100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: When the Bible is discredited... | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Peter_Pan69
on
Mon 07/04/11 02:55 PM
|
|
There is a much larger, more well equipped, emotionally more stable, spiritually freeing and more beautiful world after you get past the bible and what it has to teach you. You will find the bible is actually restrictive of growth at mental, emotional and spiritual levels. No, that world comes before the Bible. It's just a shame it takes so many people too long to realise it.... Says the restricted mind....lol Yes, a restricted mind says "lol". A wise mind says "have fun!". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mg wrote: Hogwash, is that kinda like a car wash? Your right I really shouldn't talk about love so much. It's my way of distracting you so I can give you a big kiss lol. We're talking about the credibility of ancient superstitions. I'm not sure what love has to do with it. I'm personally not interested in being kissed by other men.  If you want to show me love buy me some new blades for my radial arm saw. Not meant to sound 'macho'. But I really do enjoy being creative and productive and I do a lot of woodwork. So tools are useful for creativity and people who give me tools are indeed giving me a really big KISS of sorts.  A lippy kiss just potentially spreads germs.  So kiss me metaphorically by showering me with tools. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wives should regard their husbands as they regard the Lord, since, just as Christ is head of the church so the husband is head of his wife. And just as the church submits to Christ, so should wives submit to their husbands in everything. The husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church. In a perfect world, if men were kind, loving, responsible, and worked to support a family and did not beat his wife, then I would not mind letting my husband be the head of the family. Too bad, it just does not work out that way. That is why you can't go by the suggestions or 'rules' if they don't work. Truly. These principles are just unrealistic in the real world. Surely a real God would have been intelligent enough to recognize that the ancient Hebrews were themselves not behaving well enough to live up to these standards. What kind of a God would be so stupid as to continue to hold out laws of "perfection" to a society that was clearly nowhere near perfect? That would imply that the God was either not paying attention, or wasn't smart enough to figure out that his lust to have a perfect creation just wasn't panning out. Beside, if everything that that "perfect" why would anyone need to be the HEAD of the household?  If the world were that perfect a married couple who loves each other should be able to come to a consensus on everything as an egalitarian whole. In fact, isn't that the whole idea of "marriage". Two people joining together to become ONE. If the man is the "head" of the new creature, than what would the woman be? The ***? I'm just asking? ~~~~~ But seriously if a married couple are supposed to have joined together in "Holy Matrimony" to live as one seamless whole, then no one should be the head of the other. They should be able to arrive at a common consensus on everything as a loving whole. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No it is in there. Do you mean this? "The immolation of this young woman was not untypical of the way women were regarded in biblical times. Even their menstrual periods were seen as reprehensible. She shall remain in her impurity for seven days. Everything she lies on or sits on shall be regarded as unclean. Whoever touches her clothes or her bed shall wash his clothes and bathe, but will remain unclean throughout the day. And if her period goes beyond seven days, she is to take two turtledoves and two young pigeons to the priest and the priest shall make atonement for her before the Lord for her unclean discharge." I still don't see it, is it somewhere else? wow, its interesting to learn that the concept of 'unclean' originated in the bible,, now, I imagine non christians would find mensrual blood completely clean and pure,,,even though the MEDICAL community probably disagrees but I guess they have also been indoctrinated and infiltrated by that evil, judgmental book and its followers.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wives should regard their husbands as they regard the Lord, since, just as Christ is head of the church so the husband is head of his wife. And just as the church submits to Christ, so should wives submit to their husbands in everything. The husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church. In a perfect world, if men were kind, loving, responsible, and worked to support a family and did not beat his wife, then I would not mind letting my husband be the head of the family. Too bad, it just does not work out that way. That is why you can't go by the suggestions or 'rules' if they don't work. Truly. These principles are just unrealistic in the real world. Surely a real God would have been intelligent enough to recognize that the ancient Hebrews were themselves not behaving well enough to live up to these standards. What kind of a God would be so stupid as to continue to hold out laws of "perfection" to a society that was clearly nowhere near perfect? That would imply