DescentBB

Top Gun wrote:See Thorne, all of what you're saying is funny because it was originally the Church that came to a consensus on what should or shouldn't be in the Bible in the first place. In lieu of the entire book falling fully-formed directly from God's hands to yours, Christianity itself was what legitimized the Bible, not the other way around.

I think you're viewing these historical events through a uniquely Catholic lens. It was a convention of men of faith that came together to carefully determine which of the many books in existence were truly inspired and belonged in the Bible. One of the things that was flagged, that I know of right off the top of my head, was a book which contained an instance of a messenger of God (angel) lying. That's inconsistent which the message of scripture, which absolutely presents an unchanging God who does not lie, and wouldn't hold his messengers to a double standard. So that book, being obviously uninspired, was removed. The consistency of scriptures written so many thousands of years apart is something that the casual observer will not appreciate, but it is there, and it is proof of the validity of the message. They were not building the Bible as they saw fit (which has been done, but it was done in the original languages, and now they use those manuscripts in the modern version), they were weeding out works which had come in which were inconsistent with the rest of scripture.

"Inspiration without preservation is useless" -(don't remember the author)

Eh, the Bible as we know it today was mainly canonized to put to rest certain arguments, and once done, to refute it was to risk outright ostracization and ex-communication from the church. I think it stands to reason that some books did not make the cut that should have and others are in there maybe shouldn't be. The main thing is that everything has to be established by at least 2-3 witnesses. The KJV to me is the worst offender. They actually took liberties to add to the word, in which no other translation has and is nowhere in the original text. I'm speaking about John, but I won't delve any further but let's take this for instance.

26 What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28 If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God.

29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30 And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31 For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. 32 The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. 33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people.

34 Women[f] should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

36 Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37 If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. 38 But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored.[h]

39 Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40 But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.

That middle part does not fit. In one breathe he tells ,brothers and sisters alike to be eager to prophesy, each in turn and orderly and that everyone has a word, hymn or tongue, then in the next breathe tells women to be silent in church. I see a change of tone and spirit in 34/35 that makes me question if Paul actually said that at all. The point is, the Word of God is something that is living and alive and is written on your heart and mind. I think it is safe to say we should be led by the Spirit of God and seek truth and justice, and carefully accept doctrine only under much scrutiny.

Am i the only one here who reads what you guys write and think you're absolutely stark raving bonkers? I feel a hell of a lot safer living 20 mins from the Syrian border than i would living in a country that holds so much power , with leaders that could potentially hold the same opinions as yourselves.

I know…religious people are soooo scary…so it’s ironic that the most evil of weapons ever created were created by men of science.

Honestly, Flabbychick's statement is exactly why I don't mind scrutinizing the Bible and admitting that there are causes for concern. Lets take the Book of Enoch for instance. It was left out because they did not believe that angels could have relations with women, yet in Genesis is says the very same thing! New Testament authors actually quote from it and use it as reference. Out of the over 300 epistles that existed, only 66 made the cut and these decisions were made by a group of like-minded individuals, mainly to squash any controversy over the identity of Christ. Here's the reason I don't mind debating these things though and conceding certain facts. I KNOW there's a God. I have seen tangible proof from my prayers to Him. Others will not see it that way, and the ones who believe will do so anyways. My belief is not based solely on doctrine, although doctrine is useful. My belief is based on a living , breathing relationship with Him where He teaches me all things, and nothing He has ever taught me has been contrary to hard scientific data either, it just all the more confirms what I already knew. I see perfection and order. There is countless things that have to have lined up to make this world like it is. Others will see all those things as coincidence, I do not. I think people who cannot see all these things as a whole are bonkers, I just don't say it

[youtube]DZGINaRUEkU[/youtube]

Flabby Chick wrote:Am i the only one here who reads what you guys write and think you're absolutely stark raving bonkers? I feel a hell of a lot safer living 20 mins from the Syrian border than i would living in a country that holds so much power , with leaders that could potentially hold the same opinions as yourselves.

Meaning the so-called 'tea-party' I imagine?

