What's in heaven (or paradise) for women specifically?

reply to post by jhill76


Can you send me a job application, i wana work for the above(Seriously). LoL

reply to post by halfoldman
It is an illusion to believe that there is Heaven or Paradise for those who are committing crimes or taking other lives in the name of religion or for any other reason.

Those who deceive the heaven on those who commit acts of terror have the same fate that is hell.

Nobody has the right to take another life in no circumstance.

Paradise for women is Adam's rib.

Originally posted by jhill76
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

What "other side"? Satan? What "other side"? I thought you weren't claiming to be some angelic messenger?

Good one. But, I am not an angel! You should know above does more than just pass messages.

So what "other side" of God's word are you talking about? Satan? He attacks the word of God, he casts doubt then outright rejects it. Nothing has changed since the garden.

"Ye hath God said?"

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Never mind Christ, Gods the head honcho, Angels Nephilim Rephaim are still his/her/its mess since he/she/it is omnipotent omnipresent and so on and so on. Why perpetuate a war when the solution is redemption and return to the God head?

Originally posted by andy06shake
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Never mind Christ, Gods the head honcho, Angels Nephilim Rehaheim are still his/her/its mess since he/she/it is omnipotent omnipresent and so on and so on. Why perpetuate a war when the solution is redemption and return to the God head?

That's a very good answer. Brother is Lord over man. But, the angels above report directly to Father, not Jesus.

Originally posted by andy06shake
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Never mind Christ, Gods the head honcho, Angels Nephilim Rehaheim are still his/her/its mess since he/she/it is omnipotent omnipresent and so on and so on. Why perpetuate a war when the solution is redemption and return to the God head?

Christ chose to become a man and die for man, He didn't choose to become an angel and die for them. It was His choice. I'm thankful the roles are not reversed and redemption wasn't offered to man.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


"Christ chose to become a man and die for man, He didn't choose to become an angel and die for them. It was His choice. I'm thankful the roles are not reversed and redemption wasn't offered to man."

Why is there no mention of Satan or Hell in the Old testament and only in the bible 1.1 aka the New testament?

Its like you seem really invested in this New testament, what about the old testament and other religious paraphernalia?

Originally posted by andy06shake
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

"Christ chose to become a man and die for man, He didn't choose to become an angel and die for them. It was His choice. I'm thankful the roles are not reversed and redemption wasn't offered to man."

Why is there no mention of Satan of Hell in the Old testament and only in the bible 1.1 aka the New testament?

Satan is just a title, "ha'satan", (the accuser). His proper name is "Heylel", and it's in the Hebrew text of Isaiah 14:12.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


"Satan is just a title, "ha'satan", (the accuser). His proper name is "Heylel", and it's in the Hebrew text of Isaiah 14:12. "

Ok, seems sketchy at best. You would have thought the great advisory would have required a little more of a mention IMHO, after all is it not required to know thine enemy to defeat thine enemy?

Originally posted by andy06shake
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

"Satan is just a title, "ha'satan", (the accuser). His proper name is "Heylel", and it's in the Hebrew text of Isaiah 14:12. "

Ok, seems sketchy at best. You would have thought the great advisory would have required a little more of a mention IMHO, after all is it not required to know thine enemy to defeat thine enemy?

edit on 21-9-2012 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)

I don't see it that way at all, the book is about Christ, not the devil.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

"I don't see it that way at all, the book is about Christ, not the devil. "

This is the ultimate dilemma with organized religion based on books from 1000s of years ago written by man. Its all open for interpretation in many ways and forms. It helps us not that Man is fallible and imperfect also. And remember Jesus was a man, what does that imply? Ile answer imperfection and an enormously inflated ego and id IMHO.