that the God was either not paying attention, or wasn't smart enough to figure out that his lust to have a perfect creation just wasn't panning out. Beside, if everything that that "perfect" why would anyone need to be the HEAD of the household? If the world were that perfect a married couple who loves each other should be able to come to a consensus on everything as an egalitarian whole. In fact, isn't that the whole idea of "marriage". Two people joining together to become ONE. If the man is the "head" of the new creature, than what would the woman be? The ***? I'm just asking? ~~~~~ But seriously if a married couple are supposed to have joined together in "Holy Matrimony" to live as one seamless whole, then no one should be the head of the other. They should be able to arrive at a common consensus on everything as a loving whole. doesnt YOUR body have a head? Im confused,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No it is in there. Do you mean this? "The immolation of this young woman was not untypical of the way women were regarded in biblical times. Even their menstrual periods were seen as reprehensible. She shall remain in her impurity for seven days. Everything she lies on or sits on shall be regarded as unclean. Whoever touches her clothes or her bed shall wash his clothes and bathe, but will remain unclean throughout the day. And if her period goes beyond seven days, she is to take two turtledoves and two young pigeons to the priest and the priest shall make atonement for her before the Lord for her unclean discharge." I still don't see it, is it somewhere else? wow, its interesting to learn that the concept of 'unclean' originated in the bible,, now, I imagine non christians would find mensrual blood completely clean and pure,,,even though the MEDICAL community probably disagrees but I guess they have also been indoctrinated and infiltrated by that evil, judgmental book and its followers..... Nostradomus used the health laws (unclean) when he entered cities when most physicians were fleeing because they had no idea what to do. His Jewish upbringing had taught him how to get rid of a plague. and it worked.. Imagine that.. Blessings..Miles |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
doesnt YOUR body have a head? Im confused,,, What would that have to do with two people getting together who both have heads? Why should only one of their heads be the head of their union? What's wrong with consensus? Are people so convinced that no two people can ever come to a consensus that they feel a desperate need that only one person should have the "final say"? ~~~~ Personally I favor consensus. And if they can't come to a consensus then maybe they should rethink their whole relationship. Why should one person have to always put up with the other person always getting their way. And why should that person always be the woman? That derogatory right there. If they are going to skip the consensus part and just have one person be the HEAD of the family, then they should take turns and do it 50/50 with the man getting his way during the new moon and the woman getting her way during the full moon. Or some other 50/50 arrangement. Also, if they can't come to a consensus on the BIG ISSUES then they should question what the hell they ever got married for in the first place. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not so much for necessarily adhering to all principles set forth in the Bible, but the traditional family roles seem sound enough. I mean, if two parents have children, it behooves us to say that it is in the best interest of the children for the parents to be united in morals, values, and procedures.
Naturally, one could argue about why the husband should be the leader or the follower and vice-versa. As far as I can tell, it does not matter who the brings home the bacon, and who cooks it. What does seem to matter is that the children develop bonding with both parents and I think that in order for this to happen, babysitters are out at an early age. The childrens' trust in their parents need not be breached. The parents trust between each other need not be breached. Trust, on my view, is not only the fundamental basis of the family unit, but also the fundamental basis of any given personal relationship and therefore because society itself is utterly dependent upon trust... society as a whole. I mean, this point underwrites each and every discussion on this board, does it not? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
jrbogie
on
Tue 07/05/11 09:12 AM
|
|
Naturally, one could argue about why the husband should be the leader or the follower and vice-versa. As far as I can tell, it does not matter who the brings home the bacon, and who cooks it. hahahaha. not laughing at you cs but reminds me of a funny happening during the last presidential race. my daughter, who is a devout christian and i mean seriously so, and i were watching one of the televised debates. after hilary had responded to a question my daughter said that she could never vote for hilary to be president. i asked her why and she replied that if whe were president then the bible mandates that she must follow the wishes of her husband so in effect bubba would again have all the power in america.  i suppose she's had enough of the monica thing, who hasn't, but c'mon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No worries here, bogie.
