|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 11:07 am
Type Text Here Quote: Deuteronomy 20:10-14 "...all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder..." Exactly. Womand and CHILDREN where PLUNDER or SPOILS or WINNING from WAR. Think males where amongst those children? The womand and children where taken for slaves. All slaves where property. This doesn't say woman are property. It saying Slaves are property. Bad example. Very bad one on your behalf. Actually... They were normal people before that war, remember, and if you can make other men's women and childern your property, then your women and childern can most certianly be your property aswell.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 1:40 pm
Christ, where have you been girl? I was wondering where you disappeared to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 5:41 pm
PirateEire Christ, where have you been girl? I was wondering where you disappeared to. I've been in hibrination. *sigh* it usually happens with out me thinking about it, so I don't offten post a notice. Sorry. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 5:56 pm
i think that's just sick, disgusting, and wrong...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 6:04 pm
Welcome back Taralanthalasa. You've been missed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 6:09 pm
DemigoddessHalfdemon Welcome back Taralanthalasa. You've been missed. I heart you guys. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 11:20 pm
Taralanthalasa Type Text Here Quote: Deuteronomy 20:10-14 "...all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder..." Exactly. Womand and CHILDREN where PLUNDER or SPOILS or WINNING from WAR. Think males where amongst those children? The womand and children where taken for slaves. All slaves where property. This doesn't say woman are property. It saying Slaves are property. Bad example. Very bad one on your behalf. Actually... They were normal people before that war, remember, and if you can make other men's women and childern your property, then your women and childern can most certianly be your property aswell. Of course they where people before then, but there slaves now, that what happens with war. I was simple stating that, that was a bad example of woman being property. Which is a pointless arguement and arguement for arguements sake.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 12:00 am
PirateEire Type Text Here @Se Ga Tak Quote: So, you doubt that there was ever a set price for selling your Daughter into Slavery, as set forth in the book of Leviticus? Or that if said DAughter was raped, the rapest made amends by paying her father for her? How certain are you of that? I almost married a young Greek Woman a few years back. Part of the Actual marriage Service was me paying that compensation to her father. They kept the tradition from Biblical times. Read my words clearly, biblical PRINCIABLE There a BIG difference between what god WANTS his people to do, and what they DO. A perfect example of this is this. "I'm a christian if I go kill someone and rape there wife, does that make it an acceptable Godly thing." Hell no. In many of those verses, it is recorded that God is the one who tells his people to do that. You're cherry-picking verses and throwing away context. ...That, or you're not even reading. Seems to be the later. Type Text Here Quote: you're not much for reading your scriptures, are you? Before we get into it, are you absolutely certain you want to get into a debate with two EDers, one a heavily respected ED Elete, when you haven't the full understanding of your scriptures? -Sigh- I didn't want to spend extreme large amounts of time getting exact scriptural backing, Are you positive you're a Christian? You really ought to study your scriptures a little more. I hope I'm not the only one in this guild who finds it a little sad that a Satanist may know more about your Bible than you do. You can't be bothered to waste time studying and trying to understand your own scriptures? Scriptural backing will help you in a debate that revolves around scripture and/or Christian doctrine. It's a fine source, and I suggest you try to use it more, for your own benefit, and ours. Insisting that the Bible says one thing while refusing to cite exactly where it is said is really not suitable. I can insist that Dreams Made of Flesh by Anne Bishop says that Surreal enjoys hugging kittens, but until I can prove to someone that said reference exists, I'm going to be greeted with skepticism. ...no matter how deeply I believe Surreal enjoys hugging kittens. Type Text Here but if you want me to. I will. Please do. Type Text Here And as for ED elete, pride before the fall, pride before the fall. I've spent my fair share of time in the ED, and I understand my scriptures fully. Do you? You seem to not have read them all... Type Text Here I know of rapes, but I didn't assume you meant OT. I mean that kind of thing went on but for good reason. Good reason? Elaborate... Type Text Here Deuteronomy 22:25-26
