|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 25, 2018 10:57:30 GMT
So, you hit the nail on the head. The stronger, more intelligent Alpha males have no problems finding suitable females who are willing to be dominated. But the other males haves to have control by using scriptures to justify their actions. So scripture, which gives a man the ability to control his woman, is more likely to have been written by men. And note, the verse for wives is explicit in telling women what to do and the verse for husbands is deliberately vague. In my opinion, scripture doesn't have unintended consequences, it is very intentional. Now, I've never studied scriptures outside of Christianity, but my suspicion is that they are all that way. Yes, I can totally understand your point about the verses being intentional. I had already thought about that. But let's just suppose we give them some leverage on the basis of the time they were written and how evolved the society was at that time. Even if they are not intentional they certainly can lead to control of women by men in general. If I were a Christian (which I am not) I would have said that's not something I agree with and feel that part of the scripture is not any eternal truth or flawless. Even if I were religious (which I will never be) at most I would have been religious to the extent the member called gadreel is currently religious. Well, you're deciding to shoot down an argument simply because you can only see it your way. Again, there is NOTHING in those verses that indicate the verse can be interpreted the way rachel does or that if discipline cld be a word to apply to it, it's not in the sense of punishment. If it's not intentional then it cannot be blamed anyway. It's like blaming women for the #metoo movement as opposed to so many men breaking the rules of etiquette if not the law which are clearly spelled out. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Sept 25, 2018 11:04:28 GMT
Yes, I can totally understand your point about the verses being intentional. I had already thought about that. But let's just suppose we give them some leverage on the basis of the time they were written and how evolved the society was at that time. Even if they are not intentional they certainly can lead to control of women by men in general. If I were a Christian (which I am not) I would have said that's not something I agree with and feel that part of the scripture is not any eternal truth or flawless. Even if I were religious (which I will never be) at most I would have been religious to the extent the member called gadreel is currently religious. Well, you're deciding to shoot down an argument simply because you can only see it your way. Again, there is NOTHING in those verses that indicate the verse can be interpreted the way rachel does or that if discipline cld be a word to apply to it, it's not in the sense of punishment. If it's not intentional then it cannot be blamed anyway. It's like blaming women for the #metoo movement as opposed to so many men breaking the rules of etiquette if not the law which are clearly spelled out. You forget that you are yourself choosing to interpret the verse with your own added meaning and you are blaming me for that. The verse is strictly speaking misogynistic and not just a bit.
Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. ( Ephesians 5:22-33 New International Version (NIV)
It puts wives in a position of control where as husbands in position of a master (comparing them directly to Jesus). Now you can have some new take and I am fine with that. I have said enough on the topic and I won't be going round and round. Religion is not a topic that is extremely close to my heart. I get the last word when it comes to some imbecile spewing hatred on transgenders or something like that. You can win the religious debates all you like. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 25, 2018 11:13:13 GMT
Well, you're deciding to shoot down an argument simply because you can only see it your way. Again, there is NOTHING in those verses that indicate the verse can be interpreted the way rachel does or that if discipline cld be a word to apply to it, it's not in the sense of punishment. If it's not intentional then it cannot be blamed anyway. It's like blaming women for the #metoo movement as opposed to so many men breaking the rules of etiquette if not the law which are clearly spelled out. You forget that you are yourself choosing to interpret the verse with your own added meaning and you are blaming me for that. The verse is strictly speaking misogynistic and not just a bit.
Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. ( Ephesians 5:22-33 New International Version (NIV)
It puts wives in a position of control where as husbands in position of a master (comparing them directly to Jesus). Now you can have some new take and I am fine with that. I have said enough on the topic and I won't be going round and round. Religion is not a topic that is extremely close to my heart. I get the last word when it comes to some imbecile spewing hatred on transgenders or something like that. You can win the religious debates all you like. Again, I'm not interpreting. I'm reading it. It's always been a silly argument to say that every reading of any book has different meanings per reader. You are interpreting it beyond what is written and I'm merely helping you out with that. I know that this isn't going to change even one word of your view which distorts your ability to win an argument. This could be an interesting discussion otherwise. I am always more than willing to change my view the moment you reveal something that adds weight to your argument. I don't believe you are capable of doing that. With you, you can see the distortion of the verses. It's not the other way around by your own quotes of Ephesians 5. There is no organization on this planet that doesn't have a manger. Scripture has the husband as the manager, but then people pretend this means the woman is no longer equal or no longer has a voice when NOTHING in Scripture indicates this is anything near the truth. |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Sept 25, 2018 12:38:16 GMT
So, you hit the nail on the head. The stronger, more intelligent Alpha males have no problems finding suitable females who are willing to be dominated. But the other males haves to have control by using scriptures to justify their actions. So scripture, which gives a man the ability to control his woman, is more likely to have been written by men. And note, the verse for wives is explicit in telling women what to do and the verse for husbands is deliberately vague. In my opinion, scripture doesn't have unintended consequences, it is very intentional. Now, I've never studied scriptures outside of Christianity, but my suspicion is that they are all that way. Yes, I can totally understand your point about the verses being intentional. I had already thought about that. But let's just suppose we give them some leeway on the basis of the time they were written and how evolved the society was at that time. Even if they are not intentional they certainly can lead to control of women by men in general. If I were a Christian (which I am not) I would have said that's not something I agree with and feel that part of the scripture is not any eternal truth or flawless. Even if I were religious (which I will never be) at most I would have been religious to the extent the member called gadreel is currently religious. I was. I cannot speak towards any other religion because Christianity is the only one I was brainwashed by. I think your original post, or one soon thereafter, was intended for theists. I once was one. But once the hint of doubt intruded on my blissful ignorance, logic and reason started asking questions, which weren't answered directly, I was simply told that I shouldn't be asking those questions. The bible just got quoted back to me instead of my question being addressed. It's confusing; if, in secular (democratic) society, you have a question about the law or how it is interpreted, you can ask an attorney, who will tell you every possible implication of that law. If you feel that someone has wronged you, you can file a police report or a civil lawsuit against that person. A great deal of discussion - due process - will happen, and a conclusion reached. That generally doesn't happen with religion. It functions as more of a 'benevolent dictatorship', at least as far as I have experienced. Religion in general seems to hold back on change or progress. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 25, 2018 12:47:30 GMT
Yes, I can totally understand your point about the verses being intentional. I had already thought about that. But let's just suppose we give them some leeway on the basis of the time they were written and how evolved the society was at that time. Even if they are not intentional they certainly can lead to control of women by men in general. If I were a Christian (which I am not) I would have said that's not something I agree with and feel that part of the scripture is not any eternal truth or flawless. Even if I were religious (which I will never be) at most I would have been religious to the extent the member called gadreel is currently religious. I was. I cannot speak towards any other religion because Christianity is the only one I was brainwashed by. I think your original post, or one soon thereafter, was intended for theists. I once was one. But once the hint of doubt intruded on my blissful ignorance, logic and reason started asking questions, which weren't answered directly, I was simply told that I shouldn't be asking those questions. The bible just got quoted back to me instead of my question being addressed. It's confusing; if, in secular (democratic) society, you have a question about the law or how it is interpreted, you can ask an attorney, who will tell you every possible implication of that law. If you feel that someone has wronged you, you can file a police report or a civil lawsuit against that person. A great deal of discussion - due process - will happen, and a conclusion reached. That generally doesn't happen with religion. It functions as more of a 'benevolent dictatorship', at least as far as I have experienced. Religion in general seems to hold back on change or progress. you can’t really speak to the whole of Christianity. You admitted that your family were whackos and then you just project that onto everything Christian. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Sept 25, 2018 13:39:23 GMT