Indeed, the irony being that I seriously doubt that Hillary listens much to Bill anyway... A marriage of convenience, it seems. She was quoted as saying something to the effect of she did not care much what he did, as long as he did it in private, and kept it that way so that he would not embarrass her...  Ah well. To each their own I suppose. The funny thing is, if the above is accurate, then she still trusted him to not embarrass her, even though other kinds of trust are obviously out if ya know what I mean. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
jrbogie
on
Tue 07/05/11 10:43 AM
|
|
hey, think about it, cs. first there was the 'obama wasn't born in america' fiasco, lately governor rick perry must be barred from runing because he opined on texas seceding from the union, supposedly a violation of the fourteenth amendment, and now if hillary were to run again it can't happen because that would be like electing bubba again and he's constitutionally prohibited more than two terms.
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obama has an "in" with Bill anyway... right? For all we know, Bill and Georgie porgie puddin and pie very well might be influencing Obama's thinking to some degree on some matters. He publicly meets with both.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not so much for necessarily adhering to all principles set forth in the Bible, but the traditional family roles seem sound enough. I mean, if two parents have children, it behooves us to say that it is in the best interest of the children for the parents to be united in morals, values, and procedures. Naturally, one could argue about why the husband should be the leader or the follower and vice-versa. As far as I can tell, it does not matter who the brings home the bacon, and who cooks it. What does seem to matter is that the children develop bonding with both parents and I think that in order for this to happen, babysitters are out at an early age. The childrens' trust in their parents need not be breached. The parents trust between each other need not be breached. Trust, on my view, is not only the fundamental basis of the family unit, but also the fundamental basis of any given personal relationship and therefore because society itself is utterly dependent upon trust... society as a whole. I mean, this point underwrites each and every discussion on this board, does it not? I don't see where things like monogamy, a family unit, trust, morals or any of these concepts is unique to the biblical picture of God. This is a point that many Christians argue on, but it's an extremely weak point regarding the biblical picture. From my perspective the negative concepts of the biblical picture far outweigh the coincidental positive concepts. For example, God condoning that the man should be the head of the household is a negative concept for the very reason that it removes the egalitarian nature of the relationship and thus taints it with fascism. This would have been just as true had God condoned the woman to be the head of the household. Actually from a philosophical point of view if one member did have the last word it most certainly should be the member of the family that actually gives birth to the family, IMHO. If procreation was God's will and desire, then it is the woman who is providing God with his wet dream and man is a mere helpmate in the process. Seriously though. Why should the man be the head of the household when he can't even produce a child? The whole religion is backwards. Besides, the biblical concepts that I renounce concerning families and the raising of children is the negative approach to learning. In fact, there is hardly anything in the bible about how to actually mentor children in a positive encouraging way. Instead it's all based on fear and punishment should someone fail to obey and honor their parents, elders, or God. It's not based on healthy positive encouragement and mentoring, but instead it's based on doing what you're told lest you bring upon yourself the wrath of punishments for your failure to comply and obey. That's an extremely ignorant approach to mentoring and teaching, IMHO. Yet this is the MODEL given to us by the Hebrews as their vision of God. A God who is so ignorant that all he does is give commandments and demand obedience lest he'll punish the rebellious child for refusing to obey. I do not support those tactics for human parents, why would I support those tactics for a supposedly all-wise supreme being? Those tactics and that entire mindset is what I expect from people who are either too ignorant to know how to properly teaching using encouraging methods, or they are just too lazy to put for the effort and patience required to properly mentor their children using intelligent positive methods. So from my perspective the biblical view of a God actually instills people with a mentality that I personally would not support. And to make matters worse they point to the Bible and say, "Hey if it's a good enough method for God, then it's good enough for me" Well, I seriously doubt that such rude, crude and ignorant methods came from any supposedly all-wise all-intelligent God. Those methods simply are neither wise nor intelligent, IMHO. A God who punishes his daughters by causing them to have pain in childbirth? That's utterly sick IMHO, and certainly does not equate to the actions that I would expect from a supposedly all-wise all-benevolent supreme being. Especially a creator who's greatest creation is supposed to be humans themselves. To taint the very creation of a new human babies by cursing their mothers with pain in the process of giving birth is sick beyond anything I can imagine. How anyone can worship a deity that would do such a dastardly thing is beyond me. That's just sick beyond sick, IMHO. Instead of making excuses for these outrageous superstitious myths people should be asking themselves, "Would a truly divine being be like these idiot Hebrews claim?" That's a valid question that some people seem to be truly too paranoid to even seriously consider. They have been so convinced (probably on a subconscious level) that if they question the validity of these biblical tales this God will condemn to hell at worst, or at best merely allow them to die like an atheists and miss out on Disney Heaven that they won't even consider the possibility that the Hebrew scriptures could be nothing more than a complete fabrication of a male-chauvinistic highly patriarchal society. If people today were still acting like the ancient Hebrews were in the Old Testament we'd call them "The Taliban", and just renounce their disgusting male-chauvinistic ways. Yet ironically people apparently do both. They support the Old Testament as the "Word of God" and renounce "The Taliban" as being ungodly sick people. They have their cake and eat it too somehow. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Bible has not been discredited. If you do some serious objective study you will find that it is one of the most historically substantiated books ever written. Do you know how many copies that they have of the New Testament?
