It's pretty hard for some people to admit that 29" is a fad, so imagine how hard it is to admit that you're whole spiritual basis is wrong
Don't bring Singlespeeds into this.
camo16 - ah, okay, "love everyone" is the overall message. And it's a good one. Maybe that should be at the front in bold type or something, otherwise people might miss it amongst all the other stuff.
Okay, I'm kidding - but the basic problem is that either you take your religious text as gospel, in which case you are a dangerous fanatic, or you selectively take from it and reinterpret it, in which case what basis do you use for your editing?
My feeling is that most people are basically decent, so nice religious people take the nice bits from the Bible and ignore the rest - they impose their values on the Bible, not the other way around.
And of course evil bastards can find plenty of justification in the Bible for their views as well.
I love you, bencooper.
😀
Maybe that should be at the front in bold type or something, otherwise people might miss it amongst all the other stuff.
People had more time and patience in the olden days. Surely, you can't blame the Bible for a short attention span?
kja78, you really are turning yourself inside out trying to justify your position. What has not being a biblical hero go to do with anything? It is another case of a man being brought down by a woman, you know like you asked for.
As for your examples about the CofE and the baptist comunity almost accepting women as equals in the church, why not mention the catholic church. It seems odd to not mention the fact that women are excluded from the preisthood in what is the single largest christian church, well other than the fact that it doesn't support your argument.
One is tempted to ask, especially after so many abuse scandals, why the church is so obsessed with sex?
You put a bloke in a dress, tell him he can't have sex with women, and surround him with pubescent boys in nighties. It's only going to go one way really, isn't it.
What passages in the Bible specifically deal with homosexuality as we see it now? Erm, none.
Quite a few, it'd seem. See:
http://christianity.about.com/od/Bible-Verses/a/Bible-Verses-Homosexuality.htm
How about Leviticus 20:13 for a start?
"If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense."
Judges 19:16-24 is fun too. Bloke takes in a traveller for the night, and later a gang turn up on his doorstep demanding a spot of organised buggery. The old chap tells them his house guest's bottom is exit only, and offers up his virgin daughter for a bit of gang rape instead.
I think we all learned a valuable lesson here.
Seems Genesis 19:1-11 is ostensibly the same story, only with a bit of smiting and mass blinding thrown in for good measure.
Rusty, are you a Jew living in the wilderness having just escaped from slavery in Egypt? If not then I wouldn't worry about it.
Hang on a minute. We were told a minute ago that these stories were supposed to be allegorical. Which is it?
😉
People had more time and patience in the olden days. Surely, you can't blame the Bible for a short attention span?
Of course in the olden, olden days this wasn't an issue - the Bible was in Latin which no-one bar a few priests could read, so everyone was reliant on someone else's interpretation anyway. Who knew if your priest wasn't making stuff up ("The Bible says you should give me all your money") - in fact wasn't that Martin Luther's point?
Well, people having a "conversation" with a few people who have an imaginary friend.
It's going entirley as predicted so far.
in fact wasn't that Martin Luther's point?
And you say Christians are sex obsessed. 😉
Taking advantage of translation issues is, again, not the fault of the Bible, but of those who sought to continue (or abuse) its message.
Both the Bishops and Priests voted in favour of women bishops but the Laity didn't get quite a high enough vote. All three houses needed to be in agreement for the motion to carry. Actually the majority of people who voted, voted in favour.
This is correct, surprisingly the House of Laity has the highest percentage of women members.
If they're the representatives of god here on Earth and doing as his will commands, shouldn't they have all voted the same way?
Well, people having a "conversation" with a few people who have an imaginary friend.
Chapeau, sir.
Aren't we all imaginary friends here?
If they're the representatives of god here on Earth and doing as his will commands, shouldn't they have all voted the same way?
Are they representatives of God, though? Apart from the Pope, these guys/gals are just elected members of the clergy, aren't they?
If they're the representatives of god here on Earth and doing as his will commands, shouldn't they have all voted the same way?