Flabby Chick, I don't envy you because as much as you think you're safe- war is coming. There is now no 'if' it is only a 'when.' You're going to be in the center of it most likely. The muslim hordes are salivating all over themselves to pour over the borders of Israel to slaughter Jews- the apes and pigs (seems you're seen as an ape or pig by them) that 'occupy' Palestine. There is the little matter of the civil/sectarian war of course- but once Israel joins- either by provocation or retaliation, all bets are off.

Flabby Chick wrote:Am i the only one here who reads what you guys write and think you're absolutely stark raving bonkers? I feel a hell of a lot safer living 20 mins from the Syrian border than i would living in a country that holds so much power , with leaders that could potentially hold the same opinions as yourselves.

yup

Spidey wrote:I know…religious people are soooo scary…so it’s ironic that the most evil of weapons ever created were created by men of science.

and, these weapons, in the hands of scientists, are 'evil' because?

In this context a weapon is not evil based upon who is wielding it, but is evil by design.

How so? The mere scale of destruction? I don't get how any weapon is inherently more evil than another, so long as the purpose is the death of others. Then, the issue becomes that the actual USE is the evil.

I disagree. It's the type of death.

A guillotine is a much quicker or a "more humaine" death then the crucifixion which was designed to prolong the persons agony. There are weapons that are more evil by design. Weapons that are made with the intent to inflict the maximum suffering upon its victims.
Chemical weapons are the perfect example

fair enough, CUDA. But, in the case of nuclear weapons, which have only been used twice in war, which was more 'humane', the death of tens of thousands in a flash, with lingering suffering of tens of thousands more, or the likely result of a ground invasion of Japan? Hard question for me to answer, and to get back to Spideys original, off-hand comment, was there anything involving 'science' that led to anything particularly 'evil'? I don't see it.
At least, not in the context of misinterpretation of religion leading to evil, as was being discussed.

Inanimate objects can not be evil. The "intent" may be evil. And thus said object can be applied in an evil manner. Evil resides within man.

Er so yeah, rather what Slick said.
(note to self: skim less)

It’s not so much the scale of the weapon, although that is a small part of my assessment or even the method of killing…it’s more of the design to be indiscriminate in it’s usage. (no matter who or how it’s used)

So simply put, you can use bombs to murder people in a city, that would be “evil usage” because a bomb can be used in a discriminating way…where “evil” weapons cannot.

A simple handgun is not evil by design, because it only kills the person it is used on. (barring any unforeseen accidents) And, can be used purely for self defense if desired.

And I also have to add, if there are no “evil” weapons then why does the international community have a ban on some of them?

Then even a keyboard can be "evil" if it enables someone to spew the venom that is on the internet that does indeed hurt and cripple people, as can a rock.

Again. it's not the object, but the wielder of that object.

And there, the Koran clearly instructs to harm others if the laws are not followed, much like the Mosaic law but even more aggressively. The new testament does not.

I think it goes without saying that an object can’t be evil in and of itself…I guess not to really labor the point, I am speaking metaphorically.

In the context of my statement you would be hard pressed to prove that keyboards were invented to cause mass indiscriminate destruction and death.

When you nuke a city…you kill everything…men, women, children, dogs, cats, birds, insects even bacteria…that’s what I’m talking about…indiscriminate destruction by design.

I was stopping short of actually accusing the creators of these weapons of being evil. But we can go there if you want.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:First, the meanings of clearly written text only "shift" when it's convenient for someone who is either taking advantage or is hiding from the plain truth. The meanings of the Bible do not shift. People shift. I don't go along with the Catholic church, the Mormon church, the Jehovah's Witness church, the main-stream Protestant denominations, or any other organization which declares doctrinal changes according to cultural expedience, for the survival of their cult/business. The Bible is clear--God does not change.

