"Wife: Be content to be insignificant."

Originally posted by FollowTheWhiteRabbit
Man, I love when unbelievers grab straws. They' use anything in their power possible to jump on our bones, huh?

Your bones? a "true" Christian I bet. Well, If by unbeliever you mean not believing in that cheap brand of demiurgish deity or religious BS then yes, guilty as charged. You'd be surprised to know, however, that I do believe in the Christ part, only not the watered down, happy meal, wide-gate version. And yes, I'll use anything valid to expose the lies of modern Christianity because in my eyes it is in fact the Antichrist. You know, the interpreters of Christ. Those foolish enough to spew lies in his name.

If these men were truly Godly or even Christians they wouldn't be saying those vile things, ancient or not. A man full of holy spirit is incapable of erring in such embarrassing ways. That applies to yesterday, today and tomorrow.

reply to post by undo


You're ignoring a few known facts about pig meat. It becomes toxin saturated because it digests it's food a lot faster than other animals (about 24 hours on average). A lot of the toxins which would otherwise leave the pig's body end up left in the animal, coupled with the fact that pigs have no sweat glands to rid itself of toxins either.

On top of the parasites that frequently infest their body and meat, some of which can't be cooked out (nevermind the toxins I just mentioned). Trichinosis is the most major concern regarding pig meat. Pigs also carry Hepatitis E, Nipah, Menagle, and other nasty bugs which can do pretty good damage to you.

Nevermind the fact that a pig's body, its skin, bones, organs, and bodily chemicals are strikingly similar to a human. (www.dailymail.co.uk...). You may as well be eating a quadrupedal human being.

reply to post by lupodigubbio


Demiurge? I don't know where you got the idea that I may worship some form of Demiurge, but my God is singular (One in Essence, Three in Person) and superior, not a fallible, disjointed, inferior Demiurge.

And also, if you'll notice my avatar, I don't believe in a "watered down" version of Christ either. Christ opened the door to all who seek His way, that in His blood we all may be saved (unless you're a Calvinist), yet few will ever walk on that way because we are human, and our sin is natural rebellion towards God. Which is why God isn't any less wrathful than He was in the Old Testament. We see the fruits of our depravity as our world continues to fight and struggle for selfish reasons, and consequently corrupt and destroy our planet and one another.

They may still say those things, because society changes. Knowing what we know about homosexuality and how it isn't condemned in the Bible NOR an inherently deprave or sick lifestyle, does that mean early church fathers lose all credibility if they believed homosexuality to be a sin?

Originally posted by FollowTheWhiteRabbit
reply to post by undo

 

You're ignoring a few known facts about pig meat. It becomes toxin saturated because it digests it's food a lot faster than other animals (about 24 hours on average). A lot of the toxins which would otherwise leave the pig's body end up left in the animal, coupled with the fact that pigs have no sweat glands to rid itself of toxins either.

On top of the parasites that frequently infest their body and meat, some of which can't be cooked out (nevermind the toxins I just mentioned). Trichinosis is the most major concern regarding pig meat. Pigs also carry Hepatitis E, Nipah, Menagle, and other nasty bugs which can do pretty good damage to you.

Nevermind the fact that a pig's body, its skin, bones, organs, and bodily chemicals are strikingly similar to a human. (www.dailymail.co.uk...). You may as well be eating a quadrupedal human being.

i agree that it normally would be very bad to eat, but that's just how bad beef and chicken are now. it's so bad, people all over the place are actually experiencing violent reactions to it that they don't experience with pigs, likely related to the overabundance of hormones fed to cattle and chickens (and turkeys). the only way to assure you're not getting that crap is to raise the animal yourself, from a line of hormone-free, free range animals, and after raising it yourself, you're not likely to want to eat it. lol ya know, it becomes part of the family.

Originally posted by smyleegrl
I consider myself an agnostic after earning a degree in theology. I know, go figure.

Anyway, Christianity is supposed to follow the example of Jesus. And I respectfully submit that Jesus's actions towards women were extremely different than the patriarchal religious quotes as seen in the OP.

Jesus practiced what he preached. If only his followers did so.

I too have a degree in Theology and I believe Jesus was the Christ...
...but I have no 'religion' and certainly don't identify with any organizations that claim His name.

Certainly the attitudes toward women outlined in the OP are not those of Jesus...
...and although these men may have got some things right, in this they were very wrong.