Pesky free will, again
Sorry, but it's men (and I mean male human beings) which are sexist, not the God spoken about in the Bible.
What about that bit in Genesis, where the Christian God supposedly said to Eve (who he thoughtfully constructed from a rib as an afterthought), "Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you"?
As much as I love and desire Mr Toast, he doesn't rule over me (nor me over him).
EDIT: Oh, and the bit where women are supposed to go into seclusion when they're on the rag and blokes aren't allowed to talk or look at them, and afterwards the women are supposed to burn doves to 'purify' themselves. They should totally put that in a Bodyform advert...
Oh, and the bit where women are unclean after childbirth, but the 'unclean' time is shorter if they've had a boy.
Or the bit where Lot offers up his virgin daughters and his concubine for rape. Or the bit where he has sex with his daughters.
If they don't represent god but they picked the pope, how can the pope be a representative of god? what if they picked the wrong guy?Are they representatives of God, though? Apart from the Pope, these guys/gals are just elected members of the clergy, aren't they?
Or did god give them a hand in picking? in which case why did they need to vote or have more than one person doing the picking?
Aren't we all imaginary friends here?
Touché 😉
Funnily enough, I am good mates with a minister in the church. We don't discuss religion, ever. He tell me about stuff he does (binding people in holy monotony (his words!), telling a family their son has killed himself, stuff like that), I tell him about stuff I do (building weird bikes, exploring old shipyards, stuff like that).
We get on very well. He's a thoroughly decent bloke. I'm sure he'd be a thoroughly decent bloke even if he was an atheist.
If they don't represent god but they picked the pope, how can the pope be a representative of god? what if they picked the wrong guy?
I believe that, at times like this, a bit of faith is required.
I don't see how I'm turning myself inside out. The Bible is full of stories of women bringing men down, yes. This is a good thing. That's my point. God calls women to subvert the unacceptable male dominated society in which the Bible was written.
Why not mention the Catholic Church, well I'm not a Catholic for a start. But from what little I do know, what goes on in local churches comapared to what the media chooses to tell you about denominational hierachies are often not the same thing. I think that the Roman Catholic Church, and the Church of England, and many other denominational heirachies lost the plot a long time ago when it comes to issues of leadership. Jesus said 'Whoever wants to be first should be slave to all'. By that reckoning the true 'leaders' of the Catholic church are not the ones living in palaces in Rome.
Cougar - If you'd like to read an essay I wrote entitled 'A Biblical attitude to Homosexuality' you'd be very welcome, it deals with the passages of scripture you've quoted. I did offer the last time there was a discussion on STW about the church and homosexuality but on one person actually read it.
We get on very well. He's a thoroughly decent bloke. I'm sure he'd be a thoroughly decent bloke even if he was an atheist.
Good news! I reckon you're right...
I'm not Christian, but I have big problems with atheism, especially aggressive atheism, given that our minds are not particularly impressive in galactic terms and we're so easily distracted by nice MTBs, the weather and Dannii Minogue.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/epistles_of_paul/instructions_for_women/1co11_04.html
the old testament is full of woman hating
3 pages in 4 minutes
the lord doe sindeed work in mysterious if predictable ways
'A Biblical attitude to Homosexuality' you'd be very welcome, it deals with the passages of scripture you've quoted. I did offer the last time there was a discussion on STW about the church and homosexuality but on one person actually read it.
i read the essay it is a good read and he is on the liberal end of the church
given that our minds are not particularly impressive in galactic terms
well as afr as we know they are unique and impressive in their ability to understand things, the world etc
As for aggressive aethism I am never really sure what this means. For sure some peole dislike the message and the believers more than others but it is an importnat issue - i find it used as a bit of a lazy slur tbh used to charicature folk.
the old testament is full of woman hating
WOMEN KNOW YOUR PLACE - it is by your mans side, as he is the head of christ, doing what you are told
Surely everyone relaises a god would be sexist and hate gays and not have a n issue with slavery ..If that is not a moral code to live your life by then what is .....anyone who says different and i will do an intifada on you and murder you to death for your intolerance
the lord doe sindeed work in mysterious if predictable ways
I don't know. The gratuitous image of Rex Harrison from the Agony and the Ecstasy on page 4 came as a big surprise to me.