From who's perspective? You say you don't go along with the whole set of organized religions you listed. So are they all wrong and you're right? Because perhaps, you think you know the Bible better than they do? Kinda of conceited of you don't you think?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Second, I'm really unconcerned with your ideas of feminine equality, and whether or not you like Christianity. I was just trying to set you straight on a couple of things. At the same time, in response to your weak arguments, I would point out that it's an assumption without basis that God, who made MAN in his own image could not be male, simply because of the sexuality of his creations. Then you throw out a bunch of random, misogynistic **** that is not found in the Bible... What you are is a woman, and if you didn't spend your life trying to be equal to men, you might have taken note that in many subtle ways you are not the same. I think a person would be unable to prove, from the Bible, that women are innately inferior, as individuals, in the sight of God, to men. But the Bible assigns a place for women in life. It isn't the place the society has put them, 100 years ago, or now, and it isn't necessarily the place your local church would have them in, or a place you could even appreciate having come through life as you have, but God says it's the way things were meant to be, if we are to accept the claims of scripture. Personally I believe it's not something that many men or women grasp entirely, but it's all in there whether it's understood or not. No offense, but people believe all kinds of foolish things about who has the right to do what. It causes children to be without necessary guidance and restraint (to touch on something that might be easier to see), for instance, because it assumes they are something which they are not. Children need parents, and they need parents to be parents. In a similar way (not to compare women with children), women need men to be men (and men need women to be women). I'm going to do my best, in the event I get married, to fulfill the responsibilities of a man. I am not going to rule my wife with an iron rod, so to speak, but I'll be damned if the authority that comes with addressing the aspects of life that a man needs to meet is going to be subverted because my wife has some confused notion of equality. In a great many ways we may be equal, but in some ways, for some purposes, we are most certainly not. It's a God-given responsibility, not a gender-specific birthright.

Glad I'm not your future wife. If you were a woman, you WOULD be concerned, but since you're not, you know nothing of what it's like to live in a paternalistic dominated society. Although I will grant you that Muslim societies are far worse and more repressive than our Christian society. Only in physical strength, brain connectivity, and size do women differentiate from men, other than the reproductive hardware of course. So why are we treated as less than a man? We can't even get wage equality in similar jobs. Women still earn 19% less in wages than their male counterparts in full time jobs in this more enlightened day and age.

As to your reference to children needing parents, I agree that's necessary for a child's well being and if people want to have children, they should damn well put their full effort and responsibility into it. But who said that women have to have children in the first place? Why can't we be childless and earn a living equal to a man and not face some sort of scorn because we didn't have babies like we were supposed to? I don't know how may times I've been asked that question, like it's some female requirement to raise kids or you're just plain weird.

As for the Bible, it was definitely written during a time in history that most societies were male oriented and dominated, so of course it's going to be written from the male perspective. Even religions are male dominated. Most churches don't accept women leaders at all. I know that some updated versions of the Bible are trying to scrub out some of the gender bias, but who cares? It's all interpretation and that can change with time. You say the Bible is not male dominated. But Adam was created from God. Eve was created from a MAN, Adam of course. Second place status already. We were just an oopsie afterthought to keep Adam company. Here's a few other examples:

http://slartyobrian.hubpages.com/hub/Th ... n-of-Woman

1 Corinthians 11 "Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and the head of Christ is God.”

1 Corinthians 11:7-9:"For a man is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head."

1 Corinthians 14:34-35: "...women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says, If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."

Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife...wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

Absolute bullcrap.

tunnelcat wrote:From who's perspective? You say you don't go along with the whole set of organized religions you listed. So are they all wrong and you're right? Because perhaps, you think you know the Bible better than they do? Kinda of conceited of you don't you think?

Conceited? Try pragmatic. Growing up our house was full of Bibles, Bible reference books, language books, commentary books (can skip a lot of those), etc. My dad has worked in translating both biblical Greek (New Testament) and Hebrew (Old Testament), and I've never met anyone who's known the Bible better. He can remember the location of and quote more verses that your average church-goer is likely to hear in 10 years. It's all I've ever experienced with very few exceptions. But you miss the unfortunate truth, which is that there are motives involved in all of these organized religions which do not lend themselves to a balanced/honest grasp of the Bible, or even a desire to base doctrine solidly on scripture. It's not always that I'm aware of more of the words in the Bible, it's more that a lot of people read one thing and come away with something entirely different because of preconceived or reprogrammed notions. I've been there, and I may still have some of that. Most people in churches don't even treat the Bible as a whole work, so they never connect the dots between the quaint verses they hear on Sunday. It's just a story to them, and then they disconnect and come back to day-to-day life non the wiser. I would say it's a well-known fact among people who really know the Bible that an awful lot of people who claim to believe the Bible or call themselves Christians just do not know what's in it. There is a world of ignorance there.

tunnelcat wrote:Women still earn 19% less in wages than their male counterparts in full time jobs in this more enlightened day and age.

