Originally posted by ZahlanziYou continue to show how totally illogical your beliefs are. You doubt the authenticity of the Bible - yet you still believe its content where it suits you. And so far the only justification I have seen you ever give is that it has not been 'disproven or proven' and that you are therefore free to believe what you like.
could you please give us any bible verses that has the J man saying woman is not to dare teach the man even if she has something to teach him.
i don't care about paul and peter and the rest of the apostles who may have been under the influence of the holy spirit or the holy spirits(ie drunk) when they wrote those chauvinistic rules.
tell me where jesus ...[text shortened]... n(duh). so even if they didn't have World Cups then they still preferred the women subservient
Which bits do you believe and why? Why do you believe the bit about Jesus being resurrected when it is far less likely to be true than the bit about Jesus saying women should be subservient?
Originally posted by twhiteheadyou on the other part continue to view the bible as a scientific treaty. moreover you consider that if the noah story is false then it all is.
You continue to show how totally illogical your beliefs are. You doubt the authenticity of the Bible - yet you still believe its content where it suits you. And so far the only justification I have seen you ever give is that it has not been 'disproven or proven' and that you are therefore free to believe what you like.
Which bits do you believe and why ...[text shortened]... it is far less likely to be true than the bit about Jesus saying women should be subservient?
jesus is an historic figure. he did lived and died on the cross. in addition to that we believe he is the son of god just as people believed the earth was round but couldn't prove it.
"You continue to show how totally illogical your beliefs are."
i believe the woman is the absolute equal of man, is that illogical?
i believe that noah story is simply just that, a story. kind of like "once upon a time". how illogical is this?
i believe that gay men and women and jews and muslims and atheists will not go to hell if they live a good life
etc.
so if i believe all of the above exactly as you do or as you should what right have you to call me an illogical idiot. kirkegaard said the universe will ask you after death whether you have lived in despair or not. i have my belief that jesus is the son of god and i do not live in despair. aside of the things any decent human should do, i also believe in a symbol of love, compassion, and all fluffy things. my god doesn't tell me to blow myself up in his name, doesn't ask me to give my money to a fat guy on TV, he doesn't ask me to force my children into a religion, doesn't asks me to pray for help but help myself. he asks me to help my fellow man and to be all i could be by my own effort without help from Him . and after a day in which i did all the things a decent "freethinker" almighty atheist would do, i come home. and as i go to sleep, i take comfort in knowing after i die there is still something out there. i am not living in despair. how about you?
Originally posted by TheSkipperI guess I may as well stick with my own interpretation.
So what you're saying is I have absolutely no reason to beleive what you say about the Bible is true?
I guess I may as well stick with my own interpretation.
Glad we cleared that up.
So, what is your 'interpretation' of the Bible?
Originally posted by Rajk999Raj, you assume too much. I've been in every kind of establishment you can think of all over this place since, I suspect, before you were born.
You should not say anthing until JosephW replied. I suspect that he thinks Hooters is a strip joint or a topless bar. I'll bet he has no clue what the place looks like.
Your snide remarks are adolescent. Grow up!
Originally posted by ZahlanziI never said that. It is true that I do not think that a much of the Bible is true, but that has nothing to do with my doubting the Noah story. I recognise that each part of the Bible was written at different times by different people for different reasons, and don't think that the content of any one book reflects on the validity of any other book. That would be like binding the Lord of the Rings with a Biography of George Bush and then judging one based on the other.
you on the other part continue to view the bible as a scientific treaty. moreover you consider that if the noah story is false then it all is.
jesus is an historic figure. he did lived and died on the cross.
So say that like it is undisputed fact. It is not. You believe it only because of the writings of certain gospel writers who you fully admit might have been drunk at the time. As I said, your beliefs are illogical.
in addition to that we believe he is the son of god just as people believed the earth was round but couldn't prove it.
Its a lot closer to the people who believe the earth is flat. People who believe the earth is round have good, logical reasons for their beliefs.
so if i believe all of the above exactly as you do or as you should what right have you to call me an illogical idiot.
The word "idiot" is your own.
And it is you, and not me, who is given to insulting people with illogical beliefs. You have in the past called all creationists 'stupid'.
i am not living in despair. how about you?
I am not living in despair either. And better still, I am not living under a self induced delusion.
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwIm 53. That means you are in your late 70? I dont even think they let men your age in to Hooters ... you might get a heart attack and die while eating the hotwings ... 😀.
Raj, you assume too much. I've been in every kind of establishment you can think of all over this place since, I suspect, before you were born.
Your snide remarks are adolescent. Grow up!
So you think that by calling me adolescent and to grow up, you will create a diversion from the main issue? Dont try that.
Tell us what is wrong with going to Hooters. If you claim to be a preacher/teacher/man of God ... whatever, and you say something is wrong you owe it to your audience to explain why. You might reform Kirksey and save his soul from hell. 🙂
Originally posted by twhiteheadI was recently checking into this issue and it seems that there are many studies which claim people live longer and happier while under this delusion. I myself am getting on in age and several of my counterparts who were leaning towards atheism are now leaning towards some kind of spirituality as they age. Naturally older people often loose their desire for material things and often question the meaning of life and why are we here and is there more to life. The point is that the belief (wrong though it may be) that there is a God and there could be something more to look forward to after death, is enough to bring optimism and meaning back to the life of the elderly, hence prolonging that life.
I.... I am not living under a self induced delusion.
Originally posted by twhitehead"I am not living in despair either. And better still, I am not living under a self induced delusion."