Yes, I can totally understand your point about the verses being intentional. I had already thought about that. But let's just suppose we give them some leeway on the basis of the time they were written and how evolved the society was at that time. Even if they are not intentional they certainly can lead to control of women by men in general. If I were a Christian (which I am not) I would have said that's not something I agree with and feel that part of the scripture is not any eternal truth or flawless. Even if I were religious (which I will never be) at most I would have been religious to the extent the member called gadreel is currently religious. I was. I cannot speak towards any other religion because Christianity is the only one I was brainwashed by. I think your original post, or one soon thereafter, was intended for theists. I once was one. But once the hint of doubt intruded on my blissful ignorance, logic and reason started asking questions, which weren't answered directly, I was simply told that I shouldn't be asking those questions. The bible just got quoted back to me instead of my question being addressed. It's confusing; if, in secular (democratic) society, you have a question about the law or how it is interpreted, you can ask an attorney, who will tell you every possible implication of that law. If you feel that someone has wronged you, you can file a police report or a civil lawsuit against that person. A great deal of discussion - due process - will happen, and a conclusion reached. That generally doesn't happen with religion. It functions as more of a 'benevolent dictatorship', at least as far as I have experienced. Religion in general seems to hold back on change or progress. Yeah, brainwashing could be a dangerous thing. It's so dangerous that people tend to believe there isn't even a chance of religious people misinterpreting scriptures even when existence of 100s of sects depicts how subjective scriptural interpretations could be. |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Sept 25, 2018 13:42:47 GMT
If you were a Christian, which you are not, you would have been brainwashed into saying that everything in the bible is eternal truth and flawless.I was. I cannot speak towards any other religion because Christianity is the only one I was brainwashed by. I think your original post, or one soon thereafter, was intended for theists. I once was one. But once the hint of doubt intruded on my blissful ignorance, logic and reason started asking questions, which weren't answered directly, I was simply told that I shouldn't be asking those questions. The bible just got quoted back to me instead of my question being addressed. It's confusing; if, in secular (democratic) society, you have a question about the law or how it is interpreted, you can ask an attorney, who will tell you every possible implication of that law. If you feel that someone has wronged you, you can file a police report or a civil lawsuit against that person. A great deal of discussion - due process - will happen, and a conclusion reached. That generally doesn't happen with religion. It functions as more of a 'benevolent dictatorship', at least as far as I have experienced. Religion in general seems to hold back on change or progress. you can’t really speak to the whole of Christianity. You admitted that your family were whackos and then you just project that onto everything Christian. Ah, the 'no true Scotsman' excuse. Another dismissive non-answer. I grew up in a church full of people just like my parents. And we regularly gathered with other like-minded people at a huge camp in New Mexico, Glorieta, still in business, now has a website. So are you suggesting that the entirety of the Southern Baptist Convention is not 'true Christian'? Or maybe that my implication was that ALL Christians are whackos? Yet another evasion. I've heard them all, bucko. What else you got? Edit: glorieta.orgOh, and just FYI, I don't think they accept Jehovah's Witnesses in their Christian summer adventure camp. |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Sept 25, 2018 13:44:21 GMT
If you were a Christian, which you are not, you would have been brainwashed into saying that everything in the bible is eternal truth and flawless.I was. I cannot speak towards any other religion because Christianity is the only one I was brainwashed by. I think your original post, or one soon thereafter, was intended for theists. I once was one. But once the hint of doubt intruded on my blissful ignorance, logic and reason started asking questions, which weren't answered directly, I was simply told that I shouldn't be asking those questions. The bible just got quoted back to me instead of my question being addressed. It's confusing; if, in secular (democratic) society, you have a question about the law or how it is interpreted, you can ask an attorney, who will tell you every possible implication of that law. If you feel that someone has wronged you, you can file a police report or a civil lawsuit against that person. A great deal of discussion - due process - will happen, and a conclusion reached. That generally doesn't happen with religion. It functions as more of a 'benevolent dictatorship', at least as far as I have experienced. Religion in general seems to hold back on change or progress. Yeah, brainwashing could be a dangerous thing. It's so dangerous that people tend to believe there isn't even a chance of religious people misinterpreting scriptures even when existence of 100s of sects depicts how subjective scriptural interpretations could be, Amen, Brother!  |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 25, 2018 22:04:39 GMT
You forget that you are yourself choosing to interpret the verse with your own added meaning and you are blaming me for that. The verse is strictly speaking misogynistic and not just a bit.
Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. ( Ephesians 5:22-33 New International Version (NIV)
It puts wives in a position of control where as husbands in position of a master (comparing them directly to Jesus). Now you can have some new take and I am fine with that. I have said enough on the topic and I won't be going round and round. Religion is not a topic that is extremely close to my heart. I get the last word when it comes to some imbecile spewing hatred on transgenders or something like that. You can win the religious debates all you like.
It's always been a silly argument to say that every reading of any book has different meanings per reader. You are interpreting it beyond what is written and I'm merely helping you out with that. I know that this isn't going to change even one word of your view which distorts your ability to win an argument. This could be an interesting discussion otherwise. I am always more than willing to change my view the moment you reveal something that adds weight to your argument. I don't believe you are capable of doing that. With you, you can see the distortion of the verses. It's not the other way around by your own quotes of Ephesians 5. There is no organization on this planet that doesn't have a manger. Scripture has the husband as the manager, but then people pretend this means the woman is no longer equal or no longer has a voice when NOTHING in Scripture indicates this is anything near the truth. How can you possibly make that claim? What gives you the right to say that you are right and others are wrong? By its very nature you are interpreting, cherry picking and making self fulfilling judgments on the content. You seem to be assuming Planet Arlon's role of being a Dunning Kruger exponent with this ridiculous arrogant nonsense. You even go on further to make a claim about YOUR interpretation of the words about the role of women in the Bible and extrapolating that to modern times. You are ridiculous in your narrow minded arrogance and your adoption of the circular argument of the Bible as interpreted by you. |
|
