The Religious Debate Thread : "Misogynistic" passages in the Bible etc - Page 10 - MensTennisForums.com

MensTennisForums.com

MenstennisForums.com is the premier Men's Tennis forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.Please Register - It's Free!

Reply

Old 11-22-2011, 09:13 PM   #136
country flag Clydey
Cutedey
 
Clydey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Age: 32
Posts: 13,287
Clydey has a reputation beyond reputeClydey has a reputation beyond reputeClydey has a reputation beyond reputeClydey has a reputation beyond reputeClydey has a reputation beyond reputeClydey has a reputation beyond reputeClydey has a reputation beyond reputeClydey has a reputation beyond reputeClydey has a reputation beyond reputeClydey has a reputation beyond reputeClydey has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: "Misogynistic" passages in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seingeist View Post
Recently in the Bill Maher thread, Clydey presented three Biblical passages as clear evidence that Christians/the Bible are misogynistic.

Initially I refused to take up the topic, because I knew that it would take a post at least as long as the current one to deal with it, and that such would be an entirely wasted effort on someone who frankly has no interest at all in understanding them properly.

However, I’d been tossing it around in my mind a bit, and I considered that there might well be other posters on MTF who would be interested in understanding more fully and honestly both those verses and the Biblical view of men and women (not exhaustively and comprehensively, of course, but I can try to scratch at the surface). I had a chunk of time today, so I thought, “What the heck? It can’t do any harm.”

I had accused Clydey of "cherry-picking" a few verses out of their proper context and understanding, and what is fascinating is that in each of the three cases, the very next verse (among others) mitigates the charge of misogyny.

Now by way of preface, it is important to note that in the Biblical view of human relationships, men and women do indeed have different roles and responsibilities. These differing roles correspond largely to innate differences between men and women, most of them strictly biological. While I realize that the acknowledgement of differences between men and women and their subsequent roles in relationships is not at all popular or well-accepted in the modern ethos, it does not mean that such acknowledgement is inherently misogynistic, as I will endeavor to demonstrate.
Quote:
Deuteronomy 22:20-21
But if this accusation is true and no evidence of the young woman’s virginity is found, they will bring the woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city will stone her to death. For she has committed an outrage in Israel by being promiscuous in your father’s house. You must purge the evil from you.
Quote:
It looks appalling on the face of it. Does the Bible advocate the slaughter of non-virgins?

Remember that the only appropriate context for sexual relations in the Bible is between a married man and woman. All sex outside of that context is seen as some variation of adultery. When a person has sex before he or she is married, it is akin to “cheating” on his or her future spouse (assuming that a future spouse is taken – the passage concerns the punishment only for a non-virgin who takes a different husband).

Still, killing a woman just because she commits adultery is as misogynistic as it gets, right? Surely the Israelites would dare not treat a man in the same fashion! But then we come to the immediately following verse:
Quote:
Deuteronomy 22:22
If a man is discovered having sexual relations with another man’s wife, both the man who had sex with the woman and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel
It may have escaped your attention, but the above passage is also misogynistic. Note that the crime is sleeping with another man's wife. Whether consciously or not, you are misrepresenting its meaning. It says nothing about the man being a virgin or cheating on his wife. The punishment is because a married man has been wronged. See below:

Quote:
Deuteronomy 22:24
Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
Quote:
Men faced the same punishment that women did for committing adultery: death. The passage even goes on to detail a scenario wherein a man and an engaged woman (to a different man) have sex. If it is consensual, they are both put to death; if it is a ra*pe and the woman cannot help herself, only the man is put to death.
Again, you are misrepresenting the passage. There is no punishment described for a man who cheats on his wife. I should also point out that only the ra*pe of an engaged woman is punishable. Again, the woman's partner has been wronged, not the woman.

Quote:
Now while these laws may certainly strike us as overly severe, they can hardly be called “misogynistic,” because they are applied to both men and women with similar punishment.
Deuteronomy describes different crimes for males and females. Crucially, punishment for males is reserved for crimes against another man.


************************************************** ************************************************** ***************************

Quote:
Colossians 3:18
Wives, be submissive to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.
Quote:
Now what exactly does this submission mean? And on what basis is it made? Does it mean that women have to blindly do everything that their husbands tell them to, and moreover must do this simply by virtue of the fact that they are women and their husbands are men?

