I'm going to fault an organization for wanting to stay with their ancient and outdated beliefs over tending to the wellfare of the children they supposedly care about. Same goes with the OP's therapist.
I assume you have some certificate on your wall that qualifies you to judge opposition to abortion, or maintenance of a faith shared by millions across the planet, as outdated. Once again, volunteers, who are spending their time and money are FEEDING and CLOTHING people who have NOTHING. My point is that you can thank organized religion for billions of dollars and thousands of man-hours per year in disaster relief.
Yet you shouldn't touch a menstruating woman and they should keep silent in (religious) gatherings. Do you make sure they cover their heads in church? Yeah, really friendly towards women that book of yours.
This is a great opportunity to clear up a terrible misunderstanding you have. Paul writes about specific women in the Corithian church, who cause trouble with rumors and lies. Paul wrote four letters to the Corinthians, two of which made it into the New Testament. There's a lot of specific material, and an ongoing dialogue about the many trouble that church had. If you'd studied the text instead of repeating the rote assumptions of others, you'd know that. This underscores my point. If you argue from an adversarial position without knowing what you're talking about, you'll end up wrong. The decision then becomes "Do I admit I didn't really know the facts and bow out?", or "Do I admit I didn't really knwo the facts and ty to learn something here?" or "Do I press on as if nothing has changed and stick with my adversarial point of view, sans evidence?" Which person do you want to be?
And I hope the adversarial talk will slow down, because there's opportunity here for people of different backgrounds to be friends and edify each other, and I don't want to see the thread locked. Also, we don't have to have a conversation about the health risks of menstruation, blood on the outer body and the bronze age, right? As claims of mysoginy go, that's not very strong.
Wow, thank you for assuming that I haven't read the Bible and only base my opinions on what other people tell me.
To be fair, I can only go on what I see. Your claims about mysoginy are one of those ablative mistruths thrown out by people who want to criticize the Bible and don't know the details, so I see it all the time. After all, you were just now wrong about Paul. You didn't get the idea from studying the Bible. And you didn't jsut make it up. If there's another way for you to develop that misunderstanding, I apologize. You tell me where you got that idea and I'll explore it with you.
Judas tried to hang himself, failed and fell. Jesus was crucified on Friday, died Friday (the day before the Sabbath), and the first visitors to the tomb were Mary Magdelene and another Mary. This is only corroborated in all four gospels. If you want an honest conversation about textual criticism, we can have it. Taking the adversarial stance doesn't make what you tink of the Bible more or less true.
But for the short answer, there aren't inconsistencies in the questions you raised. The women are the first to reach the tomb in all four gospels. The sky goes dark at noon in all four. The reference to the crucifixion as preparation day, before the Sabbath, and the resurrection on Sunday are all the same. So whatever inconsistency you have read about, it's not there. Maybe you could define it more closely so we cna engage it. But be friendly.
Et all.
Did you seriously just say that the bible is misogyny free?
Women are considered property and the old testament has discussions about it being appropriate to sell your daughter into slavery, and that a woman must listen to her husband at all times. "love, Honor, and OBEY," Ring any bells?
http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/articles/women-bible
Yes, it's an atheist site, but at least you know they'll stick to facts instead of overlooking whatever's inconvenient.
Wanna be insane too and have a fish...nasty bugger...
The funny thing is that, correct me if i´m wrong, it was their Dude, the longhaired, fuzzy one that said: judge not, lest you be judged yourself ? Wasn´t just Metallica, right? And the thing with the thorn in the eye ?
But you find that everywhere, this miasma/stench of selfrighteousness and i don´t eat animals, or smoke or don´t do this, have a special ticket to heaven and the rest of you will burn-mentality.
IMHO christianity lost its way when Konstatin hijacked it 41o a.D., but lots of love and respect for any christian who actually tries to live up to their own standard successfully.
PS: Not to ruin anything, but: Lots of love, people !
Et all.
Did you seriously just say that the bible is misogyny free?
Women are considered property and the old testament has discussions about it being appropriate to sell your daughter into slavery, and that a woman must listen to her husband at all times. "love, Honor, and OBEY," Ring any bells? (pun, get it?)
http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/articles/women-bible
Yes, it's an atheist site, but at least you know they'll stick to facts instead of overlooking whatever's inconvenient.
Lots of stuffWhy are you hijacking this thread with your negative tangent?
What do you hope to achieve?
Why are you showing disrespect to the people on this thread who are genuinely interested in the actual subject?I'm asking this, myself being a card carrying atheist.
You're hurting our image with antagonistic dialog.
Please show more tact, and try to show that atheists can be respectful and understanding. The best way to sell atheism is to live as one admirably, and with the air of enlightenment.