Originally posted by FollowTheWhiteRabbit
reply to post by jiggerj

 

Which one exactly? Do you mean stoning sexual deviants because it could spread and ruin virtuous dedication to God, do you mean not to eat pigs whose meat we have now proven to be wholly bad for your body, or maybe polygamy for the sake of procreating and increasing the Jewish population?

Do you mean stoning people that have sex outside of marriage (sexual deviants???)? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember seeing anything in the bible about stoning BEFORE Moses received the ten commandments. I also don't remember any god stopping it ALL THROUGH the old testament. So, this god found it okay for a few thousand years until Jesus came along?

As for pork, how is this meat worse than a fat-lined steak or bread or whole milk? And, really, this god took time out of his busy schedule to tell us what not to eat, but he's too busy to stop wars, famine, cancer, hatred, false religions... That some weak god ya got there.

Please point me in the biblical direction of where god said, one wife for one man? I don't remember seeing this at all.

I don't understand how people get so bent out of shape about what someone said 1000+ years ago...and not only that, the Old Testament of the Bible was written over 2400 years ago and are generally regarded as historical texts today. Yes these "men of God" said some terrible things, but these were during terrible times in which their views, like it or not, were the status quo at the time.

reply to post by smyleegrl


Like Gandhi said "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are very unlike your Christ."

Men and woman are symbiotic. We've evolved together and here we're, still together. There're many species that have gender. There're some asexual species, but not many, I think.

I liked the comment someone made about the idea how the original humans could live forever but could not procreate. Only when they could procreate did they become mortal. I don't like the comment because I believe in christianity. I like it because I think there's a subtler truth embedded in it. There's a sort of conservation of energy implicit in its logic.

It reminds me of a science fiction story I read in one of those SF magazines. It was about how alien master races would send out weaponized probes and instruct them to terminate self-replicating machines that do not respect the rules. The whole purpose was to limit the growth of machines so they do not dominate the universe and convert all of its resource into machine parts. Sadly, none of the biological races find a way to zoom across the universe at speeds necessary to make interstellar travel practical. Instead, most of them die off and/or revert back to primitive stages. Only the machines have any realistic chance, and that's why they're hunted and destroyed.

Originally posted by adjensen
You quote a bunch of people who lived from 300 to 2,000 years ago, all in radically different societies, and you think that you're making a point?

You could quote non-religious speakers from those eras, making exactly the same sorts of statements. Cultures of the past were patriarchal, who cares?

Are you from the past?

If she follows organized religion, she is. I think that's partially the point. Institutionalized misogyny has modern repercussions. Yet we have knowledge that reveals the error of our ways. This is why it's a crime to allow one's self not to be progressive. Learn from the past ... move on. Religion is and always was a means of slavery. Want to be free, then be free.

Originally posted by Hadrian

Originally posted by adjensen
You quote a bunch of people who lived from 300 to 2,000 years ago, all in radically different societies, and you think that you're making a point?

You could quote non-religious speakers from those eras, making exactly the same sorts of statements. Cultures of the past were patriarchal, who cares?

Are you from the past?

If she follows organized religion, she is. I think that's partially the point. Institutionalized misogyny has modern repercussions. Yet we have knowledge that reveals the error of our ways. This is why it's a crime to allow one's self not to be progressive. Learn from the past ... move on. Religion is and always was a means of slavery. Want to be free, then be free.

No, she is not. She is revealing her discovery and trying to spread the word to others.

GET A CLUE, WOMAN! you don't need this #.

In actuality, she is living in the now.

reply to post by resoe26


You have every right to disagree...
You have every right to be wrong.

jesus brought a woman into the temple, up front and had her speak. the rabbis were incensed.
jesus was the last pharaoh of egypt, he was an egyptian jew via the ptolemy line from king david.
i dunno what happened, but i get the impression that when moses lead the israelites out of egypt
he didn't tell them that some pharaoh somewhere else, was still going to be in control. this tidbit
was hidden from all but the levites. the reason i say that is, there are many contradictions regarding
god in those passages, which leads me to believe the guy being called god during that timeframe
was a pharaoh, he behaves like a pharaoh. he makes decisions like a pharaoh. he destroys things
like a pharaoh. he makes the people walk a very thin line, and emotionally and physically abuse
their children and wives, and he does this all in the name of god. this makes zero sense. god doesn't
tell his chosen people that he loves them, and then make their lives read like something out of a
gulag in stalin's russia. something very fishy went on and i think jesus explains it quite succinctly:

he refers to their priests in very derogatory terms, using key phrases that connect them back to
some not so good stuff in ancient egypt. read between the lines. the bible is a science book and
the majority of it is egyptian with some mesopotamian moments tossed in.