But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor,There you go, death for rape. What do you know, I was scripturally right that they got killed for it. Remember, that's only if the woman is engaged. If she is not, and is a virgin, she must marry her rapist that her chastity may belong to him and only him. If she doesn't cry out, she is to be stoned to death, because she obviously wanted it. ...Yeah. Type Text Here @pirate -- some of your stuff I'm not nearly going to write what I did before. Aw. Type Text Here Quote: Question: How did you come to the conclusion that I believed that this was an actual paper contract? I do not. I find the agreement to be one that does not work well for the daughter. I honestly cannot name many daughters who would tell their fathers "no" to making a promise to not sleep with anyone before marriage. Hell, even I would not be able to say no to my father. Whether or not I keep the promise is another issue, but backing a daughter into that situation seems completely unfair. -I think the artical said it was a paper contract. 'kay... But I'm not the author of the article... And if I were, would that not totally negate what you were arguing in your previous post? That it is indeed not a paper contract and a promise instead? Type Text Here -Promise are easily broken. Stop complaining, it a daughter father bonding thing, you're making stupid arguement here. Seriously. Don't like it don't keep it and don't tell him. If you don't like it, you shouldn't make it in the first place. The daughter should not feel cornered with such a question at all, so the concept as a whole is completely bogus. If the daughter wants to make such a pledge, I believe she should approach her father with it, and not the other way around. Type Text Here Quote: Deuteronomy 20:10-14 "...all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder..." Exactly. Womand and CHILDREN where PLUNDER or SPOILS or WINNING from WAR. Think males where amongst those children? The womand and children where taken for slaves. All slaves where property. This doesn't say woman are property. It saying Slaves are property. Bad example. Very bad one on your behalf. Fair enough. Now try Exodus chapters 20 & 21 that describe a father's daughter as his property to be given away at marriage. Female status in the bible is pitiful. Leviticus 12:1-5 Leviticus 20:10 Numbers 3:15 - Ooh, a male-only census. Females wouldn't count as people... Deuteronomy 22:13-21 Judges 19:16-30 Type Text Here Quote: That he is, but he still has no control over your personal life. However, what I was contesting was your little rant about recieving no privileges, and only financial burdens. 16 - 18 you have no privilages and all the cost, that what I was tlaking about. Funny, because you quite clearly said "Your still a minor in most thing til at least 18. (to the expection ofeverything you gotta' pay for. Your an adult for that! But not forprivilages oh no![/rant])" You said nothing about being 16. Seriously, stop changing your arguments halfway through. Type Text Here Quote: Anecdotal evidence means nothing in debate. Please refrain from using it. You will need to provide some hard proof that your friend is an accurate representation of a large fraction of those in her own situation. Perhaps a scholarly essay or some kind of graph measuring the amount of American teenaged girls who have sex before 18 who regret it, as opposed to those who do not. Best of luck finding something like that. A "large fraction" is also vague, and obviously disregards the majority, despite it's apparent significance. Alright. Whatever, I won't. I know my truth. But you saying this is going to cut you up later. biggrin Cut me up? Explain. Ah, willful ignorance. Ain't it great? You would be torn apart in M&R. I still claim my stance despite the fact that I cannot back it up! Haw haw!Type Text Here Quote: Overprotective/controlling parents won't have any psychological impact? How so? Also, please kindly refrain from twisting my words. "There's also over-protective fathers. They might deny their daughters something they yearn for for too long, which could have psychological consequences. Certainly this would be a rare case, but a case nevertheless." =/= "Well, they're going to get metally messed up by it." Hypocrit. Get me PROOF if I need to get more than my friends proof you gotta get more than your assumptions. =) Logical fallacy: Shifting the Burden of Proof. Wa-ha-ha. Try again. Type Text Here -Over protectives father will be OVERPROTECTIVE regardless of such a promise. They'll just be a rebel. What you have to say is unlikely to happen. And if it does the father would of done it if they made the promise or not. Would have done what? ...is there a term for a fallacy such as "A is A and is therefore not a problem?" Anyone know? Type Text Here Quote: You certainly are fond of changing your argument quite a bit. Is it 16, 18, or marriage that you feel is a sound boundary for sexual privileges? Also, again, I didn't say that not allowing a 13-16 year old to have sex is going to innevitably scar them... I said that over-protective, controlling fathers might take it too far and end up doing some harm to their daughter by denying them such things. I also quite clearly stated that the case is rare but is a case nonetheless. Do me a favour and try reading what I'm saying before