I will admit that it is somewhat of a tangent.
Showing disrespect? Antagonistic dialog? Sorry, but asking questions and questioning other people's assertions is hardly what I'd call showing disrespect.If I'm hurting anyone's image, it's just my own and if it's hurt by me asking questions, then I'm fine with that. :-)
I AM actually a very respectful and understanding person in general, I just don't think blatant calls to religious authority should be respected since they are based on non-provable assertions.
Sorry about the double post. AT&T is sketchy here. I think they're working on the towers or something.
Sorry about the double post. AT&T is sketchy here. I think they're working on the towers or something.
Your Forgiven my son
I don't think you've studied the Bible hard enough. It is full of inconsistencies, contradictions, violence, bigotry, prejudice, homophobia, misogyny, and it encourages slavery.
I am an ex-Christian, and I have read the Bible cover to cover several times. I have taken "Bible Study" courses, and while reading the Bible I came to the conclusion that I could not base my morality on such a silly and disturbing fairy tale.
I'll take questions on textual criticism of the Bible all day. We'll see how many inconsistencies measure up. But in terms of relevant historical and dogmatic incongruencies, the short answer is zero.
Now, if you want to talk about erros in transmission oromission, we;ve documented over 33,000. Not one of them impacts the text dramatically, and you'[ll find a good study Bible (even a mediocre one) documents these changes in text so a student can know about them and evaluate them. Us bible scholars have nothing to hide.
So, for example, someone in the 13th century is transliterating, and finds that the literal translation would be hard for his audience to understand, or that he understands the text ebing bilingual in a way that others will not, so he shifts the meaning a tiny bit to convey the same original idea to different people. The actual meaning isn't changed. Or in one text, Matthew 15 ends at verse 27, but then someone adds the statement (verse 28) "In this way the prophecy became true, they put him [Messiah] with criminals." Nothing changes. And that kind of addition ranks as among the most bothersome of textual changes down through the ages.
It's a different matter to call the Bible prejudiced (against whom?), homophobic (as if there were such a thing), or misogynysitc (we JUST covered that). Those are appellations placed by us on the document, centuries later, because we feel enlightened enough not to belive in it. If the Bible is truth, it isn't "homophobic". And please, the slavery thing is another, clear example of not reading the text before repeating the meme. Jewish slavery was radically different, and more humane than any neighboring form of servitude. Before you head off to the Old Testament to "prove" that Jewish slavery was salvery as we understand it, look for the verses that forbid the stealing of a person and putting them to work as slaves on penalty of death. Recognize that a common event for "slaves" among the Hebrews was for them to remain with the family they served as free people after their debt was paid, or the war they were captured in was over. Don't talk about slavery in the Bible until you'e studied it. And if you claim to have studied it, and can still say it adovcates slavery and talk about contradictions, you didn't study it. The Bible doesn't say those things.
I don't think you've studied the Bible hard enough. It is full of inconsistencies, contradictions, violence, bigotry, prejudice, homophobia, misogyny, and it encourages slavery.
I am an ex-Christian, and I have read the Bible cover to cover several times. I have taken "Bible Study" courses, and while reading the Bible I came to the conclusion that I could not base my morality on such a silly and disturbing fairy tale.
I'll take questions on textual criticism of the Bible all day. We'll see how many inconsistencies measure up. But in terms of relevant historical and dogmatic incongruencies, the short answer is zero.
Now, if you want to talk about erros in transmission oromission, we;ve documented over 33,000. Not one of them impacts the text dramatically, and you'[ll find a good study Bible (even a mediocre one) documents these changes in text so a student can know about them and evaluate them. Us bible scholars have nothing to hide.
...
So you read ancient Arameic? (no idea how that's spelled)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll be truthful; I find most of the things Christians---or really, faithful of any stripe---are required to do silly.
As a wiccan, mine requires me to strive to harm no-one if I can avoid it, and to "feast, drink, make music and love" - can you tell me what is silly about that?
I think the idea of worshiping anything without proof, or ignoring scientific evidence and our own sense of reason in favor of the fantastical is a bit mystifying.
Here is where you have to define proof, my friend. I have no scientific, objective proof that what I believe is true. I don't have any proof that it isn't wither. However I have experienced things that, while they do not constitute objective proof do constitute enough reason for me to believe: they are subjective proof. It's like witnessing a crime - the jury may reject your version of events in favour of another version of events (if, say it was one witness saying X and you saying Y), but that does not change what you witnessed and know to have occurred. You don't stop believing that just because, in the greater scheme of things, you have insufficient proof to convince anyone else.
On the second front, though, I agree with the second half of your statement above: the scientific evidence is the trump in every case. To return to the example of the case before the jury, if the forensic experts provide proof that what you witnessed cannot have taken place, it's time to start questioning what you saw and how you could have got it wrong.