The most important passage concerning these “roles” is found within Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, in which he fleshes out in more detail the same basic exhortations that he wrote to the Colossians. He draws an extremely significant and instructive analogy between the relationship of Christ to the church (church here meaning the whole body of Christians, not a building or a congregation) and husband to wife:
Quote:
Ephesians 5:22-33
Wives, submit to your own husbands as to the Lord, for the husband is the head of the wife as also Christ is head of the church. He is the Savior of the body. Now as the church submits to Christ, so wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as also Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her, to make her holy, cleansing her in the washing of water by the word. He did this to present the church to Himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but holy and blameless. In the same way, husbands should also love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hates his own flesh, but provides and cares for it, just as Christ does for the church, since we are members of His body. [quoting Genesis 2:24:]For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. This mystery is profound, but I am talking about Christ and the church. To sum up, each one of you is to love his wife as himself, and the wife is to respect her husband.
Let me get this straight. Simply because man is ordered to love his wife, the instruction for women to submit to their husbands is not misogynistic?

Imagine a man who loves his wife dearly. He smothers her with affection, buys her gifts, and provides a comfortable life for her. His only demand is that she spend her days in the kitchen because that is where she belongs.

Is the man a misogynist? He may love her dearly, but his attitude and his expectations are still misogynistic.

Quote:
This analogy between Christ’s relationship to the church and that of husband to wife should not be glossed over, for it is presented to husbands as THE model upon which to base their relationship to their wives, and the instruction given to wives is much better understood when we also have a firm grasp on the role of the husband.

So what exactly is the relationship of Christ to church, at least insofar as it serves as a model to husbands? It is characterized primarily by devotion, care, service, provision, and self-sacrifice. In his earthly ministry, Jesus put His love of the people over Himself completely, devoting Himself totally to providing and caring for their spiritual and bodily well-being, and eventually making the ultimate sacrifice of Himself (and atonement for their sins) so that they might be saved.
See above.

I should also point out that you are comparing passages from two different authors. Most agree that Paul did not author Ephesians.

Quote:
There is no more profound example of perfect love and sacrifice, and this is the model that is given to husbands for the ways that they are to love and care for their wives. Of course, we are sinful human beings, and no husband can love his wife as perfectly as Christ loves the church. However, we are called to imitate His example as best we can, and husbands should thus love their wives through devotion, care, service, provision, and self-sacrifice.. They are to put the bodily and spiritual needs of their wives above their own; they are to make every sacrifice that needs to be made to this end, up to and including their very life. They are to provide and care for them materially and immaterially (i.e. emotionally, etc.) and meet all of their needs to the absolute best of their ability.

Understanding this role of the husband, then, it is far easier to understand why the wife is exhorted to “submit.” This does not mean that she must blindly agree with everything he says or does. It means that she is to her entrust her care and well-being to her husband (which she pledges to him through the act of getting married), show him respect, and not attempt to obstruct or oppose his sincere efforts to care for her.

While both the husband and the wife are called to be the best spouse that they can be regardless of how “good” or “bad” a job that the other spouse is doing, it is naturally much easier for both partners if both are fulfilling their duties to one another. That is, it is much easier for a husband to care for his wife sacrificially if she is not contentious and does not attempt to oppose him at every turn, and it is likewise much easier for a wife to submit to her husband if he is sincerely doing his best to serve her, care for her, and put herself above himself at every turn.

Ironically enough, the only husband who would ever even feel the need to throw the “submission” verse at his wife is very likely failing miserably in his own responsibility. He might find that his wife is more agreeable if he is serving her as he is supposed to. Or, to approach it slightly differently, for the husband who points to that verse and says, “You’re supposed to submit to me,” the wife could rightly point to that passage and say, “And you’re supposed to put my needs, desires, and well-being above your own, loving me as Christ loved the church!”

Again, there can be little dispute that all of the above is terribly “out of step” with our modern conception of relationships, “gender roles,” and marriage. But it can hardly be called “misogynistic.” There is abundant reciprocity and co-dependency in the relationship. The sense in which a husband is placed “above” his wife (i.e. the “head” of the relationship) is at once the same sense in which he is placed “below” her (i.e. in service and devotion to her).
It is misogynistic by modern standards. The apparently inerrant word of God is not bound by context, otherwise he is no more enlightened than your average 21st century male.

Quote:
Another quick example of the reciprocity between a husband and wife is the sexual duty that they have to one another. From 1 Corinthians:

Neither the husband nor the wife has some kind of sexual priority or exemption in the relationship.