for example, in the opening chapter of ezekiel, ezekiel describes a vehicle that has just exited a hole in the sky, described as a blue sapphire like "throne" that shines like a prism (likely a crystal pyramid, blue in color). this throne contains the LIKENESS of jehovah. how? no one had ever seen jehovah. the references to his appearance in the holy of holies was always from the waist down. no one was allowed to see him or they would die. why? how does ezekiel know the being shares a likeness with jehovah? and furthermore, why do people say it is jehovah when the text doesn't say it is jehovah but someone who has the likeness of jehovah ? it could be literally any powerful entity, capable of space flight and apparently wormhole travel.

think people, think!

reply to post by lupodigubbio


why only christians, every man who has ever gone on to achieve spiritual success in life, had the same views of women,
be it buddha, sankaracharya, rishi manu and others.
those men weren't fools, but someone who could see the true nature of women.

Religion, most notably Christianity, and Judaism(old testament wise) are the purest form of evil!

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by lupodigubbio

 

I read your Op and you know what it said to me?
Men are afraid of women. They know women are more powerful than them.
These quotes are character assassinations at best and full of lies.
The church had to get men to believe that women were evil, so they would stop marrying like the church wanted them to in order to keep all their material possessions going to the church upon the priests' deaths.
When are men and women going to realize that the church is not the place to find peace and tranquility?

Your post tell me that you are no different than those that where quoted, (undoubtedly out of context). Tell you what, you go back to women's studies tomorrow and I'll look into a church for me and my boys to attend.

3 guys show up at abraham's tent. they're on their way to sodom and gomorrah, to determine if the stories about the depraved condition of the people there, are true. god would not need to come down to the planet, and physical travel to sodom and gomorrah to determine if the stories were true. he would automatically know if they were true or not. so something is missing here. it's a complete, in your face, contradiction. this does not mean the bible isnt' relevant, it by all means, is relevant. very relevant. what it does mean though is, there are parts that don't sound like something god would say or do, because 1) he wouldn't need to and 2) he says elsewhere that is not his way. so how can it be his way and not his way, at the same time? easy, the pharaohs were god men. some of those gods were not very nice to humans. this is evident in various places, such as jehovah getting angry at the gods for the way they were treating their human subjects. yeah, it's in there.

stop listening to preachers and go read it for yourself. if you let someone else do all your thinking for you, you won't have done your due diligence in being a well informed human being of any religious or non-religious variety. study to prove yourself worthy.

Do you mean stoning people that have sex outside of marriage (sexual deviants???)?

reply to post by jiggerj


yes, at that time, it would had been a rational decision. why? let me explain.
newsflash_____ more than 2000 years ago, there were no childcare services, no nanny government, securing resources was a mortally dangerous thing, no contraception, no dna testing, no structure to force childcare payments, no hospitals to give birth in a safe environment,ecectra.
the only structure which provided the safest means to be sure of resources and safety for a woman was marriage.
Via marriage, society put the burden of both the resources and safety on the shoulders of men also called the patriarchy by deluded feminists.
Now imagine you were a woman at that time who didn't had the security of marriage, had sex. Since there were no condoms(true really!!!),no pills, there was a good chance of pregnancy. now you were pregnant without any socially recognized commitment from a man. what were the choices for you?? either abortion or death. believe me, abortion was way dangerous in those times.
Furthermore, if you were a woman who was known to had sex outside marriage, a man couldn't be sure of paternity.
so, it was only logical to make everyone fear casual sex with strangers, thus such laws were enacted. do you think any community would had survived if it didn't took care of it's females and ensure that they had the best environment possible to procreate?? really??
The problem is, people like you view the past through the lenses of present and draw wrong conclusions and reveal that you have sub twenty iq.

And, really, this god took time out of his busy schedule to tell us what not to eat, but he's too busy to stop wars, famine, cancer, hatred, false religions... That some weak god ya got there.
reply to post by jiggerj

hate teaches the value of love, war shows us why should we work for peace, famine signifies the importance of food, false religions make us look for the true one.
you die only in the eyes of others,not for god because he can't kill himself and yet live on. humans are afraid of death,so they think death is bad and anyone who causes it must be a bad person.
we also fear suffering, so we think any person who causes suffering to others is bad.