This wouldn't happen to correlate somewhat to a difference in physical ability, would it? There's a lady at work who likes to talk about how strong she is, but she still needs a guy to do the heavy-lifting for her. I don't have anything against her needing assistance, because she is still very productive in other ways, and I think there are a lot of jobs that women take very well to, and it's a boon for business, but I still roll my eyes when she boasts about her strength. It's like she wants to believe she can do anything a guy can do, and just ignores the instances where that doesn't hold true. So if she can do 90% of what I can do in the same position, is she worth just as much as me to the company? But I assume there are a number of other factors at work with your numbers, not all of them fair. But there are probably women in my line of work that make a lot more than I do, just because my company sucks.

tunnelcat wrote:As to your reference to children needing parents, I agree that's necessary for a child's well being and if people want to have children, they should damn well put their full effort and responsibility into it. But who said that women have to have children in the first place? Why can't we be childless and earn a living equal to a man and not face some sort of scorn because we didn't have babies like we were supposed to? I don't know how may times I've been asked that question, like it's some female requirement to raise kids or you're just plain weird.

That's easy, although I don't think that scorn is right, in your scenario. It's natural for a woman to want to have kids. End of story. Easy. Always has been. When some woman gets a philosophical burr up her butt and decides to be butch, it's odd.

tunnelcat wrote:You say the Bible is not male dominated.

No, goofball, I never said that. That must be what you wanted a Christian male to want to say. I am quite sure that your spite toward the Bible's portrayal of and position towards women has more to do with your feminist prejudices than any actual harm suffered by women at the hands of Biblical Christianity. Also you and a lot of other people think the whole of the Bible is [size="a billion"]absolute bullcrap[/size], so what makes you think it matters to me that you particularly don't like that bit? If the Bible is true, then who gives a ★■◆● what you think of what God says about a women? And if the Bible is not true, then people who are willing to die for their faith have bigger problems than believing that a man is the head of his wife.

Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife...wives should submit to their husbands in everything."Absolute bullcrap.

why did you choose to leave out the remainer of that verse? OR the verse that proceeded it? Did it not fit your agenda of criticism?

Spidey wrote:I think it goes without saying that an object can’t be evil in and of itself…I guess not to really labor the point, I am speaking metaphorically.

Fair enough.

Spidey wrote: In the context of my statement you would be hard pressed to prove that keyboards were invented to cause mass indiscriminate destruction and death.
.

I hedge here, as this is used to call guns evil and dangerous. (this has been beaten to death here before.) but I get what you're saying clearly.

Spidey wrote: I was stopping short of actually accusing the creators of these weapons of being evil. But we can go there if you want.

lol, no need. that's for another thread.


And TC,

Cuda's right. ..although perhaps he should have elaborated a bit more.

All that stuff you quoted is about structure and order. (and about love as Cuda pointed out).
It is NOT about keeping women "barefoot and pregnant" to use the vernacular. God is neither man nor woman. "He" portrays himself as male for the sake of context within system He created.

Here is the whole verse in context



Instructions for Christian Households

21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himselfas a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”[c] 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.



Take one line and thinking you understand the Bible is like seeing a movie trailer and thinking you know the whole movie

Proverbs 18:2
Fools find no pleasure in understanding    but delight in airing their own opinions.

But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ

All that stuff you quoted is about structure and order.

EDIT: It matters because once you clearly see who Christ is, then you see who you are in Christ. In Hebrews Christ is described as a High Priest in service to God and that we are kings and priests ourselves. Just about every other New Testament writer says that Jesus was made perfect by what He suffered, made sacrifice for sin and THEN was seated at the right hand of God. Paul goes on to say that at the end of time, when all things are fulfilled, that Christ will AGAIN be made subject to God, so that God will be all in all. The point of all this was to restore man to a proper relationship with God again, with all things under THEIR feet. The Christ, the Son of God, was made fully human and now a man sits at the right hand of God, when He steps down, we will be seated at Christ's right hand, with Him as our High Priest. We are sons and daughters of God, brothers and sisters of Christ. We are heirs of God, co-heirs with Christ, sharing in the inheritance He RECEIVES from the Father. We will be exactly like Christ and are even counted as such now. It matters, otherwise you don't realize exactly what your inheritance is.