Above I said that the alleged “misogyny” in each passage is diminished by the very next verse that follows. Colossians 3:19 says:

Both husbands and wives have specific obligations to one another, and these obligations not only entail no kind of misogyny, but they go as far as to establish the wife as the more “served” and prioritized member of the relationship.
Colossians 3:19 does not say that. Where on earth did you get that from? I'm not sure how the above is gleaned from the following:

Quote:
Colossians 3:19
Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.

************************************************** ************************************************** ***************************

Quote:
The final passage that is allegedly misogynistic comes from Paul’s letter to the church in Corinth. (I add in verse 8 to clarify 9-10). Paul writes:

Now there are a few contextual considerations that need to be elucidated before we can understand these verses. First of all, they are in the midst of a passage about “head coverings,” and the “symbol of authority” that the woman is to wear on her head refers to a head covering to be worn during “prayer” or “prophecy.” It is another reference to the analogically symbolic relationship of Christ’s “headship” (see verse 3), the meaning of which I addressed above.

When Paul says that woman was “made from” and “made for” man, he is referring to the following passage in Genesis:
Quote:
Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper who is like him.[…] So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to come over the man, and he slept. God took one of his ribs and closed the flesh at that place. Then the Lord God made the rib he had taken from the man into a woman and brought her to the man. And the man said: This one, at last, is bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh; this one will be called woman, for she was taken from man. This is why a man leaves his father and mother and bonds with his wife, and they become one flesh.
Quote:
Lest this passage be mistaken, this does not mean that women are subservient to men. It merely means that women “complete” the human picture that was started with man. They constitute “one flesh” when they unite. “Man” alone was insufficient for God’s purposes for humanity, so He created woman as well. They are equally dignified human persons who are the same in terms of value in the eyes of God and in their dependence on one another.
You have just spun this to suit your own ends. Nowhere in the passage does it even hint at the equality you have described above. Indeed, the woman is referred to as a 'helper'. As I said earlier, I was looking forward to the gymnastics you would have to engage in to put any of this into an acceptable context. You have not disappointed.
Clydey is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 

Old 11-22-2011, 09:13 PM   #137
country flag Clydey
Cutedey
 
Clydey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Age: 32
Posts: 13,287
Clydey has a reputation beyond reputeClydey has a reputation beyond reputeClydey has a reputation beyond reputeClydey has a reputation beyond reputeClydey has a reputation beyond reputeClydey has a reputation beyond reputeClydey has a reputation beyond reputeClydey has a reputation beyond reputeClydey has a reputation beyond reputeClydey has a reputation beyond reputeClydey has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: "Misogynistic" passages in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lopez View Post
Nadal I think. Might be more though (and might be that they just don't say it so they won't alienate any fans)
I think Murray is also an atheist, much to my delight.
Clydey is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2011, 09:17 PM   #138
country flag Har-Tru
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
 
Har-Tru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 28
Posts: 20,521
Har-Tru has a reputation beyond reputeHar-Tru has a reputation beyond reputeHar-Tru has a reputation beyond reputeHar-Tru has a reputation beyond reputeHar-Tru has a reputation beyond reputeHar-Tru has a reputation beyond reputeHar-Tru has a reputation beyond reputeHar-Tru has a reputation beyond reputeHar-Tru has a reputation beyond reputeHar-Tru has a reputation beyond reputeHar-Tru has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: "Misogynistic" passages in the Bible

Not exactly misogynistic, but this is too good to be ignored.

I have to say, in the name of all those males genetically destined to suffer from alopecia, that it is comforting to find that God severely punishes those who make fun of such terrible affliction.


II Kings, 2

Quote:
23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys. 25 And he went on to Mount Carmel and from there returned to Samaria.

This is true, it's in the Bible. You can look it up yourselves.

Of the many weird and freaky stuff that book contains, I think it is fair to say it doesn't get more WTF than that.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by philosophicalarf View Post
Armstrong says in-competition testing will never catch anyone, only out-of-competition testing and the blood passport can.

Tennis has no blood passport system, and does basically no out of competition testing.