Jesus is a historical person. We even started our dating system from his lifetime. like 2011 years ago. Whatever the "lies" that one person above referred to, I would like to know what they are? Please tell. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How is the Bible restrictive?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tkitoff wrote: The Bible has not been discredited. Sure it has. The biblical story claims that mankind's fall from grace was what brought death and all manner of imperfections into the world. But today we know that this isn't true. Death, disease, and a dog-eat-dog world existed long before mankind appeared on the planet. They act of giving birth is most likely a painful process for all mammals, not just humans. Yet the Bible claims that God made childbirth painful to punish Eve. So it's pretty clear that these things were just the superstitions of ancient men who were ignorant of truth. If you do some serious objective study you will find that it is one of the most historically substantiated books ever written. I have done serious objective study and I haven't come to that conclusion. On the contrary I find many of the tales to be truly unreasonable and in some cases quite absurd. Do you know how many copies that they have of the New Testament? So what? That's utterly meaningless. Christianity is the most proselytized and evangelized religion in the world. So they waste a lot of paper making a lot of copies of their doctrine. That doesn't give it any merit. Jesus is a historical person. We even started our dating system from his lifetime. like 2011 years ago. Christians started the dating system based on their religion because they were in a position to do so. Again, that doesn't give any support to the reality of the man their doctrine claims was the "son of God" Whatever the "lies" that one person above referred to, I would like to know what they are? Please tell. I'm not sure what "lies" you are referring to, but I can tell you this much, the Christians spread lies about the New Testament all the time. They often refer to is as the word of Jesus, but there is not one single solitary word in the New Testament that is claimed to have been written by the man named Jesus. The TRUTH is that the entire New Testament is all nothing more than hearsay rumors. Rumors that no living person today can claim to know are anymore more than superstitious exaggerations. In fact, if anyone makes such a claim they are the one who is lying. The whole religion is entirely a faith-based religion. A person needs to believe that God punishes all women with painful childbirth on pure FAITH. A person needs to believe that all men are sinners and are in dire need of repentance on pure FAITH. A person needs to believe that Jesus cast seven demons out of Mary Magdelene on pure FAITH. A person needs to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin on pure FAITH. A person needs to believe on pure FAITH that God spoke to a crowd from the clouds confirming that Jesus was his beloved son, yet no one wrote about that event save for a couple authors of the New Testament. A person needs to believe on pure FAITH that a multitude of saints rose from their graves when Jesus was supposedly resurrected and went into the holy city to show themselves to the people there, yet no one wrote about that even save for a couple authors of the New Testament. A person needs to believe in pure FAITH that this supposedly benevolent God will condemn them to everlasting punishment if they fail to believe in these outrageous stories. There are no rational reasons to believe any of these things. These are all entirely FAITH based beliefs. And that's the TRUTH. Isaac Newton finally concluded that it is not a believable story. Albert Einstein rejected it. Carl Sagan said that the stage is far too big for the plot. In other words, the universe is far too vast and contains far too many stars and galaxies to support a human-centric picture of creation. Richard Feynman did not believe it. Stephen Hawking does not believe it. Stephen Weinberg had this to say about it, "Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things, but it takes religion to get good people to do bad things. And Christian has certainly caused a lot of bad things to be done in the name of Jesus Christ, Satan, and God. In fact, you asked if I know how many copies of the Christian Bible there are. Well do you have a clue that during the "Burning Times" the two most popular Books were The Bible, and The Malleus Maleficarum, or "Witches Hammer". And they were treated as representing the instructions from the same God. The Malleus Maleficarum was written by two Christian monks who believed to be "inspired by God". For over 300 years tens of thousands of innocent women were tortured and burned alive at a state in the name of Jesus Christ they almighty savior, for having sold their souls to Satan. Yes, Christians will PRINT any damn thing!  So are you going to support the ideal that we should stand by the Malleus Maleficarum just because it almost trumped the Bible in the number of copies printed in its day? Obviously the circulation of books that contain superstitions and lies has absolutely nothing at all to do with their credibility.  