I never said that. It is true that I do not think that a much of the Bible is true, but that has nothing to do with my doubting the Noah story. I recognise that each part of the Bible was written at different times by different people for different reasons, and don't think that the content of any one book reflects on the validity of any other book. That w ...[text shortened]... living in despair either. And better still, I am not living under a self induced delusion.
yet you desperately try and convince us believers we are the victims of "a self induced delusion".
"The word "idiot" is your own."
yes you only call us illogical and self deluded. that is so much better, i am sorry.
"People who believe the earth is round have good, logical reasons for their beliefs."
not at the time they made the first claims. the earth was flat, anyone could see that because they didn't fall off of it. it took some people to believe it was more to it. and later they were proven logical. likewise you claim you are right and god doesn't exist because you cannot see him and he doesn't yell to you "i am here puny mortal".
i believe it is more to the universe that can be explained. and i don't believe the explanations already given to be wrong just because i have a god. i will get my proof when i die. or i will be proven wrong in which case i will not care much.
"I never said that.[...] and don't think that the content of any one book
reflects on the validity of any other book."
you asked how i can believe god's son to be jesus and not the noah's story. (because i have free will and while i can choose whether to believe in something reasonable, unproven but not disproven i am not a moron to believe something science has very satisfactorily proven to be utterly wrong). so in this question you either suggest that because a part is wrong, the whole bible must be wrong or you suggest i am incapable of discerning the true from the untrue.
i have respect for atheists. believing is not something everyone is capable of doing. it takes will and responsibility. will to believe in something wonderful that can prove to be a major dissapointment and responsibility as in not to base your life decision on an unproven god who might be willing to help you. so i understand you are incapable of believing something you cannot prove. what i don't understand is how you and richard dawkins believe to be my superior just because of this aspect.
i don't understand why i as a believer am not shown the same respect i show you. i never said you will burn in hell for being an atheist. do try and show me the same respect and not tell me i am self deluded, illogical etc,
Originally posted by ZahlanziGood point.
if your husband would burry the life savings under a rock then you have an obligation before god and before your children who might starve to smack some sense into him(or a more christian approach: talk ).
the bible says the woman should be subservient to the man. what if man is an idiot? what if god doesn't answer his prayers? who should then do the dec ...[text shortened]... does hurt your children or your family as a whole then it is your obligation to do something.
Blind application of Biblical guidelines is foolish. You are expected to use your common sense.
Christ said nothing about women being subservient to men, so I wont pay that too much attention. Much of those writings of Paul were for the early church and really is pointless to try to apply today. I was just trying to provoke PB but it seems she actually tries to live the life Paul recommended ... foolish in my opinion, but admirable.
On the contrary there is almost nothing that Christ said that is out of date. The words of Christ are truly eternal as He claimed.
Originally posted by Rajk999not really admirable. in my opinion pb is blessed with a kind worthy husband. so obeying the husband and the lord's will is coming easy. the problem is when a woman disagrees with the husband and knows she is right. by pb's philosophy she is supposed to keep her mouth shut even if the husband is burying the family life savings under a rock. she would have a responsibility to the children, to the family, even towards the idiot husband to take charge and "disobey". saying that those money are "material" objects unimportant to the salvation of the soul is just as irresponsible as saying food is a material object and unimportant. or saying that God will provide.(an excuse used by many ignorant religious people to breed like bunnies even though they can't provide for one child let alone 8).
Good point.
Blind application of Biblical guidelines is foolish. You are expected to use your common sense.
Christ said nothing about women being subservient to men, so I wont pay that too much attention. Much of those writings of Paul were for the early church and really is pointless to try to apply today. I was just trying to provoke PB but it seems ...[text shortened]... thing that Christ said that is out of date. The words of Christ are truly eternal as He claimed.
maybe paul had a reason for those rules as you said. in ancient times, the man provided and the woman stayed home to take care of the house. now if you don't leave the home you cannot be expected to have the life experience of someone who does and perhaps even have an education. so maybe it was reasonable to impose those rules to women.
now however is no longer the case as you said. god gave equal intellect to both man and woman and since the women are being educated now and have just as much life experience as men, it is silly to keep them subservient to man.
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziIf I pick up a book and start to read and its contents are fictional evident through my own life and the world around me then I can be assured that at the end of the book and throughout its pages I can and should expect the same fictional mummble jumble. You would be an idiot to not expect this to be the case and illogical. It may be a great read and hold many incitful things but not something I should base my entire life unless you like playing Harry Potter because you havent matured past the age of 5 years old.
you on the other part continue to view the bible as a scientific treaty. moreover you consider that if the noah story is false then it all is.
Originally posted by Rajk999Whats wrong with going to Hooters JosephW?
Im 53. That means you are in your late 70? I dont even think they let men your age in to Hooters ... you might get a heart attack and die while eating the hotwings ... 😀.
So you think that by calling me adolescent and to grow up, you will create a diversion from the main issue? Dont try that.
Tell us what is wrong with going to Hooters. If you claim ...[text shortened]... owe it to your audience to explain why. You might reform Kirksey and save his soul from hell. 🙂
Originally posted by Rajk999I'm just two years older than you.
Im 53. That means you are in your late 70? I dont even think they let men your age in to Hooters ... you might get a heart attack and die while eating the hotwings ... 😀.
So you think that by calling me adolescent and to grow up, you will create a diversion from the main issue? Dont try that.
Tell us what is wrong with going to Hooters. If you claim ...[text shortened]... owe it to your audience to explain why. You might reform Kirksey and save his soul from hell. 🙂
I never create diversions.
I never claimed to be a preacher/teacher/man of God. But I'm trying.
I don't think I need to explain the difference between right and wrong. If one goes to Hooters for a meal I have no problem with that, but if one is going to refer to the physical attributes of the waitresses as a motive for going there, then I don't think I need to defend or explain anything.