Lots...
Look, I'd love to keep on replying to the things you wrote, but maybe it IS going out on a tangent.
I will reply here to two of the things you wrote. If you're interested in my answers to the rest we can take it elsewhere, agreed?I assume you have some certificate on your wall that qualifies you to judge opposition to abortion, or maintenance of a faith shared by millions across the planet, as outdated.
I don't need a certificate to know that (the majority of) Christianity's view on homosexuality is outdated. Nor that it's view on what a woman can do with her own body is outdated.
Once again, volunteers, who are spending their time and money are FEEDING and CLOTHING people who have NOTHING. My point is that you can thank organized religion for billions of dollars and thousands of man-hours per year in disaster relief.
The price is "only" that they get to preach their belief to those they are "helping."
Also, many of the religious organizations are getting funds from the government (e.g. adoption agencies), thus when they shut down they clearly prove that they care more about the business and about their beliefs than about making sure children get a safe and warm home to grow up in (and remember, when they shut down they don't just deprave the same sex families of adoption, but also all the other families)....and the first visitors to the tomb were Mary Magdelene and another Mary. This is only corroborated in all four gospels. If you want an honest conversation about textual criticism, we can have it. Taking the adversarial stance doesn't make what you tink of the Bible more or less true.
Matthew 28:1: After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.
Mary Magdalene and the other MaryMark 16:1: When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body.
The two Marys, plus a third person, SalomeLuke 24:10: When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others. It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles.
The two Marys, Joanna, and "the others."John 20:1: Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance.
Only Mary Magdalene
See, inconsistencies... Do you really not see those?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I assume you have some certificate on your wall that qualifies you to judge opposition to abortion, or maintenance of a faith shared by millions across the planet, as outdated. Once again, volunteers, who are spending their time and money are FEEDING and CLOTHING people who have NOTHING. My point is that you can thank organized religion for billions of dollars and thousands of man-hours per year in disaster relief.
Religious charities are often a load of bull. For example, Mother Teresa and her cronies conned people out of millions of dollars, and spent barely any of it on helping the poor.
Instead, they used old, UNSTERILIZED medical equipment. Rather than spending their vast fortune to pay for simple surgeries and treatments for their patients, they gave them some aspirin and waited for them to die.
Furthermore, they would only "help" people who agree to convert to Christianity. They would go to these peoples' families, and periodically inspect their houses for any signs that they still followed their old beliefs.
Mother Teresa and her disgusting organization were in the business of religious conversion, not medical and humanitarian aid.
OP: Ultimately Pathfinder is just playing make believe. I don't know any religious doctrine that says you shall not use your imagination.
It's a different matter to call the Bible prejudiced (against whom?), homophobic (as if there were such a thing), or misogynysitc (we JUST covered that). Those are appellations placed by us on the document, centuries later, because we feel enlightened enough not to belive in it. If the Bible is truth, it isn't "homophobic". And please, the slavery thing is another, clear example of not reading the text...
WHAT?!?! You're telling me that I HAVEN'T READ THE TEXT?!? I just told you I WAS A CHRISTIAN ALL MY LIFE until recently. So anyone who criticizes the Bible must be someone who hasn't read it? Your attitude is ridiculous.
Also, what do you mean that homophobia is not a real thing? Take a trip to the US and you'll see nuts carrying around signs saying that "God hates f@&+" because the bible literally tells them that's what they should believe!
It's a bad idea to discuss religion with the religious for the same reason it's a bad idea to discuss why the animals are telling him to kill with a schitzophrenic. Both conversations will not gain you much and have a high probability of ending in tradgedy.
It's a different matter to call the Bible prejudiced (against whom?), homophobic (as if there were such a thing), or misogynysitc (we JUST covered that). Those are appellations placed by us on the document, centuries later, because we feel enlightened enough not to belive in it. If the Bible is truth, it isn't "homophobic". And please, the slavery thing is another, clear example of not reading the text...WHAT?!?! You're telling me that I HAVEN'T READ THE TEXT?!? I just told you I WAS A CHRISTIAN ALL MY LIFE until recently. So anyone who criticizes the Bible must be someone who hasn't read it? Your attitude is ridiculous.
Also, what do you mean that homophobia is not a real thing? Take a trip to the US and you'll see nuts carrying around signs saying that "God hates f&~+" because the bible literally tells them that's what they should believe!
Rev. Phelps has several websites also. Just put .com behind most anything they put on a pickett sign and you'll find them. That group is highly religious and quite insane. Seems to be a trend.