There is no rational reason for anyone to believe in the Bible. It's would a faith-based and fear-based religion. And most people believe in it either out of faith that they'll be rewarded for worshiping this God, or out of fear that if they fail to worship this religion they will be cast into the pits of eternal hell.  It's a FEAR-FAITH based religion is all. It has no rational merit whatsoever. None. And that's the truth. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tkitoff wrote: The Bible has not been discredited. Sure it has. The biblical story claims that mankind's fall from grace was what brought death and all manner of imperfections into the world. But today we know that this isn't true. Death, disease, and a dog-eat-dog world existed long before mankind appeared on the planet. They act of giving birth is most likely a painful process for all mammals, not just humans. Yet the Bible claims that God made childbirth painful to punish Eve. So it's pretty clear that these things were just the superstitions of ancient men who were ignorant of truth. If you do some serious objective study you will find that it is one of the most historically substantiated books ever written. I have done serious objective study and I haven't come to that conclusion. On the contrary I find many of the tales to be truly unreasonable and in some cases quite absurd. Do you know how many copies that they have of the New Testament? So what? That's utterly meaningless. Christianity is the most proselytized and evangelized religion in the world. So they waste a lot of paper making a lot of copies of their doctrine. That doesn't give it any merit. Jesus is a historical person. We even started our dating system from his lifetime. like 2011 years ago. Christians started the dating system based on their religion because they were in a position to do so. Again, that doesn't give any support to the reality of the man their doctrine claims was the "son of God" Whatever the "lies" that one person above referred to, I would like to know what they are? Please tell. I'm not sure what "lies" you are referring to, but I can tell you this much, the Christians spread lies about the New Testament all the time. They often refer to is as the word of Jesus, but there is not one single solitary word in the New Testament that is claimed to have been written by the man named Jesus. The TRUTH is that the entire New Testament is all nothing more than hearsay rumors. Rumors that no living person today can claim to know are anymore more than superstitious exaggerations. In fact, if anyone makes such a claim they are the one who is lying. The whole religion is entirely a faith-based religion. A person needs to believe that God punishes all women with painful childbirth on pure FAITH. A person needs to believe that all men are sinners and are in dire need of repentance on pure FAITH. A person needs to believe that Jesus cast seven demons out of Mary Magdelene on pure FAITH. A person needs to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin on pure FAITH. A person needs to believe on pure FAITH that God spoke to a crowd from the clouds confirming that Jesus was his beloved son, yet no one wrote about that event save for a couple authors of the New Testament. A person needs to believe on pure FAITH that a multitude of saints rose from their graves when Jesus was supposedly resurrected and went into the holy city to show themselves to the people there, yet no one wrote about that even save for a couple authors of the New Testament. A person needs to believe in pure FAITH that this supposedly benevolent God will condemn them to everlasting punishment if they fail to believe in these outrageous stories. There are no rational reasons to believe any of these things. These are all entirely FAITH based beliefs. And that's the TRUTH. Isaac Newton finally concluded that it is not a believable story. Albert Einstein rejected it. Carl Sagan said that the stage is far too big for the plot. In other words, the universe is far too vast and contains far too many stars and galaxies to support a human-centric picture of creation. Richard Feynman did not believe it. Stephen Hawking does not believe it. Stephen Weinberg had this to say about it, "Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things, but it takes religion to get good people to do bad things. And Christian has certainly caused a lot of bad things to be done in the name of Jesus Christ, Satan, and God. In fact, you asked if I know how many copies of the Christian Bible there are. Well do you have a clue that during the "Burning Times" the two most popular Books were The Bible, and The Malleus Maleficarum, or "Witches Hammer". And they were treated as representing the instructions from the same God. The Malleus Maleficarum was written by two Christian monks who believed to be "inspired by God". For over 300 years tens of thousands of innocent women were tortured and burned alive at a state in the name of Jesus Christ they almighty savior, for having sold their souls to Satan. Yes, Christians will PRINT any damn thing! So are you going to support the ideal that we should stand by the Malleus Maleficarum just because it almost trumped the Bible in the number of copies printed in its day? Obviously the circulation of books that contain superstitions and lies has absolutely nothing at all to do with their credibility. There is no rational reason for anyone to believe in the Bible. It's would a faith-based and fear-based religion. And most people believe in it either out of faith that they'll be rewarded for worshiping this God, or out of fear that if they fail to worship this religion they will be cast into the pits of eternal hell. It's a FEAR-FAITH based religion is all. It has no rational merit whatsoever. None. And that's the truth. Sure it has. The biblical story claims that mankind's fall from grace was what brought death and all manner of imperfections into the world. But today we know that this isn't true. Death, disease, and a dog-eat-dog world existed long before mankind appeared on the planet. Didn't bring these things into the world, don't know where you get that. The diseases and everything has always been here. But we didn't have to face them, for we were in the Garden of Eden before here. This world isn't the Garden of Eden eg., the paradise where their was no foul things. You're speaking of two totally different places as they were one. They act of giving birth is most likely a painful process for all mammals, not just humans. Yet the Bible claims that God made childbirth painful to punish Eve. Again, comparing living in the Garden to living here on Earth and not to animals. The animals have nothing to do with this, weather their child birth is painful or not is irrelevant. The TRUTH is that the entire New Testament is all nothing more than hearsay rumors. Rumors that no living person today can claim to know are anymore more than superstitious exaggerations. Any and all information from the past can be seen that way years on down the road. All the history we have in our books may very well just be propaganda to pain this person(s) out to be the way they wanted to tell the story of that specific thing in history. I'll use your way of thinking here, how would you know if history is true or not, you weren't there? The whole religion is entirely a faith-based religion. Point being? Anything and everything almost is faith-based. The sun coming up tomorrow is faith-based, for you do not know for sure if it will or won't. It has no rational merit whatsoever. Well you talk about the Christian faith having no merit for it is purely faith based. Well you're rejection of this is purely on an opinion but the statements above shows you don't and aren't looking for any factual evidence of anything. Your mind is made up and to you, you know for sure it's wrong. So what is greater? Faith based? Or opinionated based? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sure it has. The biblical story claims that mankind's fall from grace was what brought death and all manner of imperfections into the world. But today we know that this isn't true. Death, disease, and a dog-eat-dog world existed long before mankind appeared on the planet. Cowboy responded: Didn't bring these things into the world, don't know where you get that. The diseases and everything has always been here. But we didn't have to face them, for we were in the Garden of Eden before here. This world isn't the Garden of Eden eg., the paradise where their was no foul things. You're speaking of two totally different places as they were one. I'm speaking to the biblical picture of God and creation Cowboy. According to the Bible God created the heavens and the Earth. And then he set about creating all the animals that are on the Earth. And he saw that it was GOOD. So are you coming up with the fairytale of two totally different places? Clearly that's not the biblical story. You're simply wrong. They act of giving birth is most likely a painful process for all mammals, not just humans. Yet the Bible claims that God made childbirth painful to punish Eve. Cowboy responded: Again, comparing living in the Garden to living here on Earth and not to animals. The animals have nothing to do with this, weather their child birth is painful or not is irrelevant. And again, you're the one who apparently has the wrong creation story. I'm talking about the biblical story of creation where God created the Earth and saw that it was GOOD. A diseased dog-eat-dog world would not be "Good". So you're grasping at straws that simply aren't in the biblical story. Your excuses don't have anything to do with the biblical fables of God. The TRUTH is that the entire New Testament is all nothing more than hearsay rumors. Rumors that no living person today can claim to know are anymore more than superstitious exaggerations. Cowboy responded: Any and all information from the past can be seen that way years on down the road. All the history we have in our books may very well just be propaganda to pain this person(s) out to be the way they wanted to