Mrs. Toast - How about the bits where both Jesus and Paul state catergorically that Christians are not bound by Old Testament Law? In fact Jesus was touched by a woman who had a permanent menstrual bleed and didn't consider himself to be unclean, indeed he alone in the society was kind to her, and showed she was valued.
As for Lot and his daughters, as with many things in the Bible it is recorded as 'history' but not neccessarily as a good thing. It seems to me that Lot wasn't thinking straight and was desperate for the two angels (if that's what they were) not to be raped. As it was, the angels prevented Lot from giving his daughters to the men of the town, and struck them down with blindness to protect Lot's family.
Lot and his daughters lived in a time when not having children or family was a disgrace and so slept with him to get pregnant, again though, the Bible doesn't comment on whether they were right to do this.
As for aggressive aethism I am never really sure what this means.
It means getting in touch with your inner Woppit.
The Bible is full of stories of women bringing men down, yes. This is a good thing.
Because they're strong, dynamic characters easily equal to their men, or because women are deceptive harlots and not to be trusted?
Cougar - If you'd like to read an essay I wrote entitled 'A Biblical attitude to Homosexuality' you'd be very welcome, it deals with the passages of scripture you've quoted. I did offer the last time there was a discussion on STW about the church and homosexuality but on one person actually read it.
Sure. Email in profile, I'll take a look at least. Whether I read it all depends on how long and tedious your writing is. (-:
Why not mention the Catholic Church, well I'm not a Catholic for a start.[\quote]Well you're not a member of the CofE either but you saw fit to talk about them.
But from what little I do know, what goes on in local churches comapared to what the media chooses to tell you about denominational hierachies are often not the same thingWell I can tell you what used to go on in the very recent past, women are considered suitable for general menial work, like cleaning the church and looking after the priest but nothing more than that. [s]How about answering MrsToast's points or have you written an essay about how what the bible says on those matters isn't really what the bible says on that too?[/s] edited for cross post.
How about the bits where both Jesus and Paul state catergorically that Christians are not bound by Old Testament Law?You asked for "biblical" examples and that is what you got. To now say that "oh the old part doesn't count" is a pathetic attempt to change the goalposts when you don't like the responses you got.
I don't think the Church is obsessed with sex, it is pretty much the only area that the mainstream media reports about, so many conclude that it is all that is discussed.
Well, Cougar if you're a young, liberal, post-modern Baptist minister it's
in fact I might even nick that statement for my next sermon.Because they're strong, dynamic characters easily equal to their men
gonefishin - look up!
As for aggressive aethism I am never really sure what this means. For sure some peole dislike the message and the believers more than others but it is an importnat issue - i find it used as a bit of a lazy slur tbh used to charicature folk.
Aggressive atheism - I wasn't aware it was a proper term, it's just a natty phrase I thought of to describe people who work really, really hard to deny God's existence/the potential of God's existence.
Is that a lazy slur? I don't think so. Such people exist. I'm not judging. Sheesh.
Doesn't matter though, because I love you Junkyard. Not quite as much as bencooper, but I do. A lot. 😉
bloodu typical always sloppy seconds even in love 😥
Yes but have you got a ban hammer to smite the unrighteous like Cougar
think he trumps you ttbh
How about the bits where both Jesus and Paul state catergorically that Christians are not bound by Old Testament Law?
Well that is mixed re lex talions [eye for an eye] but the 10 commandments - it really depends tbh which bits
Is that a lazy slur? I don't think so. Such people exist. I'm not judging. Sheesh.
These are few and far between. Even Dawkins isn't that - the only logical case is agnostic theism/atheism (I'm not sure but I think god does exist/doesn't exist).