CUDA wrote:Here is the whole verse in context


Instructions for Christian Households

21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himselfas a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”[c] 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.



Take one line and thinking you understand the Bible is like seeing a movie trailer and thinking you know the whole movie

Proverbs 18:2
Fools find no pleasure in understanding    but delight in airing their own opinions.

Line 22 still says it all. And you're forgetting one detail. I'm not a Christian, I'm not a believer in the Bible and I could care less about how Christians live their lives. You are free to live yours anyway you see fit. But please don't assume that everyone should believe that what's in the Bible is fact, so a note to all Christians, please keep out of the affairs of my life and I won't try to dictate yours. Christians may think this is a Christian Nation, but in reality, there are a lot of us who aren't so inclined. We aren't criminals or weirdos, just humans living our lives the way we want. In my small family, my husband and I are equals in our relationship. We share responsibilities and tasks that some consider to cross gender norms. Tough patooties. We were always that way in childhood and remain that way in adulthood. Neither one of us sees the other as the dominant partner. We are very happy with the way we live and I was very lucky to find a man with his modern sensibilities.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:As to your reference to children needing parents, I agree that's necessary for a child's well being and if people want to have children, they should damn well put their full effort and responsibility into it. But who said that women have to have children in the first place? Why can't we be childless and earn a living equal to a man and not face some sort of scorn because we didn't have babies like we were supposed to? I don't know how may times I've been asked that question, like it's some female requirement to raise kids or you're just plain weird.

That's easy, although I don't think that scorn is right, in your scenario. It's natural for a woman to want to have kids. End of story. Easy. Always has been. When some woman gets a philosophical burr up her butt and decides to be butch, it's odd.

Well, well, you have thus proved my point. I'm assuming you think I act "butch" and that you think that's twisted. You're preconceptions about how a woman should act and behave speaks volumes about your attitude and religion. Not all women are born with the maternal instinct. I was apparently NOT given that trait and thus don't really care for children, and if you believe in God, He made me that way. Now go marry a nice, subservient Christian husband worshiper and leave the rest of us "weird" women to live our lives as we please.

Okay, kids. Cool it.

Discussing gender roles in Christianity is fine. Note that it's a broad topic, especially since stances among professing Christians vary widely.

These little personal shots at lifestyles, however, don't belong. Keep it professional.

Calling you "butch" never crossed my mind, TC. Mind the smileys! I just see that as an extreme example of a woman rejecting womanhood, which is something I think happens for various reasons. Any woman has the right to do so, but I think it's terribly unfortunate.

I would have to disagree with you when you say it's something some women are born with. I think that any woman has the potential, but based on what I've seen it's something that is imprinted by example, at a young age, and reinforced by experience (taking care of a younger sibling, baby doll, etc.)

Don't be a wet blanket Foil. I'm not flaming or trolling. I'm having fun "discussing" with ST his ideas about women's gender roles and whether it bothers him when someone differs from his idea of normal.

By the way ST, I don't take offense at being labeled a butch. I wear it with pride because that's the way I've always lived. My mother hated it, but she didn't force the issue because it made me very unhappy to do so. She would have never succeeded either, bless her heart. I didn't wear makeup or wear dresses like a frilly girl and still don't as an adult. My hair is very short, a blessing since it's now gray, brittle and has been falling out since menopause anyway. I've been called a lesbo sometimes because of it, but it's far from the truth. And yet, I still managed to snag the man I married in college.

As to the matter of women's makeup and adornments, doesn't the Bible mention this in several places as abhorrent?

1 Peter 3:3-4 KJV - Whose adorning let it not be that outward [adorning] of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

Jeremiah 4:30 KJV - And [when] thou [art] spoiled, what wilt thou do? Though thou clothest thyself with crimson, though thou deckest thee with ornaments of gold, though thou rentest thy face with painting, in vain shalt thou make thyself fair; [thy] lovers will despise thee, they will seek thy life.

Of course, I do violate the Bible's tenants by wearing male appearing clothes. I'm in a Catch 22, aren't I?

Deuteronomy 22:5 KJV - The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so [are] abomination unto the LORD thy God.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I would have to disagree with you when you say it's something some women are born with. I think that any woman has the potential, but based on what I've seen it's something that is imprinted by example, at a young age, and reinforced by experience (taking care of a younger sibling, baby doll, etc.