you give me your knee-jerk reactions. Thanks. I don't spent any time proof checking if what I said is right. You should. Then state that next time. Type Text Here Didn't proof read sorry. =) I never do either. I just make it a point to spell check and think as logically as I possibly can the first time around. Type Text Here And I can't promise, I have a rather hectic life. And you do the same, remember I can't understand exactly what your saying. It text, I see no facial experssion, you can't express yourself with words exactly how your mind is thinking, Want me to make a YouTube response instead? Type Text Here I may think of words in a different context to you imediatly, and we even have a language barrier with words seeming I'm Australian and your whatever, Irish. Type Text Here some words have less meaning here than in American and other countries etc. So settle down. It's the internet. My intolerance for stupidity is worldwide, I assure you. I know many an Australian who takes more care in debate than yourself. Type Text Here Quote: If you are married, you are not committing adultery. Will you kindly provide a verse from the NT that says you are to have only one wife? I have admittedly done little research on that particular topic. Or perhaps Burny has a quote since you seem to be less-than-fond of reading your Bible. ^.~ Buurrnnnyyy? Grow up. If you wanna debate keep faults out of this, assuming and insulting my knowedge of the bible is considered flaming, or trolling, or whatever you want. Not unless Rowena or any of the other mods says that's flaming. Until it's harassment, it's not a sitewide issue, either. Grow thick skin--you need it when you debate with me. Type Text Here ANd I rather not sink to the five year old current insulting level your at. So just grow up and have a big girl debate. =/ I sincerely hope you don't think that "Buuuuurrrnnnyyyy?" is an insult. I was calling i love burnination for assistance, since he's got a more conservative disposition but is infinitely more familiar with scripture than you are, or so it seems. Type Text Here "Pro EDers" my foot, it sounds more GDers to me. When did I say I was a pro-EDer? I am an EDer, and am respected, as is Takai. What do you find GDesque about me? Do you really think that ED is full of nice critical thinkers? Type Text Here Matthew 19:4-6
Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."I'm pretty sure that implied he married one girl and stays with her. Well done, but Burny beat you to it. Type Text Here 1 Tim 3:8
A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well.Deacons are holy men. We are all called to be more than Decons but Christ like, decans are called to have one wife, to be holy and have greater understanding of Christ, the only way not to have good understanding of Christ is to not communicate and to not follow what he wants. Them having one wife is following what he wants. New Testament. I asked for Old. biggrin Type Text Here Nice point but you're looking at it in a totally wrong prespective. There was a VERY good reason for this. The money was a penity for what he did, the only way without killing him of getting him back for the horrible thing he'd done. But she needed to marry him. She'd be deflowered so to say, no man will marry her now, her parents can't support her forever. It was the only thing to do so she could live a life that was semi okay. *snort* Sounds like a spectacular life. After all, all women must marry, lest their lives hold no meaning. Then again, if she didn't cry out, she's gotta die anyway. Yay, women's rights! Type Text Here I know. Horrible unjust. But they wheren't selling her. They where punishing the man without killing him because he also ISN'T allowed to devoice. He has to support her now. That the catch to what he was doing. And I bet you the father would of made sure she was supported well. It all has to do with the time. That scripture doesn't prove it was a biblical princable that raping and selling your daughter to the rapist was a must. How does it not say that's a must? Type Text Here It was something the Jewish people had set up to make sure the law was kept. =/ And the women had some chance when raped for a more finacially secure future. Sad. Type Text Here Quote: Forgive the blatant fallacy that I am about to make here, but if he continues to upset me in the other thread where he brought up his ideas about Satanism, I doubt I will show him much leniency 't all. Grow up. Done. Type Text Here Quote: And while I hate to ignore your wishes, burny, perhaps ***** was an issue. It wasn't unheard of... It was something not to be done, lev 20 says all that kind of junk is a sexual perversion. They say daughter-in-law there and it has to do with age as well as the fact there in the family. Does it say anything about raping children? Type Text Here Quote: oh, i wasn't saying that ***** didn't exist back then. i'm just saying that God wouldn't say "okay guys, have sex with children!" Exactly, I love how you don't allow us to assume but your allowed to assume from scripture, real double standards. What assumptions did I make? I said that ***** was not unheard of. Do you contest that? Look I've been away with hectic issues