Aggressive theism: kill people.
Aggressive atheism: write a strongly worded letter to the local paper.
Gnostic theism/atheism is where the problem lies, and it is mainly on the former.
I might even nick that statement for my next sermon.
Feel free. Bonus points if you mention it came from an atheist. (-:
The point I was getting at though isn't modern (re-)interpretation, so much as the message being portrayed by these characters. It's easy to say how not all women were second-class citizens because they sometimes get the better of their male peers, but if the underlying message is that they're responsible for the downfall of men then, well, that's not the great message you claim it is.
If you teach the former meaning ("strong women") then I applaud you for that; reinterpreting the Bible is no bad thing. (I've said this before, but modern Xtianity really could do with Bible 2.0, it'd stop dead all these logical inconsistency debates.)
No need to get narky gonefishin, Jesus' life, death and ressurection brought a New Covenant which replaced the Old one. Christians quote his words every time we take communion 'In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you."' Jesus did in fact move the goalposts, that's the whole point of Christianity. If you don't understand that then you don't understand the faith you are getting upset with. The covenant that existed between God and the Jews is not the same as the one that exists between God and Christians. So in fact 'the old part [i]doesn't[/i] count.
kja78 - I am surprised that you did not also point out that women were chosen to be the first witnesses to the resurrection
people who work really, really hard to deny God's existence/the potential of God's existence
It takes very little work surely?
So in fact 'the old part doesn't count.
Wait, so bumming's actually ok? Has anyone told the Church of England?
So basically the old testament is full of baloney that need not be listened to.How about the bits where both Jesus and Paul state catergorically that Christians are not bound by Old Testament Law?
So what was it's point?
Jesus did in fact move the goalposts, that's the whole point of Christianity. If you don't understand that then you don't understand the faith you are getting upset with.
The questions that were raised were about the bible, that includes both the old and new testaments. Thanks to my religious education I am very well veresed in the christian faith, well one schism of it anyway. Also thanks to that same education, well that and the abundant bigotry that stemmed from it, I am and athiest.
Cougar - I think the underlying message of those sorts of stories is that God hates arrogance, injustice, oppression, poverty etc etc. What he loves is equality. Whilst those women where responsible for the downfall of individual men, they were men who represented the very worst of a male dominated society. Neither women nor men should be trying to get one up on each other, but where there are clear injustices, then subversion may be a way of making things better.
It takes very little work surely?
No, scratching the surface will do nicely, sir. 🙄
* loves fervouredimage. Not quite as much as bencooper or Junkyard, but enough. *
Has anyone told the Church of England?
No, the catholics are keeping it for themselves.
The covenant that existed between God and the Jews is not the same as the one that exists between God and Christians.
What's the current Baptist attitude to Jews who deny Christ's divinity? Can they still be saved according to the Old Covenant? I'm aware that liberal Anglicans may think this, but as I don't know the Baptist position I'd be interested to know. Thanks.
mefty - I thought Cougar was getting a bit bored by my long and tedious writing. But yes, that would have been pretty radical in 1st Century Palestine, as was the fact that the shepherds were the first to hear about Christ's birth.
No, scratching the surface will do nicely.
Scratching the surface is all you can do with something so thin and flimsy.
badnewz - much to the amusement/annoyance of many atheists, Baptists don't have a set position on that. My personal believe is no, they cannot. Whilst Paul does wrestle with this issue in Romans and Corintians, I think he draws that conclusion that only faith in Christ can lead to salvation. I do have a couple of people in my congregation who believe firmly that all Jews will be saved, but they think that they will come to faith in Christ rather than be saved through the Old Covenant.
So basically the old testament is full of baloney that need not be listened to.
From what kja78 is saying, it would seem that the OT is "what was before," then Jesus came along in the year dot and attempted to fix things.
What he loves is equality.
Such as equal rights for any two people who love each other to get married irrespective of gender?