As an aside, the interesting thing about women in the Bible and the misogynistic sentiments expressed--and having read much of the Bible, they ARE there, certainly (but there are also "pro woman" passages as well)--is that many of them have been "edited in" over past centuries and don't necessarily exist in the older, best preserved scriptures which form the basis of the Bible.
I've been reading an interesting book called Misquoting Jesus which notes that many anti-woman quotes--including the Pauline letter which demands women be silent, which actually completely contradicts another Pauline letter--were likely added in later and did not exist in what are considered "best originals" of the texts those books of the Bible were based on. Likewise, some early texts describe moments praising a great disciple [woman's name], which gets reworded in later texts to obscure the gender of the praised disciple. Much archaeological evidence and ancient texts--including anti-Christian documents--note that among the major early movers and shakers of the Christian movement, many of them were women (something still noted in the Bible by the finding of the empty tomb by Mary Magdalene and other female followers of Jesus). It wasn't until later when Christianity was adopted by increasingly patriarchal societies that the pro-women elements were removed from scripture. (I don't have the book to hand, but the book itself provides sources for this information.)
There's also the larger set of omissions, such as early Church leaders declaring certain Biblical books apocryphal, many of which were about female leaders and prophets, such as the book of Deborah.
The Bible of course was passed down orally and then transcribed over and over again by hand, where both errors and deliberate changes were bound to occur. However divinely inspired at the beginning, the hand of the human beings and the societies from which those human beings has shaped and reshaped it over the millennia. Doubtless that is why "Paul" himself (or the various writers of the Pauline letters, if you believe there was more than one)--knowing most of his letters would be shared orally and be copied over and over again--advised that "the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." The important thing is to find the message between the lines that speaks to you. The Bible is an enormous, complex document--and it does contradict itself at times, describing many things as hateful in one chapter and fine in the next--but there is wisdom and perhaps, if you are the kind of person to see things in a religious light, even God found within the words. But it also contains the many fallabilities of human mankind--but really, the miracle in it that a crazy, orally shared collection of various letters and sermons actually have managed to remain packaged together and passed down for so long. It's a fascinating--sometimes frustrating--document whether you're of Judeo-Christian faith or not, both in its history and content.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, it's an atheist site, but at least you know they'll stick to facts instead of overlooking whatever's inconvenient.
That's a weird claim. If I dircted you to a Christian site and said "I know they're believers, but they'll stick to the facts", would you give that even a moment of credibility?
Let's separate the truth of God's communication to us from the fact of human cultural error. Note that when God created Eve, she wasn't property. When Jesus talked to the hooker at the well, he was committing what would ahve been religiou suicide. But he didn't care about that. THe chracter of God is forgivin and without misogyny.
Now, every ancient culture on earth has has a system for dowries and aranged marriages. I suppose you are not calling the bible uniquely misogynystic, but undestand, the Hebrew sulture was more embracing of women socially than any competitor or neighbor. Recall that a common practice when a man was traveling with an attractive wife was jsut to kill the man and take the woman for yourself. Barbarism was everywhere, and the bible is the story of God taking one group of sinful imperfect people, and saving the world through them. God didn't want his people to have a king, either, but they did.
So what does the Bible say about women? For a husband to love his wife in the same way as Christ loves the Church, even giving His life for her. That a virtuous, hardworking woman is a great business partner. That a good woman is an incomparable ally or gift.
WHen evaluating the role of women in God's eyes, you have to pay attention to God's interaction with women, and not go looking for bad practices, shared by the whole world at the time, and then claim that Christianity endorses them. Unless you are prepared to highlight the modern church that endorses polygamy and the intermarriage of family memebers if a widow is left without kids.
Surely even the most skeptical of people can agree it's a longer conversation than cherry-picking a bad behavior and denouncing the whole book.
So you read ancient Arameic? (no idea how that's spelled)I don't think you've studied the Bible hard enough. It is full of inconsistencies, contradictions, violence, bigotry, prejudice, homophobia, misogyny, and it encourages slavery.
I am an ex-Christian, and I have read the Bible cover to cover several times. I have taken "Bible Study" courses, and while reading the Bible I came to the conclusion that I could not base my morality on such a silly and disturbing fairy tale.
I'll take questions on textual criticism of the Bible all day. We'll see how many inconsistencies measure up. But in terms of relevant historical and dogmatic incongruencies, the short answer is zero.
Now, if you want to talk about erros in transmission oromission, we;ve documented over 33,000. Not one of them impacts the text dramatically, and you'[ll find a good study Bible (even a mediocre one) documents these changes in text so a student can know about them and evaluate them. Us bible scholars have nothing to hide.
...
Ridiculous. He reads the Bible in the King's English. How it was meant to be read.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this thread has overstayed it's welcome. Perhaps you want the Civil Religious thread instead?