in my life, school, relationships, all the jazz so Pirate as much as I love trying to have a theological debate with someone who seems to much turn this into a mud flinging match where the purpose is to try and make the other person seem as uncreditable as possible -- but I'm have to turn down such offers. But a few notes; I simple never got full scripture backing from the start becuase the issue wasn't ever if woman where equal and all this jazz you brought into it, it was if the ball was right or wrong, I stated that it has good points, and you bit my head off for it. Remember everyone allowed an opinion even if it's not yours. This subject never required half the crap you wanna' talk about. God never once ever intended woman to be below men, he never treats woman differently to men when his blessing, there are some powerful woman in the old testiment. Beside that God never liked all these rules, he sent his son to get rid of them. So yeah... sorry I didn't read everything you said, but the posts where getting longer and longer and my brains rather fried from study. Taralanthalasa Wow... I smell a butt head... and it angers me how stupid he is for not considering anything except for the fact that the agreement should bring a father and daughter closer together, and that in a marriage the father'll be giving all of his daughter to the groom... Oops, that sounds like a property issue to me. Having to make sure that the father gives the groom his daughters virginity at marriage is insane, and to me a total property thing. It screams to me "I've made sure she's clean for you. now she's yours and you can do whatever you want with her" kinda thing. Personally, I would NEVER want to be cornered by my dad like that, ever. I had all intentions of keeping my virginity till marriage... and when I was younger I probably would have stupidly agreed to take the contract... but things change, people change... and crap happens. I don't regret any choice I've made. I've praied forgiveness a dozen times or more, and I know I'm still loved. But... if I had made the promise to my dad say... ten years ago (I would have been 10), I'm afraid I wouldn't have been able to keep it, because I found the guy (at 17) who would have my love and a year later, my virginity. We're still together, it's been almost four years now. But we couldn't help ourselves anymore... it just felt like the right thing to do... to plege our love for eachother in a way that we would never be able to say we didn't love one another. First time for both of us. Now. If I had made that agreement with my father... and then all that happened... I wouldn't be able to live with myself. I'm not one to easily break a promise or anything like that. But some things, you just can't control. And a persons actions/feelings are usually one of those things. Now, I also don't believe virginity is everything anymore... and actually, this topic just made me think that way. Even though saving it for marriage is a good thing, and what God wants you to do, I don't believe it's nessisary to be all wound up about it being the only thing a bride can give her groom. I mean, even if she isn't a virgin, she's still agreeing to give him all of her, her heart, her soul, her body. And no other man can take those things anymore. Everything she is, would become his. And vice-versa. It's a huge step either way. Sex is something that should come from love... and you don't have to be married to love each other. If I was to ever brake up with my boyfriend, I would only carry proof on my body of how much we loved each other... and if I could let any other man that close to me again, then I'd have to love them more. That's just the way it would have to be, or I wouldn't feel right doing it. Congradulations, your sin means more to you than what God wants. The reason for the contract is just that, to help you not be ruled by your emotions. Taralanthalasa (wow you have a hard name to write out!) Sexual intamacy is something very big, it a great present given by the Lord -- but I can't be bothered trying to argue that with you but it says that TWO will BECOME ONE when they come together. When you sleep with someone you give them a little bit of your heart, a little bit of your soul, basically a little bit of your inner being, you can't get that back off them. They have it, and they can't give it back. BUt beside all that, God says not to do it and God is clear about sin. Heb13:4 Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.Mark 10:8 And the two shall become one flesh, so that they are no longer two, but one flesh.Argue as much as you want but it's a sin, and you are rebeling against God every time you do it. Romans 6:23 or the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 8:29 am