tell the story of that specific thing in history. I'll use your way of thinking here, how would you know if history is true or not, you weren't there? Cowboy, we've already tried to explain this to you a billion times. It's called independent evidence. For many historical events there is an overwhelming abundance of independent evidence and eyewitness accounts. Moreover, any so-called "history" that is being taught that cannot be supported by overwhelming independent evidence should not be taught as "history". Much of what is taught as "history" probably is nothing more than speculation based on fragmented information and guesses. The whole religion is entirely a faith-based religion. Cowboy responded: Point being? Anything and everything almost is faith-based. The sun coming up tomorrow is faith-based, for you do not know for sure if it will or won't. The sun coming up tomorrow is only faith based if it's important to you that it comes up. Some people realize that there may come a day when it won't come up for whatever reason. Or perhaps if it does come up it might be extra larger and super hot and we'll be wishing it didn't come up on that particular day. Besides no one is threatening to cast you into a state of everlasting punishment if you don't have faith that the sun will come up tomorrow. So who cares whether you have faith that the sun will come up? It either will, or it won't. Period. Your "faith" in the matter is totally irrelevant. It has no rational merit whatsoever. Well you talk about the Christian faith having no merit for it is purely faith based. Well you're rejection of this is purely on an opinion but the statements above shows you don't and aren't looking for any factual evidence of anything. Your mind is made up and to you, you know for sure it's wrong. So what is greater? Faith based? Or opinionated based? Faith and opinion are precisely the same thing Cowboy. So in truth you could say that it's an opinion-based religion. That would work just as well. But hey if you prefer to believe that you were the reason your creator had to have his son crucified to pay for you hateful rebellious attitude toward God, then be my guest. I never felt that way about my creator so I see no reason to believe such obvious lies. Why should I believe such outrageous lies that are being made about me personally when I already know full well that they clearly aren't true? That would be like you charging me with murder. I know I haven't committed murder so why should I buy into your clearly false accusations? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
doesnt YOUR body have a head? Im confused,,, What would that have to do with two people getting together who both have heads? Why should only one of their heads be the head of their union? What's wrong with consensus? Are people so convinced that no two people can ever come to a consensus that they feel a desperate need that only one person should have the "final say"? ~~~~ Personally I favor consensus. And if they can't come to a consensus then maybe they should rethink their whole relationship. Why should one person have to always put up with the other person always getting their way. And why should that person always be the woman? That derogatory right there. If they are going to skip the consensus part and just have one person be the HEAD of the family, then they should take turns and do it 50/50 with the man getting his way during the new moon and the woman getting her way during the full moon. Or some other 50/50 arrangement. Also, if they can't come to a consensus on the BIG ISSUES then they should question what the hell they ever got married for in the first place. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Dragoness
on
Wed 07/06/11 03:32 PM
|
|
No it is in there. Do you mean this? "The immolation of this young woman was not untypical of the way women were regarded in biblical times. Even their menstrual periods were seen as reprehensible. She shall remain in her impurity for seven days. Everything she lies on or sits on shall be regarded as unclean. Whoever touches her clothes or her bed shall wash his clothes and bathe, but will remain unclean throughout the day. And if her period goes beyond seven days, she is to take two turtledoves and two young pigeons to the priest and the priest shall make atonement for her before the Lord for her unclean discharge." I still don't see it, is it somewhere else? wow, its interesting to learn that the concept of 'unclean' originated in the bible,, now, I imagine non christians would find mensrual blood completely clean and pure,,,even though the MEDICAL community probably disagrees but I guess they have also been indoctrinated and infiltrated by that evil, judgmental book and its followers..... No one said unclean originated in the bible. I guess it would surprise bible thumpers to learn most good ideas came from elsewhere than from the bible. Treatment of women during a naturally occurring function that allowed them to birth the children the ignorant men of this time wanted from them was wrong, regardless to what it is considered unclean. |
|
|
|
|