Originally posted by andy06shake
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

"I don't see it that way at all, the book is about Christ, not the devil. "

This is the ultimate dilemma with organized religion based on books from 1000s of years ago written by man. Its all open for interpretation in many way and forms.

edit on 21-9-2012 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)

Not at all, that would be "Eisegesis", which is heavily frowned upon, solid scholarship uses "Exegesis" and utelizes the rules of Biblical hermeneutics and the "golden rule" of Biblical interpretation.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


"Not at all, that would be "Eisegesis", which is heavily frowned upon, solid scholarship uses "Exegesis" and utelizes the rules of Biblical hermeneutics and the "golden rule" of Biblical interpretation."

You will have to give me a min, thats a lot off offaly big words for me to comprehend.
Can i have it in plain English please?

Originally posted by andy06shake
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

"Not at all, that would be "Eisegesis", which is heavily frowned upon, solid scholarship uses "Exegesis" and utelizes the rules of Biblical hermeneutics and the "golden rule" of Biblical interpretation."

You will have to give me a min, thats a lot off offaly big words for me to comprehend.
Can i have it in plain English please?

Eisegesis is the term applied to the act of reading something with an intent to find meaning that supports a pre-existing belief. It is interpretation designed to achieve a meaning which is not necessarily what the author intended. The contrary term is exegesis, which is reading something in its context, with no preconceived notion as to what it would mean, apart from the recognition that it is part of a larger text, and should be assumed to be in harmony with the whole.

Here's an article on the subject: What is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis?

When you run across someone with an unusual claim about the Bible, it is usually justified through eisegesis, and the more you encounter it, the easier it is to pick up on.

reply to post by adjensen


Thanks mate. So Eisegesis is a philosophical standpoint, way of interpretation?

Originally posted by andy06shake
reply to post by adjensen

 

Thanks mate. So Eisegesis is a philosophical standpoint, way of interpretation?

I suppose, but it's a dishonest one, because it inserts the reader (well, their idea) into the text in a way which the author was unlikely to have intended, so it misrepresents what the text says.

reply to post by adjensen


"I suppose, but it's a dishonest one, because it inserts the reader (well, their idea) into the text in a way which the author was unlikely to have intended, so it misrepresents what the text says."

So from the Exegesis standpoint this suggests that the Bible is only open to a certain type of interpretation, the Vatican interpretation by chance? Im thinking one mans lie is anothers truth, is it not all about our shared interpretation rather than only one way of looking at things? Doesent seem very democratic or fair. I would have thought that by trying to visualise yourself in any certain situation would allow better understanding of the situation?

Originally posted by andy06shake
So from the Exegesis standpoint this suggests that the Bible is only open to a certain type of interpretation, the Vatican interpretation by chance? Im thinking one mans lie is anothers truth, is it not all about our shared interpretation rather than only one way of looking at things? Doesent seem very democratic or fair. I would have thought that by trying to visualise yourself in any certain situation would allow better understanding of the situation?

No, that isn't what it means. In the article that I cited, you apparently missed this extremely clear explanation, which refutes what you are saying:

The process of exegesis involves 1) observation: what does the passage say? 2) interpretation: what does the passage mean? 3) correlation: how does the passage relate to the rest of the Bible? and 4) application: how should this passage affect my life?

Eisegesis, on the other hand, involves 1) imagination: what idea do I want to present? 2) exploration: what Scripture passage seems to fit with my idea? and 3) application: what does my idea mean? Notice that, in eisegesis, there is no examination of the words of the text or their relationship to each other, no cross-referencing with related passages, and no real desire to understand the actual meaning. Scripture serves only as a prop to the interpreter’s idea.

Step #2 in exegesis clearly indicates that the text is interpreted, but step #3 says that this interpretation should be checked against the whole of the text, in order to establish the interpretation's validity.

There won't be any women in heaven, we'll all be junkless. That's why i laugh at the thought of muslim getting 72 virgins, thats the ultimate joke.

reply to post by adjensen


Thanks for trying to explain how one should view religion from a Exegesis standpoint or was it the other. I think i will stick to my analytical subjective system, seems to point me in the right direction more times than not. We all see what we want to see in the end, but thats perspective for you eh?