I never had any desire to produce children, from any age. I have no love for children at all. Kittens maybe, not humans. There was no trauma, bad imprinting, nor learned dislike of children in my life. I fought with my brother and sister just like any sibling would, but that's normal. We were family. I just don't have that maternal instinct, at all. I never played with dolls, or played dress up, or any of those girlie things when I was young. Oh, it was available, almost forced on me, but I rarely gravitated towards it when I was given a choice. I was a rough houser and firecracker from the start and tended to play boy games. I liked mechanical tinkering and exploring, still do. I was this way from as young as I can remember. It's the way I am.

Well, I guess we all can agree that there's one verse in the Bible that TC believes.

Tunnel, this particular verse has been riddles time and again for a long LONG time. The problem is that is can not stand on its own. It was not meant to. It's part of explanation of a much larger idea.

Hate it how you will, but you are wrong.

This is a matter of doctrine. And while you won't care about That, it matters because it's what is agreed upon intent and taught. Both Cuda and I have been married a very long time and I guarantee you that our wives are not the soft, weak willed sponges that the popular culture likes to think that pieces of scripture like this engenders. Trust me. My wife is very strong willed and VERY smart. (placed in the top 5 in national debate..so I don't win many arguments ) She also see the need for a singular leader in the family. She deals with bills and many of the other things I don't have time for but after we talk out a situation, she'll leave it to me to drop the axe so to speak. Because I love her, I talk to her. get her feedback. discuss options and ramifications. Do we always agree? pht no and I try to make compromises where I can and that takes work on my part. There have been times when I won't yield on issues for various reasons, but those times are very rare.

There have been people that have abused this and used this scripture to do just as you have implied and voiced. There have been ministers that teach it that way too. (I've actually heard one years ago) They are wrong.

If you read through Genesis, do you remember WHY God created woman? Because he didn't want Adam to be alone. Adam was lonely, even with God hanging out with him. Not so Adam had someone to boss around and cook his dinner! lol. no.. We were meant to compliment each other; help each other out.

I get your anger about this. When I was young, 10 or 11ish, I used to be there too. As I read and heard some good solid teaching, I began to see otherwise. This took a number of years.

I guess the long and the short of all this is that even though you see this passage as you do, I want you to know that there are a good many of use that don't see it that way, nor practice it. We actively renounce it in fact. Am I trying to get you to "convert"? lol, no. It would take a whole lot more than a few paragraphs and ten years on a forum to do that. What I want is for you to understand that you have been lied to. Don't get hung up on the word "submit". It's an imperative to be sure, but context makes all the difference here.

Cheers.

*I see you posted while I was typing, apologies if you addressed some of this in that*

Which verse? I named a couple.

Line 22 says it all

Line 22 doesn't say what you are twisting it to say. And I've already proved you wrong in your interpretation. Your wrong there is no shame in admitting it.
Hell I was wrong once too. It happened many years ago when I thought I was wrong but I was actually right

tunnelcat wrote:Which verse? I named a couple.

Do you read all your books by taking 1 sentence from each chapter?

LOL and as for 1 Peter
The verse is talking about focusing on inward beauty, their CHARACTER, which will help to win over your unbelieving husband to Christ. BY THEIR ACTIONS not by their looks.


3 Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won overwithout words by the behavior of their wives, 2 when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. 
3 Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. 4 Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight.

The Bible is not the book you continually insist on try to make it out to be.

CUDA, you're not understanding me. It's not the Bible I'm complaining about, although I still think it's a book written by paternalistic, suspicious and frightened people in an ancient time trying to explain the world around them and thus not really believable. I only understand it as a historical parable. I'm just too logical and science oriented to have the faith. What bothers me is the people who interpret it and use in ways to attack or marginalize those they don't like, or fear, or hate. And you'll have to admit, it can be interpreted in a myriad of ways, depending on one's biases or inclinations. Even I misinterpret it because of my own biases.

But I'll admit, not all Christians are that way. I make dash judgements at times. There are many here, like you, Duper and flip, who are very nice and understanding.

