SeVeR Posted December 29, 2007 Report Posted December 29, 2007 Ok then, God is sexist by our current standards, and so are you if you agree with him. It wasn't even "applicable" back then; how can sexism ever be applicable? It can be accepted by a culture but it is never appropriate.
WongKonPow Posted December 30, 2007 Report Posted December 30, 2007 Sever, God isn't sexist, if you had even glanced at the verses in the quote below, you'd know that. sever, you always disregard other aspects. The verses in the bible directly following the ones telling women to be submissive say that men MUST treat women with respect and honor them as children of God. It doesn't say, "You can show them respect if you want." It is a command, not a suggestion. Ephesians 525Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 28So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church those are only two of many verses in the bible telling men to love and respect their wives. Colossians 318Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. 19Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them. I think beating would count as being 'harsh'
AstroProdigy Posted December 30, 2007 Report Posted December 30, 2007 Sever, God isn't sexist, if you had even glanced at the verses in the quote below, you'd know that. sever, you always disregard other aspects. The verses in the bible directly following the ones telling women to be submissive say that men MUST treat women with respect and honor them as children of God. It doesn't say, "You can show them respect if you want." It is a command, not a suggestion. Ephesians 525Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 28So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church those are only two of many verses in the bible telling men to love and respect their wives. Colossians 318Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. 19Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them. I think beating would count as being 'harsh'25Women are an object to love and give yourself up for.28Love your wife as you do an object you're strongly attached to. A healthy wife is a healthy body and they are both objects.29Why would you hate other things you OWN. You should take care of your PROPERTY just as god rules over the church. Those are only two of many verses in the bible telling men that women are not in fact equal to men, but instead objects to be taken care of. Even the BEST verses concerning women in the bible are sexist. That doesn't even include a swath of other verses you have conveniently ignored such as the one telling women to cover their heads when preying because they are inferior to men and not worthy to pray directly to God as men can that I mentioned earlier in this topic. Seriously if you are going to try to defend the bible as not a sexist do!@#$%^&*ent you're better off just walking around aimlessly because then at least you get some exercise getting nowhere.
SeVeR Posted December 30, 2007 Report Posted December 30, 2007 Like Astro said, you love the things you own. So when the Bible says to love things as well as rule over them, then i don't see anything incompatible there. If the Bible says to rule over your wife, and that the wife should submit to the husband, then God is sexist for as long as you believe the Bible is God's word. Besides, why would a Bible verse tell you not to love your wife? Of course the Bible tells you that a husband and wife should love eachother. The Bible also tells you to love your flock of sheep...
WongKonPow Posted January 1, 2008 Report Posted January 1, 2008 please state which book those verses come from so i can look it up my self with different translations
WongKonPow Posted January 1, 2008 Report Posted January 1, 2008 (edited) lol no, was gonna prove a point, but I guess I'll just do it the normal way. You took those three verses and interpreted them in your own way, despite them saying that men should love their wives, you spun it to be how some chauvinists might see it. And that is my point, it is the person who is at fault who interprets it wrong and ignores the other teachings stating that we should love our wives. It is the person who is sexist who wishes to see it in that way, not God. and the 'church' is not an object. A church is a group of people, a church building is where they meet. That is why it refers to the church as 'her' not 'it' Edited January 2, 2008 by WongKonPow
ThunderJam Posted January 1, 2008 Author Report Posted January 1, 2008 Actually various translations can be very important when your debating specific verses. Like the creation story, the original word for created in a "day" was "yom" which actually has three translations: a day, a several day period, or an extended non-specific amount of time. King James reads John 3:16 as "god gave his only begotten son" which skeptics have used to try and debunk the trinity. They say well if all aspects are equal, how was the son begotten by the father, that seems like one is greater. However by going back to the greek the more accurate translation (as accounted for in the NIV translation) is "one and only son." Theologian DA Carson says that the use of begotten was trying to build on the idea of the son being a HEIR to the father. Inherting every his father rules over, but it became to be taken differently.
WongKonPow Posted January 2, 2008 Report Posted January 2, 2008 I agree with you emo girl, cuz i'm not a part of a religion, I just possess personal beliefs. and yes, most men these days do suck.
AstroProdigy Posted January 10, 2008 Report Posted January 10, 2008 Actually various translations can be very important when your debating specific verses. Like the creation story' date=' the original word for created in a "day" was "yom" which actually has three translations: a day, a several day period, or an extended non-specific amount of time.[/quote']I agree that the bible is interpreted differently by different people. For that reason I say when someone says homosexuality is immoral don't take it as the bible actually saying so; take it as that person being a bigoted piece of !@#$%^&* using the bible to support their own bigoted ends.
WongKonPow Posted January 10, 2008 Report Posted January 10, 2008 simply thinking something is wrong, is not the definition of being a bigot. To be a bigot, you have to condemn them in some way. I think that homosexuality is wrong, just like I think that swearing is crude and unnecessary, but I don't condemn people for choosing to swear and yell at them. Therefore, even though i think that the Bible says that homosexuality is wrong, it does not make my interpretation bigoted. In any event, your hatred towards christianity is misdirected, because true christians do not condemn so harshly and to such an extreme that they bring out feelings of anger, and hatred, and segregation.So many people blame christianity for so many negative things, but you are the one being derogative and bigoted towards us. You seem to hate christians, that is what you believe. You have the right to believe that, and be bigoted towards us. So why can you not let us believe what we believe? How many christians have actually walked up to you and called you a 'piece of !@#$%^&*'?
AstroProdigy Posted January 12, 2008 Report Posted January 12, 2008 (edited) I think black culture is wrong and evil. However I am not a racist I just think everything involved in being black is wrong. Anyone buying this? Give me a break when someone has a racist opinion they have to keep it to themselves, but when someone has a homophobic opinion it's legitimate and should be considered in law? If you want to think homosexuality is wrong that's entirely your right, but when groups of you nut bags go vote on limiting gay rights because of your bigotry and it's considered legitimate that's the real messed up !@#$%^&* here. I have no hatred for Christians. I just hate the Christians who have and continue to use their religion as an excuse for being bigots such as the modern ones today who use Christianity as an excuse to hate gays. You don't just believe what you believe! YOU TRY TO MAKE IT INTO LAW!! If I was a piece of !@#$%^&* looking to reverse the progressive advances of our society and go back to the good old days (where if you were gay it was legal to hang you by the way) then I invite all Christians to come up to me and call me a piece of !@#$%^&*. Edited January 12, 2008 by AstroProdigy
jack57tin Posted January 30, 2008 Report Posted January 30, 2008 seems like you're saying that it's silly to take something written in some book hundreds of years ago as an absolute truth.
Recommended Posts