Type Text Here Look I've been away with hectic issues in my life, school, relationships, all the jazz so Pirate as much as I love trying to have a theological debate with someone who seems to much turn this into a mud flinging match where the purpose is to try and make the other person seem as uncreditable as possible -- but I'm have to turn down such offers. Is this a concession, sir? It is hardly a theological debate when you have no scripture to support your previous claims. Pure opinion alone is not sufficient evidence in debate. Type Text Here But a few notes; I simple never got full scripture backing from the start becuase the issue wasn't ever if woman where equal and all this jazz you brought into it, Debates evolve. You made claims you could not support with scripture. Rewinding this is not going to magically erase your burden of proof. Type Text Here it was if the ball was right or wrong, I stated that it has good points, and you bit my head off for it. As much as I'm sure you'd like to think it was a personal attack, it was not. I debate--that's what I do. Sadly, few can catch tone and manner in text alone, and you've already become defensive. If you want to see me attack someone, look for the next thread about Satanism, Wicca, or "Lucifer" in ED, and you'll see what it's like for me to bite someone's head off. Type Text Here Remember everyone allowed an opinion even if it's not yours. This subject never required half the crap you wanna' talk about. But it is not entirely unrelated and still pertains to the topic at hand. Surely you're aware that discussions and debates do this, yes? Your opinion is fine, but when you make claims about what something does or does not say, you'd better be prepared to prove it. Type Text Here God never once ever intended woman to be below men, he never treats woman differently to men when his blessing, there are some powerful woman in the old testiment. How does he treat them equally in the OT? Women are not to speak in church, and are to cover their heads, lest they tempt men. Eve was given a greater punishment than Adam. Brides are given away like prizes, and sexuality is... well... If you can't see an apparent status difference between men and women in the OT, then you really need to sit and read your Bible one day. Type Text Here Beside that God never liked all these rules, he sent his son to get rid of them. I'll take that. Though, I am told there is a verse (that I will have to find when I am less busy) that clearly states that Jesus didn't abolish Old Law, but abolished Ceremonial Law. Distinguishing which is which is always fun, too... ><; Type Text Here So yeah... sorry I didn't read everything you said, but the posts where getting longer and longer and my brains rather fried from study. Whatever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 5:17 pm
PirateEire Women are not to speak in church, and are to cover their heads, lest they tempt men. first, that's NT. and second, that was directed at a specific church in a specific culture. Paul was addressing an issue that only pertained to the church he was writing to. and you wrongly interpreted women covering their head wrong. it was done to disassociate themselves from the temple prostitutes, who oftentimes would completely shave their heads.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:32 am
i like burnination PirateEire Women are not to speak in church, and are to cover their heads, lest they tempt men. first, that's NT. and second, that was directed at a specific church in a specific culture. Paul was addressing an issue that only pertained to the church he was writing to. and you wrongly interpreted women covering their head wrong. it was done to disassociate themselves from the temple prostitutes, who oftentimes would completely shave their heads. PirateEire You made claims you could not support with scripture. PirateEire but when you make claims about what something does or does not say, you'd better be prepared to prove it. Saying for this. Practice what you preach.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:39 am
PirateEire Type Text Here Look I've been away with hectic issues in my life, school, relationships, all the jazz so Pirate as much as I love trying to have a theological debate with someone who seems to much turn this into a mud flinging match where the purpose is to try and make the other person seem as uncreditable as possible -- but I'm have to turn down such offers. Is this a concession, sir? It is hardly a theological debate when you have no scripture to support your previous claims. Pure opinion alone is not sufficient evidence in debate. Type Text Here But a few notes; I simple never got full scripture backing from the start becuase the issue wasn't ever if woman where equal and all this jazz you brought into it, Debates evolve. You made claims you could not support with scripture. Rewinding this is not going to magically erase your burden of proof. Type Text Here it was if the ball was right or wrong, I stated that it has good points, and you bit my head off for it. As much as I'm sure you'd like to think it was a personal attack, it was not. I debate--that's what I do. Sadly, few can catch tone and manner in text alone, and you've already become defensive. If you want to see me attack someone, look for the next thread about Satanism, Wicca, or "Lucifer" in ED, and you'll see what it's like for me to bite someone's head off. Type Text Here Remember everyone allowed an opinion even if it's not yours. This subject never required half the crap you wanna' talk about. But it is not entirely unrelated and still pertains to the topic at hand. Surely