The methods and drugs used by Armstrong in 1999 would work in tennis right now, with zero chance of being caught (not slightly surprising to anyone familiar with the topic, btw).
Har-Tru is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2011, 09:35 PM   #139
country flag Clydey
Cutedey
 
Clydey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Age: 32
Posts: 13,287
Clydey has a reputation beyond reputeClydey has a reputation beyond reputeClydey has a reputation beyond reputeClydey has a reputation beyond reputeClydey has a reputation beyond reputeClydey has a reputation beyond reputeClydey has a reputation beyond reputeClydey has a reputation beyond reputeClydey has a reputation beyond reputeClydey has a reputation beyond reputeClydey has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: "Misogynistic" passages in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by Har-Tru View Post
Not exactly misogynistic, but this is too good to be ignored.

I have to say, in the name of all those males genetically destined to suffer from alopecia, that it is comforting to find that God severely punishes those who make fun of such terrible affliction.


II Kings, 2




This is true, it's in the Bible. You can look it up yourselves.

Of the many weird and freaky stuff that book contains, I think it is fair to say it doesn't get more WTF than that.
Clydey is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2011, 12:16 AM   #140
country flag Orka_n
Banned!
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 17,006
Orka_n has a reputation beyond reputeOrka_n has a reputation beyond reputeOrka_n has a reputation beyond reputeOrka_n has a reputation beyond reputeOrka_n has a reputation beyond reputeOrka_n has a reputation beyond reputeOrka_n has a reputation beyond reputeOrka_n has a reputation beyond reputeOrka_n has a reputation beyond reputeOrka_n has a reputation beyond reputeOrka_n has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: "Misogynistic" passages in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lopez View Post
Yeah I have not met one like Aloimeh either.

Believe it or not, I was actually once religious, around the time of my confirmation and a few years after that. But slowly doubt crept in and my views have changed. While I might be open to a vague notion of a deity (and I don't believe in that either), it certainly has nothing to do with any that the organized religions promote. I am still a member of the church for some personal reasons, though I plan to separate from it later on in my life.

But I think saying that "nothing will happen without an open mind" is a bit disrespectful towards some people (or perhaps I'm misinterpreting). I'm willing to bet there are hundreds that have really struggled and tried to find their faith but have "failed" and are now atheists. I've heard many such things in the US for example, where faith is such a big deal. Losing their faith there has been a tremendous process and involved a LOT of Bible studies etc. Are you saying that they have not approached the subject with an open mind?
I repeat: this is a good question. I'll answer it from my point of view, I guess. I am indeed biased, but I do have some experience regarding these matters.

First off, every christian has moments of doubt sometimes. Once in a while that moment does not pass and the person leaves his/her faith. Personally I have had many moments in my life, especially in my younger years, when I have desperately WISHED that there was no God, but for some reason I could never convince myself of this. (I've experienced some very strange things in my life which I cannot logically attribute to something else than God. There are more reasons too but they're harder to describe.) I should also say that when I read the Bible, even though there are passages that do sound very far-fetched (Noah and the Ark for example), I still perceive a very peculiar... how do I say this... I feel like a presence of truth which is there throughout the entire Bible. Yeh, I can't explain it better. As I said earlier, it's not something a person can understand without experiencing it.

Back to your question. Many times, I've met people who have become atheists when they experienced something tragic in their life. But in almost every case, when I dig deeper I realize they are only atheists in the way that they don't want to have anything to do with God. Very, very few of them fully deny his existence. And if there really are hundreds of people like you say who are reading their Bible in desperate search for God and WANT to believe, then I actually cannot imagine they would get no answers from God. As a matter of fact, I believe (like other christians) that God searches for us foremost, rather than the other way around. Otherwise he wouldn't have sent his son to sacrifice himself in order to restore the Man to God connection. Jesus in Rev 3:20 - "Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me." <-- And that is honestly what I believe in. In a way that is also what I HAVE to believe in, I guess. Still, I sure wouldn't have anything against sitting down with these people struggling with their faith and talk. I'm sure I could learn something.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tripwires View Post
I think this applies to all religions.
That's possible. I can only speak for christianity though.
Quote:
Christianity - and in recent times, Islam - tends to get a bad rep because of people like Aloimeh and evangelists who insist on propagating their religion even when people aren't interested, and sometimes resorting to rather despicable ways to do so (example: denigrating another religion. This always annoys me. And telling people that they will go to hell if they don't convert. How is this supposed to make me want to be a Christian?).
That is and have always been a terrible way of trying to convert someone. However some of these people bear no ill will; after all in their own view they say that because they want you to join them in heaven. They are just stupid and don't understand that they're saying something offensive and very subjective.