Not directed at you TC.
But I find a certain sense of surrealism when there are a lot of people out there that will judge ALL Christians by the acts of the Westboro Baptist Church. while those same people will say you cannot judge all Muslims by the radicals. Hypocrisy in it's truest form.

tunnelcat wrote:I'm just too logical and science oriented to have the faith.

Are you... Behind the mask of most who are logical and scientific is a person who does not have the strength of character to acknowledge indicators that do not play by their emotionally-defined and overly-restrictive rules. Anyone who is truly logical or scientific knows that we as men and women are anything but. True science is not the antithesis to faith, it is a continual insistence on truth above all else, wielding the wisdom to know our own shortcomings in ascertaining or grasping truth.

As far as "nice and understanding", a person who is only reasonable with those who go out of their way to be reasonable is in a bad place.

That's not what I was told Thorne:

22 Flee the evil desires of youth and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, along with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart. 23 Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. 24 And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. 25 Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, 26 and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.

Honestly, if people of science were to look at how everything actually is, and not dwell on stuff they learned 20 years ago, they would realize that everything is a form of light (electromagnetic energy) and made of atomic particles. That opens up a world of possibilities, because it means it is all subject to manipulation. It means that the instant that 2 or more particles are combined it changes form and becomes something else. I have found nothing inconsistent with true scripture and true science.

CUDA wrote:Not directed at you TC.
But I find a certain sense of surrealism when there are a lot of people out there that will judge ALL Christians by the acts of the Westboro Baptist Church. while those same people will say you cannot judge all Muslims by the radicals. Hypocrisy in it's truest form.

AND, as bad as the Westboro Baptist Church is- they have NOT in one SINGLE instance beheaded someone, stoned women or killed anyone they have condemned to 'hell.'

Yes, the Westboro Baptist Church is reprehensible to its core- but you have to step back and see what the body count is.

CUDA wrote:Not directed at you TC.
But I find a certain sense of surrealism when there are a lot of people out there that will judge ALL Christians by the acts of the Westboro Baptist Church. while those same people will say you cannot judge all Muslims by the radicals. Hypocrisy in it's truest form.

No, I'm essentially equal opportunity when it comes to Muslims. I want no part of their religion to even make the foundation of law in this country. Their normal, religiously sanctioned treatment of women and I'm not even talking about their fringe element radical kill the infidels behavior either, just plain abhors me. They can practice their religion all they want, just don't force me to live under it.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Are you... Behind the mask of most who are logical and scientific is a person who does not have the strength of character to acknowledge indicators that do not play by their emotionally-defined and overly-restrictive rules. Anyone who is truly logical or scientific knows that we as men and women are anything but. True science is not the antithesis to faith, it is a continual insistence on truth above all else, wielding the wisdom to know our own shortcomings in ascertaining or grasping truth.

As far as "nice and understanding", a person who is only reasonable with those who go out of their way to be reasonable is in a bad place.

There was no science as we know it today back when the Bible was written. There was only superstition and fear of the unknown. Today, we have more information, and some of that contradicts the Bible, like the age of the earth and universe. Granted, nothing we see today is proof of anything factual either. But I'm more inclined to see with my own eyes and not any fear of the unknown.

flip wrote:Honestly, if people of science were to look at how everything actually is, and not dwell on stuff they learned 20 years ago, they would realize that everything is a form of light (electromagnetic energy) and made of atomic particles. That opens up a world of possibilities, because it means it is all subject to manipulation. It means that the instant that 2 or more particles are combined it changes form and becomes something else. I have found nothing inconsistent with true scripture and true science.

flip, you're right. That's why I don't discount the existence of a omnipotent being and another plane of existence. A God's existence can't be proved or disproved at the moment. The possibility is out there though. We won't really know the truth of things until we die and change planes of existence. Then we will either transcend and discover the truth, or just become nothing but vanishing energy and degrading biomass. The only thing worse I can think of is to be reincarnated again on this planet, in any form. My version of Hell.

tunnelcat wrote:There was only superstition and fear of the unknown. Today, we have more information, and some of that contradicts the Bible, like the age of the earth and universe.

You say we have more information, and that's largely true, but what's the difference between information you don't actually understand now, and popular superstition then? I don't see a practical difference. People still accept it for the same reasons, whether they're closer to the truth or not. I don't happen to believe that they have the age of the earth right.

Yea…the age of the earth is likely to be off by a few million years or so…