dont you hate that some people use the bible to claim women are meant to be 'less' than men

the same way others use history books to claim that women and minorities are 'less' than white males......?


its all interpretative,

I personally hate it. Women are just as equal to men if not greater. That is why men are to take care of the women, they are to provide for them, they are to love them unconditionally. Not because they are less, or can't do it themselves, because they deserve it.

my point exactly. and nobody of any credibility whatsoever to say which interpretations are correct, especially in a forum such as this. does that not render any quoting of scripture here as meaningless? the scriptures that apply to this particular discussion are obviously found in the bible. but were the discussion instead of being about christian attitudes were about american attitudes then the only relevant scriptures would be found in the US constitution. the difference though, and it's a huge difference, is that unlike the bible, the constitution has given authority to the judicial branch for interpreting. so when discussion the constitution, our rights as citizens, etc., we can cite case history that clearly settles any differences in how we as mere citizens read the constitution. you can ask ten different people what the second amendment means, for instance, and get ten different answers but if one of the answers reflects the 2008 supreme court decision in heller v d.c. then that answer is the only one that counts. but there is nobody of any authority whatsoever that can interpret anything in the bible with any more credibility than a five year old child who attends sunday school. a child that quite likely firmly believes in santa clause.

i already regret pointing this out, but there is no difference between a group of men forming a constitution and giving power of interpretation to other men, as a group of men forming a religious group using the bible as a guide and giving power of interpretation to other men.

the constitution was formed and most people agree to allow the supreme court be the final say on interpretation

the bible was formed and most people disagree as to who has the final say on interpretation. i think it's the catholics who agree that the pope has the final say as far as interpretation goes where priests are not allowed to alter any teachings. other christian churches are fine with every pastor interpreting the bible as he sees fitting since said pastor was "spoken" to by god

as far as a five year old's interpretation goes, it doesn't matter if the reading material is the bible or dr. suess, the reading comprehension of a five year old is not the same as the reading comprehension of an adult

Blame the Jehovah's Sicknesses and the Church of Scientology,it's all their fault.These people are like Sleestaks.

you began this post with the point that "there is no difference between a group of men forming a constitution and giving power of interpretation to other men, as a group of men forming a religious group using the bible as a guide and giving power of interpretation to other men" and then you went on to point out the differences. so if you say there are differences, how can you say there is no difference?

you are correct in saying that the supreme court has been given the power to have the final say on the constitution. then you go on to say that, "the bible was formed and most people DISAGREE as to who has the final say on interpretation." is that not what i've said all along? if so, how can there be no difference in the two documents as goes who can interpret?

you began this post with the point that "there is no difference between a group of men forming a constitution and giving power of interpretation to other men, as a group of men forming a religious group using the bible as a guide and giving power of interpretation to other men" and then you went on to point out the differences. so if you say there are differences, how can you say there is no difference?
constitution or bible, men set it up, men set the rules. constitution, men agree who has final interpretation.
bible, men disagree who has final interpretation.

you are correct in saying that the supreme court has been given the power to have the final say on the constitution. then you go on to say that, "the bible was formed and most people DISAGREE as to who has the final say on interpretation." is that not what i've said all along? if so, how can there be no difference in the two documents as goes who can interpret?
this is where we are on the same page.

but there is nobody of any authority whatsoever that can interpret anything in the bible with any more credibility than a five year old child who attends sunday school. a child that quite likely firmly believes in santa clause.
this is where we are not

ok. who's the interpretive authority on the bible? on santa?

Ha, this thread is hilarious. Sucks being up this early.

Answer:

JrBogie...The HOLY SPIRIT becomes our TEACHER , when we become

born again ...


and the Holy Spirit will lead and quide us into All Truth.



That is Why ALL SPIRIT FILLED BELIEVERS are also able to

discern and recognize the Holy

Spirit speaking thru a teacher or pastor, for instance....

versus hearing those out there , giving us just

their own interpretation or opinion only, in regards to what the

Word of God is saying.



This is HOW and WHY ALL Spirit filled Christians AGREE on the

Basic Fundamental Truths of the Bible; simply because God

thru His Holy Spirit , makes the TRUTH of His Word VERY CLEAR to

us, when we become born again.


King james version1st John 2;27

But the anointing which ye have received of Him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is Truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in Him.



rest of the following verses are the new international version:

Jeremiah 31:34

No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the LORD. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."

Matthew 13:11

He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.

John 6:45

It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me.

John 14:16

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever--

John 14:17

the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.

John 14:26

But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

1 Corinthians 2:12

We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us.

2 Corinthians 1:21

Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us,

1 Thessalonians 4:9

Now about brotherly love we do not need to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love each other.