Quote:
I don't think all Christians are brainwashed. I do, however, think that there will always be certain people that subscribe to a particular faith, whatever it is, that are brainwashed by their religion. Look at those Islamic fundamentalists. Look at the morons who called for Salman Rushdie's death for publishing a novel. Those people are brainwashed. Aloimeh appears brainwashed to me. It's just pointless discussing such issues with people who are so narrow-minded that they can't even see the extent to which their minds have been closed by their beliefs.
Aloimeh is EXTREMELY close-minded and judgmental, but I would have to meet him in order to tell if he is brainwashed. For the record, I agree with you about there being brainwashed people in every faith. I've met both christians and atheist who could be considered brainwashed.

Quote:
I did at one point keep an open mind regarding religion, and being in a Catholic school meant that I was exposed to the Christian faith on a daily basis. After a while, though, I decided that none of it made sense to me and therefore chose atheism.
Yup, you have all right to do that. 2 of my friends went to christian schools as well and they pretty much hated christianity after that. Nowadays they have a very different and more positive view of it, even if they don't call themselves christians.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloimeh View Post
How can you possibly call yourself Christian? You make no comment about a woman torching portions of the Holy Scriptures even while attacking me and distancing yourself from true Christianity because of my verbal response to that witch's disgusting acts of arson?
I'm more surprised how YOU can call yourself a christian. Going by all the judgment you dish out I wouldn't be surprised if you suddenly revealed to us you think you are God himself.
Orka_n is online now View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2011, 12:19 AM   #141
country flag cobalt60
Pacific Northwest Home
 
cobalt60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 31,621
cobalt60 has a reputation beyond reputecobalt60 has a reputation beyond reputecobalt60 has a reputation beyond reputecobalt60 has a reputation beyond reputecobalt60 has a reputation beyond reputecobalt60 has a reputation beyond reputecobalt60 has a reputation beyond reputecobalt60 has a reputation beyond reputecobalt60 has a reputation beyond reputecobalt60 has a reputation beyond reputecobalt60 has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: "Misogynistic" passages in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by Verd View Post
How are your sinner rabbits doing by the way?
I can honestly say they are not misogynists since hubs and I have raised them very well As well as with our religious beliefs
cobalt60 is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2011, 08:27 AM   #142
country flag Castafiore
Registered User
 
Castafiore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 19,437
Castafiore has a reputation beyond reputeCastafiore has a reputation beyond reputeCastafiore has a reputation beyond reputeCastafiore has a reputation beyond reputeCastafiore has a reputation beyond reputeCastafiore has a reputation beyond reputeCastafiore has a reputation beyond reputeCastafiore has a reputation beyond reputeCastafiore has a reputation beyond reputeCastafiore has a reputation beyond reputeCastafiore has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: "Misogynistic" passages in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by habibko View Post
you are mistaken, you should learn more about a subject before making statements on it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masih

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_view_of_Jesus
That's not the same, though.

Until Islam really considers Jesus as the messiah, as the son of God/Allah, Islam is not part of christianity.
This is no slant at all (I don't know why you react so strongly against my words). It's just a simple fact. I thought everybody knew that but apparently, not.

From your text (you should read that before lecturing others on learning more on a subject)
Quote:
Islam rejects the Christian view that Jesus was God incarnate or the son of God
I figured, since you present yourself as an expert, that you knew that in christianity, Jesus is seen as the son of god and god sent his son to us as the messiah. My mistake, I should have explained it more thoroughly and I shouldn't have taken it for granted.
I think that you're arguing with me for the sake of arguing, though.

Last edited by Castafiore : 11-23-2011 at 08:51 AM.
Castafiore is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2011, 09:11 AM   #143
country flag Castafiore
Registered User
 
Castafiore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 19,437
Castafiore has a reputation beyond reputeCastafiore has a reputation beyond reputeCastafiore has a reputation beyond reputeCastafiore has a reputation beyond reputeCastafiore has a reputation beyond reputeCastafiore has a reputation beyond reputeCastafiore has a reputation beyond reputeCastafiore has a reputation beyond reputeCastafiore has a reputation beyond reputeCastafiore has a reputation beyond reputeCastafiore has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: "Misogynistic" passages in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orka_n View Post
Aloimeh is EXTREMELY close-minded and judgmental, but I would have to meet him in order to tell if he is brainwashed. For the record, I agree with you about there being brainwashed people in every faith. I've met both christians and atheist who could be considered brainwashed.
I've known two people I consider to be brainwashed. I agree with you when you say that you have to meet Aloimeh to know if he is brainwashed, though.