you're aware that discussions and debates do this, yes? Your opinion is fine, but when you make claims about what something does or does not say, you'd better be prepared to prove it. Type Text Here God never once ever intended woman to be below men, he never treats woman differently to men when his blessing, there are some powerful woman in the old testiment. How does he treat them equally in the OT? Women are not to speak in church, and are to cover their heads, lest they tempt men. Eve was given a greater punishment than Adam. Brides are given away like prizes, and sexuality is... well... If you can't see an apparent status difference between men and women in the OT, then you really need to sit and read your Bible one day. Type Text Here Beside that God never liked all these rules, he sent his son to get rid of them. I'll take that. Though, I am told there is a verse (that I will have to find when I am less busy) that clearly states that Jesus didn't abolish Old Law, but abolished Ceremonial Law. Distinguishing which is which is always fun, too... ><; Type Text Here So yeah... sorry I didn't read everything you said, but the posts where getting longer and longer and my brains rather fried from study. Whatever. I can't be bothered reading this, all, you may think your not making personal attacks but you are, I've done real debating and bringing into context half the stuff you have like insulting people saying basically "even I know the bible better than you" (side note: You don't know the bible better, you just used the search function on biblegateway.com GGnoRE) is something you don't do. Also a thing you don't do is ignore things said by the other person. Which you've done, you know. Ignore what you can't argue and then focus on what you can. Yeah those thing. Do this and then your right: Find a scripture for me where it says the LORD says that woman are lesser than men. Find me ONE thing that says God made woman to be lesser. My WHOLE arguement is "Sure it happened, but that was the culture of the time" I mean, God doesn't want people to hate people on a count of there racial colour, that didn't stop people who where christian doing it in America. Doesn't mean God says black people are lesser, it means people do. God doesn't. And yes exactly I'm pretty sure it all law, because there also a scripture that says "If you are to live like a rule, conforming to there laws then you must follow ALL there laws" you can have those rules are a guideline but you are not bound to them. See, Cermonal laws are what God wants. But it says it is impossible to reach God by keeping the laws alone, because the laws restrict and make it nearly impossible to get to God. Therefore! "None will get to the father expect through me" Anyway Pirate, I'm done, you win, your might EDer power wins. Congrads. smile Your always right. You want an arguement for arguement sake but you do so ingore what I'm saying. So you can win. It okay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 11:16 am
i like burnination PirateEire Women are not to speak in church, and are to cover their heads, lest they tempt men. first, that's NT. and second, that was directed at a specific church in a specific culture. Paul was addressing an issue that only pertained to the church he was writing to. Oh! Okay...so we don't need to follow pretty much HALF of the NT, then? Most of them WERE leters sent to specific churches... Which raises teh question, why were they included at all? Seeing as they no longer apply to us, I mean.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:18 pm
Type Text Here I can't be bothered reading this, all, you may think your not making personal attacks but you are, You won't read my post, yet you're content to assume that I am simply flaming you and that my posts have no merit? Ignoring your opponent's points isn't exactly debate etiquette. You're not in a rush. Read, then respond. You'll save us both a lot of time, and I won't need to repeat myself a million times. Type Text Here I've done real debating and bringing into context half the stuff you have like insulting people saying basically "even I know the bible better than you" (side note: You don't know the bible better, you just used the search function on biblegateway.com GGnoRE) is something you don't do. Uh. Prove that I used biblegateway.com. I got my sources elsewhere, and have never used biblegateway.com. At best, I use biblegateway.com, but for this, I did not. I can't be arsed to page through a bunch of search results when I know of a site that offers the exact verses I am looking for, which I cross referenced in my hard-copy of the NIT Bible. Type Text Here Also a thing you don't do is ignore things said by the other person. Which you've done, you know. Hahaha... You're really one to talk. Did you not just admit to not even reading my post? You've been dodging arguments throughout this entire thread, whether you realize it or not. What am I ignoring? Type Text Here Do this and then your right: Shifting the burden of proof. But whatever the ********. I'll ******** humour you... Type Text Here Find a scripture for me where it says the LORD says that woman are lesser than men. There is no such thing as a