Hebrews 8:11

No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.

1 John 2:20

But you have an ANOINYING from the Holy One, and ALL of you know the TRUTH.







ps..ALL christians who are born again are INDWELT with the Holy Spirit....

but there is another experience which follows ,that is avaialble for every beleiver to recieve..

and that is called the BAPTISM of the Holy Spirit..

this is where a BELIEVER who is already INDWELT by the Holy Spirit, now gets FILLED UP with the Holy Spirit.


Hope this helps now, Jrbogie.

No, it's not christian enough to just not wish harm on others.
We should ALL be cheering each other on and wishing ALL good will.
It's the human thing to do, has nothing to do with religion at all.

If one is a pest, throwing their issues on us, becoming a pain in
the ***...wouldn't it make sense to wish them well, pray for them,
WANT them to be happy?!?! A happy person wouldn't be a
pain in your ***...don't ya think?!?!
You can do that without having to deal with their crap.

Ladylid, normally I would agree.....but when

relationships end, it

is normal to go thru all kinds of mixed emotions(before one

is able to love the ex partner unconditionally yet) ,

ranging from

apathy to pain, to feeling ok for awhile, back to pain, to anger, to

hurt, to feeling okay for awhile again.... etc. etc. etc...


The best way to heal is just allow the pain, and go thru all the

strange cycles of emotions first...knowing that eventually

full healing will come......and THEN that is the time when

one can eventually

love the ex unconditionally ,as Christ would have one love

the ex partner........but UNTIL that time comes, one should

not get under self

condemnation, because he/she is not there yet.


Healing from a broken relationship TAKES TIME......AND will

bring on all kinds

of emotional madness...

allow all the mixed emotions..cause the end will surely

come....leaving

behind, perfect peace

uuugh. more scripture. i come to debate christians and end up debating a friggin book. any cognitive thoughts you folks have come up with all on your own without reference to a bible????

kind of have to agree, its kind of hilarious(or sad, depending upon POV) how even the most basic question that involves any mention of religion goes off into a bashing section on that religion,,,lol


someone could post 'Thank God, I had a healthy baby'

and people would come back with 'why do you thank God' or 'How do you know there is a God' , or 'How do you know it had anything to do with God'


or they'd start referring to scripture about how God ordered babies killed,,,


etc..etc..etc...

..why must wishing some one well whether you really care about them have to be classified as being of one religion or another..are we not people first..before we read and decide on what we should or should not follow..are we not humans before we incessantly quote verse after verse of what we really have no idea as to what is true..only that it is written therefore it shall be..do we not have minds and deceancy of our own to know how to treat others without a book..

I dont think it has to be classified. I do so because my experience has been that 'society' (human beings in general) seem to accept a much lower standard of ethics than 'christians'

so when asking about meeting such a standard, I focus on the opinions of others who may also be trying to observe such standards

This.

And, this.

then perhaps you can explain why the majority of convicted felons are christians. as an agnostic i'm aquainted with many other agnostics and atheists and MY experience has been that ALL of them adhere to a much HIGHER standard of ethics than many, many of the christians i'm aquainted with. most christians adhere to the 'golden rule', for instance; do unto others as you would have others do unto you. nothing could be more selfish ethically speaking. a humanist sees it better to do unto others as THEY would have done unto THEM. a christian practicing the golden rule selfishly considers THEIR OWN needs, wants and desires when selecting behavior towards others where a humanist considers THE OTHER'S needs, wants and desires when selecting behavior towards others. morals and ethics are far more a matter of simple common sense than is an indocrination of religious dogma. common sense behavior requires thought. dogma requires only that one behaves as told. no thought required nor oftentimes even permitted.

thats like arguing that blacks have lower standards because mostly blacks are in jail

there are MANY demographic reasons behind the incarceration statistics which have little to do with values in general

Its not 'selfish' to follow the golden rule, its realistic

as UNTIL I interact and do something WRONG to someone else, I have no way to know how they would wish to be done (unless I ask permission before whatever I say or do, which I doubt anyone including atheists do)

its more realistic to use a gauge that I actually KNOW(like how I wish to be treated) when trying to appropriate my own actions and words with other people

as far as standards of ethics, my observation has been the mainstream ethic seems to be that if something doesnt HARM someone else, its ok to do it, that its 'personal'


Christian ethics makes very few decisions mere 'personal' ones and has us more connected in our responsibility towards others, towards family, towards community,


this is a much higher standard, in my opinion, if your friends believe in it thats great, but thats not the general consensus I am witnessing amongst most of the secular world during this lifetime,,,


and the religios standards requires or demands no thought argument has gotten old,,,, as old as any other argument that tries to state that merely following a (man made)law is indicative of not THINKING