Brainwashing often entails isolating such person (not physically - although that also happens - but mostly mentally), to make sure that this person views the information they give as the right information and seeking information outside is a bad idea (to put it simplistically). Brainwashing is about controlling the mind of a person and you can only do that if you cut off other sources. The threat of hell and eternal damnation is often the best way of doing so.

I've known a person who was in a dangerous cult and she was taught self-hypnosis. Very odd to witness. Whenever this person would hear information they weren't supposed to hear, her eyes would start rolling and she'd put herself into a trance, blocking everything out. Very weird. She finally stepped out of the cult when she got really ill and asked for a doctor but her cult leaders refused it because "the illness is a test from god and if your faith is strong enough, you'll survive". This made her rethink, luckily.

The other person I know whom I consider to be brainwashed is a Jehovah's witness. She doesn't read newspapers, doesn't follow the news on tv or on the internet,...She's not allowed to go to birthdays and such,... All this to mentally isolate that person. Everything she feels she needs to learn about what's going on in the world is told by her when she goes to one of their weekly meetings. The threat of hellfire and doom is never far away in her life.

-
When I was about 18, I approached my catholic parents to tell them that I was going to stop going to church because I don't believe in it any longer and I added that I felt like a hypocrite by continuing going to church (just in case somebody up there is taking notes, catholics have to go regularly to church) when it was meaningless to me. They accepted it but told me about their fear that I would be stepping into a spiritual black hole. I still consider it to be one of the best decisions I've made in my life because I felt so free afterwards. It was the opposite of stepping into a void.
Castafiore is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2011, 09:39 AM   #144
country flag habibko
Registered User
 
habibko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Age: 28
Posts: 19,874
habibko has a reputation beyond reputehabibko has a reputation beyond reputehabibko has a reputation beyond reputehabibko has a reputation beyond reputehabibko has a reputation beyond reputehabibko has a reputation beyond reputehabibko has a reputation beyond reputehabibko has a reputation beyond reputehabibko has a reputation beyond reputehabibko has a reputation beyond reputehabibko has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: "Misogynistic" passages in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by Castafiore View Post
That's not the same, though.

Until Islam really considers Jesus as the messiah, as the son of God/Allah, Islam is not part of christianity.
now you are adding something that you haven't originally stated, your definition was "every religion where Jesus is seen as the Christ, the Messiah, is part of Christianity", in Islam Jesus is seen as the Christ, the Messiah, so according to your definition it is part of Christianity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Castafiore View Post
This is no slant at all (I don't know why you react so strongly against my words). It's just a simple fact. I thought everybody knew that but apparently, not.

From your text (you should read that before lecturing others on learning more on a subject)

I figured, since you present yourself as an expert, that you knew that in christianity, Jesus is seen as the son of god and god sent his son to us as the messiah. My mistake, I should have explained it more thoroughly and I shouldn't have taken it for granted.
I think that you're arguing with me for the sake of arguing, though.
I know exactly how Jesus is viewed in both religions, I was pointing out to you that your definition is wrong, you didn't say "where Jesus is the son of God", for your information, the word Christ/Messiah =/= son of God
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Federer View Post
If I can help the game of tennis with the image or with making it more popular, that’s enough for me really. I want to leave the game better off than when I came into this great game
habibko is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2011, 09:46 AM   #145
country flag Time Violation
Slacker
 
Time Violation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mount Sharp
Age: 35
Posts: 12,105
Time Violation has a reputation beyond reputeTime Violation has a reputation beyond reputeTime Violation has a reputation beyond reputeTime Violation has a reputation beyond reputeTime Violation has a reputation beyond reputeTime Violation has a reputation beyond reputeTime Violation has a reputation beyond reputeTime Violation has a reputation beyond reputeTime Violation has a reputation beyond reputeTime Violation has a reputation beyond reputeTime Violation has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: "Misogynistic" passages in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by habibko View Post
now you are adding something that you haven't originally stated, your definition was "every religion where Jesus is seen as the Christ, the Messiah, is part of Christianity", in Islam Jesus is seen as the Christ, the Messiah, so according to your definition it is part of Christianity