single verse where YHVH says that women are less than women. It is implied through scripture. Certainly, you read the whole Bible, and not just bitty solitary verses ignoring context, yes? The second account of creation says that Eve came from Adam as a companion. She was created for him because he was lonely. They were not created at the same time as equals in the second account of creation. Eve was punished more harshly for having been tempted by the serpent to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. If you're looking for a "And the Lord said that women are inferior beasts and shall eternally serve under men," I don't have that, because it doesn't exist. At most, I have Genesis 3:16: To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."Certainly doesn't say they weren't created equal--only that they should not be treated equally. Type Text Here Find me ONE thing that says God made woman to be lesser. See above. Type Text Here My WHOLE arguement is "Sure it happened, but that was the culture of the time" I mean, God doesn't want people to hate people on a count of there racial colour, that didn't stop people who where christian doing it in America. Yeah, he just wanted people to hate Canaanites and non-Jews. Type Text Here Doesn't mean God says black people are lesser, it means people do. God doesn't. Then what parts of the Bible are you taking as YHVH's word, and what parts are you taking to be man's word? Honestly, I am an atheist. I don't believe in YHVH, and the whole thing is entirely man-made, and can be considered faulty on that count. In my opinion, nothing was divinely inspired at all. However, this book still has quite an affect on our Western culture today. The original topic of this thread involves a father and his daughter's virginity per Biblical/religious law. Reclaiming a father's "right" to rule over his daughter's virginity is pretty much taking that whole "culture of the time" back. My highly opinionated conclusion: The whole father-controlling-his-daughter's-virginity thing is really ******** up. Type Text Here And yes exactly I'm pretty sure it all law, because there also a scripture that says "If you are to live like a rule, conforming to there laws then you must follow ALL there laws" you can have those rules are a guideline but you are not bound to them. Scripture and verse for that? I don't doubt it exists, I just have troubles reading your hand-typed version of it, and would rather read the NIV or some sort of sensible translation's version, word-for-word. You lost me at living like a rule, and following "there" laws. Type Text Here See, Cermonal laws are what God wants. But it says it is impossible to reach God by keeping the laws alone, because the laws restrict and make it nearly impossible to get to God. Therefore! "None will get to the father expect through me" But Jesus kept Old Law and got rid of Ceremonial Law. Distinguishing between the two isn't a walk in the park, of course. Type Text Here Anyway Pirate, I'm done, you win, your might EDer power wins. Honestly, stop complaining to me about what Takai says about me. While I jokingly consider myself an ED god amongst friends because of a guild and parody religion we've made up, I am not so haughty, and you would do well to distinguish between what I say, and what Takai says. He considers me "elite" in ED. I consider myself "good enough" in ED. Type Text Here Congrads. smile Your always right. You want an arguement for arguement sake but you do so ingore what I'm saying. So you can win. It okay. Again, what did I ignore? You've ignored my entire argument. Period. You're dodging your burden of proof, and shifting it on to me. Also: *congrats *argument *ignore *it's
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:19 pm
Se Ga Takai i like burnination PirateEire Women are not to speak in church, and are to cover their heads, lest they tempt men. first, that's NT. and second, that was directed at a specific church in a specific culture. Paul was addressing an issue that only pertained to the church he was writing to. Oh! Okay...so we don't need to follow pretty much HALF of the NT, then? Most of them WERE leters sent to specific churches... Which raises teh question, why were they included at all? Seeing as they no longer apply to us, I mean. because they still contain timeless spiritual truths that can be applied in our lives. out of the little blip about Euodia and Syntyche we can find that we need to be unified as a Body. and the part about women covering their heads, we find that women should not dress in a way that says the wrong things about them. no, i'm suggesting full-length shapeless robes with a turtle neck for women, i mean i have no problem with skirts that are above the knee or tank tops on women. but women were dressing in a way that was tempting men or in a way associating themselves with the temple prostitutes. so basically, don't dress like prostitutes. and it's pretty easy to tell what would just be an issue within that church that does not apply to us and what can. it's not like "is Romans 8:32 only directed towards the believers in Rome?" a little thought can go a long way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
