw some infants at the breast. He said to his disciples: These little ones at the breast are like those who enter into the kingdom. They said to him: If we then be children, shall we enter the kingdom? Jesus said to them: When you make the two one, and when you make the inside as the outside, and the outside as the inside, and the upper side as the lower; and when you make the male and the female into a single one, that the male be not male and the female female
; when you make eyes in the place of an eye, and a hand in place of a hand, and a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then shall you enter [the kingdom].

All Judaïcal and Christical Wisdom is enclosed in that only logia. No need to explain here what does this suppose in the moral sphere regarding man-woman relationships.

Originally posted by Rigel
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Could the Mary-Madeleine episode answer your question "Who never sinned send the first stone to her" (personal "quicky" translation) ?
Moreover, according to official gospels, Jesus was followed untill his death by a pretty pack of women. I let you interpret this.

..ok, so women followed him and he told people not to be judgmental...
i don't see how this is feminism coming from jesus.


on the rest, may i please see the source(s) you are citing?
not trying to be a jerk, just want to see the info from the direct source.

except this part:

All Judaïcal and Christical Wisdom is enclosed in that only logia. No need to explain here what does this suppose in the moral sphere regarding man-woman relationships.

...except it really isn't, when there is contradiction within the gospels...
can i throw in the other crazy gospels too? since you seem to include the gnostic ones, what keeps me from including any book that claims to be the word of god?
can i bring in the book of mormon?

[edit on 11/27/07 by madnessinmysoul]

DID YOU KNOW?

Men in powdered wigs and tights founded this country.

Men...

In powdered wigs...

And tights.

Thanks.