I know exactly how Jesus is viewed in both religions, I was pointing out to you that your definition is wrong, you didn't say "where Jesus is the son of God", for your information, the word Christ/Messiah =/= son of God
Way to split hairs
__________________
“There’s so many athletes, tennis players around the world,” he continued, trying to put his life into some kind of perspective, “they want to be the best in what they do. They want to succeed. Many of them, they don’t succeed in the end. I’m fortunate to have this opportunity and succeed.”
Time Violation is online now View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2011, 10:05 AM   #146
country flag Castafiore
Registered User
 
Castafiore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 19,437
Castafiore has a reputation beyond reputeCastafiore has a reputation beyond reputeCastafiore has a reputation beyond reputeCastafiore has a reputation beyond reputeCastafiore has a reputation beyond reputeCastafiore has a reputation beyond reputeCastafiore has a reputation beyond reputeCastafiore has a reputation beyond reputeCastafiore has a reputation beyond reputeCastafiore has a reputation beyond reputeCastafiore has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: "Misogynistic" passages in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by habibko View Post
I know exactly how Jesus is viewed in both religions, I was pointing out to you that your definition is wrong, you didn't say "where Jesus is the son of God", for your information, the word Christ/Messiah =/= son of God
How is the view up there on your high horse.


In christianity, Jesus = Christ/messiah = the son of god, you nitpicker.
That's just it.

In catholicism or the way I have been taught, if you mention "Jesus Christ", the messiah, it's understood to be "the son of god". I should have realised that it's not common knowledge.
(just as I assumed that it's common knowledge that catholicism is part of christianity but apparently, it's not obvious for some. You learn every day)

I don't know exactly what the word "messiah" means in other religions but I do know what it means in christianity and I wrongly assumed that it was obvious. Instead of adding to my definition and giving me your insights into other religions in your infinite wisdom, you decide to attack me for it. I have no idea why exactly but hey, if it gives your pleasure, you're welcome.

Last edited by Castafiore : 11-23-2011 at 12:49 PM.
Castafiore is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2011, 01:00 PM   #147
country flag Echoes
Registered User
 
Echoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Age: 31
Posts: 1,902
Echoes has a reputation beyond reputeEchoes has a reputation beyond reputeEchoes has a reputation beyond reputeEchoes has a reputation beyond reputeEchoes has a reputation beyond reputeEchoes has a reputation beyond reputeEchoes has a reputation beyond reputeEchoes has a reputation beyond reputeEchoes has a reputation beyond reputeEchoes has a reputation beyond reputeEchoes has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: "Misogynistic" passages in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by Castafiore View Post
I didn't think that it was up for interpretation either since it seems obvious to me so I'm very surprised to see that many disagree on what's christian and what's not.

How would you define a "christian" exactly?
Perhaps it's a linguistic issue on a different level to you?
Example:
When I grew up, you could hear people call bad actions "not christian": stealing, cursing, showing disrespect to your parents, etc.
If you were caught lying, you could often hear "that's not very christian of you" for example.
So, "christianity" was almost a synonym for what was considered to be "proper" and good behaviour. In that sense, the Inquisition was not christian.

But when talking about which religion is part of Christianity, it goes back to which religion accepts Jesus as the messiah. (look at the etymology of the word). The way that story is told within each religion may differ but at the core, they all accept Jesus Christ.
The Inquisition was a bad, evil part in the history of Christianity but to me, it was part of it because they did believe in Jesus Christ.
It's more or less the way I see it, even though the examples are a bit too simplistic. Christianity is not a community like a nation is, for example (at least the way I see it). It's first of all a message given by Jesus Christ.

In my opinion nothing is more opposed to the Christian (of Christ) message than the Inquisition. If only for the fact that the Inquisition was a political action while Jesus never did politics.

And then it's clearly an infringement to the secularist principle invented by Jesus Christ (in the European civilization at least) namely that the Temporal and the Spiritual should be distinguished: "Give Caesar what belongs to Caesar, Give God what belongs to God".

It's so disrespectful to do things in the name of someone who said the exact opposite of what you're doing. I mean it's very easy to take any book you like, isolate a sentence from its context, make some sort of a "montage" and then justify the invasion of Poland. With a bit of dishonesty, it can be done with any other book.

In that sense, saying that Inquisition was Christian is an outrageous lie.

If the - say - Socialist Party has a programme that is not really socialist (often the case now), can you still call it Socialist? I don't think so.

Perhaps what can be argued is to say that the Inquisitors were Christians but not what they did.

Last edited by Echoes : 11-23-2011 at 01:05 PM.
Echoes is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2011, 01:10 PM   #148
country flag Castafiore
Registered User
 
Castafiore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 19,437
Castafiore has a reputation beyond reputeCastafiore has a reputation beyond reputeCastafiore has a reputation beyond reputeCastafiore has a reputation beyond reputeCastafiore has a reputation beyond reputeCastafiore has a reputation beyond reputeCastafiore has a reputation beyond reputeCastafiore has a reputation beyond reputeCastafiore has a reputation beyond reputeCastafiore has a reputation beyond reputeCastafiore has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: "Misogynistic" passages in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by Echoes View Post
It's more or less the way I see it, even though the examples are a bit too simplistic.
I figured as much (I kept the examples that simplistic on purpose to get the message across).


A theologist once told me that you can prove anything if you know your way in the Bible. You just have to pick the right quotes and put them in the context that fits your agenda.

Quote:
Perhaps what can be argued is to say that the Inquisitors were Christians but not what they did.
Agreed.
Castafiore is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2011, 02:01 PM   #149
country flag Time Violation
Slacker
 
Time Violation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mount Sharp
Age: 35
Posts: 12,105
Time Violation has a reputation beyond reputeTime Violation has a reputation beyond reputeTime Violation has a reputation beyond reputeTime Violation has a reputation beyond reputeTime Violation has a reputation beyond reputeTime Violation has a reputation beyond reputeTime Violation has a reputation beyond reputeTime Violation has a reputation beyond reputeTime Violation has a reputation beyond reputeTime Violation has a reputation beyond reputeTime Violation has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: "Misogynistic" passages in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by Echoes View Post
It's so disrespectful to do things in the name of someone who said the exact opposite of what you're doing. I mean it's very easy to take any book you like, isolate a sentence from its context, make some sort of a "montage" and then justify the invasion of Poland. With a bit of dishonesty, it can be done with any other book.

In that sense, saying that Inquisition was Christian is an outrageous lie.

If the - say - Socialist Party has a programme that is not really socialist (often the case now), can you still call it Socialist? I don't think so.
Spot on. If I go and rob a bank in the name of Christ, what does that mean? Christians are bank robbers?
__________________
“There’s so many athletes, tennis players around the world,” he continued, trying to put his life into some kind of perspective, “they want to be the best in what they do. They want to succeed. Many of them, they don’t succeed in the end. I’m fortunate to have this opportunity and succeed.”
Time Violation is online now View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2011, 02:19 PM   #150
country flag Lopez
Registered User
 
Lopez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 27
Posts: 6,909
Lopez has a reputation beyond reputeLopez has a reputation beyond reputeLopez has a reputation beyond reputeLopez has a reputation beyond reputeLopez has a reputation beyond reputeLopez has a reputation beyond reputeLopez has a reputation beyond reputeLopez has a reputation beyond reputeLopez has a reputation beyond reputeLopez has a reputation beyond reputeLopez has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: "Misogynistic" passages in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taejin View Post
Spot on. If I go and rob a bank in the name of Christ, what does that mean? Christians are bank robbers?
I think this is a bit of a simplification really.

If the act is motivated by faith and has the doctrine and/or the support of the church to back it up, then I'd say it's due to the religion of that person/those people who commit the act. Of course one should not condemn an entire religion based on the acts of some people, but still they shouldn't be overlooked...

When muslims were protesting violently against the Mohammed pictures or when they flew the planes to the WTC, they were acts that were definitely motivated by their faith; doesn't mean all muslims would do them.

Similarly, the Inquisition was motivated by faith and the church. So I'd say it's bit of a simplification and a cop-out really to leave that part out of the equation.
__________________
After Nadal beat Monfils at Doha, before AO 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSMnadal View Post
lol, who will beat him? Wawrinka? Berdych? Gulbis? Rosol? Federer?

Only Del Potro can take him out before the semis, and he won't. Nadal is winning the AO, bet your house on it.
Somewhere out there, there is a homeless person who once took betting advice from GSMnadal
Lopez is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Copyright (C) Verticalscope Inc
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBCredits v1.4 Copyright ©2007, PixelFX Studios