Originally posted by robbie carrobie
thankyou Zahlanzi, were are of course not referring to women in general but to an arrangement, or an office of responsibility, now you have evaded the issue, but you shall not get away so easily, why did Christ, specifically pick twelve men to serve as Apostles, which was an official office of oversight and a responsible position, if you please!

He was gay!!

Makes perfect sense to me. Never a girlfriend to speak of in the Bible, never married, no kids and hung round with 12 guys all the time.

Surely 'bent as a nine bob note'.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
thankyou Zahlanzi, were are of course not referring to women in general but to an arrangement, or an office of responsibility, now you have evaded the issue, but you shall not get away so easily, why did Christ, specifically pick twelve men to serve as Apostles, which was an official office of oversight and a responsible position, if you please!

this was copied exactly word for word from my previous post. it was expected since your attention span equals that of a 3 year old and you read other posts diagonally

"also there is a reason jesus only chose men as apostles, because all of humanity at that time was made of mysoginist men and the women who served them. having a woman speaking in public wouldn't be very good PR.
but even so, post a verse from the bible that has jesus say that women should obey men in everything. and then we talk. "

which in translation means: apostles were meant to spread christianity after jesus expired on the cross. spread a new idea in a world were all women were considered property. so to increase success, jesus had manly men walk alone around the world, sleep where they could and talk to crowds about jesus, all the while hoping they don't get eaten by lions in the roman amphitheaters.
today, the possibility of becoming a martyr in roman amphitheaters is slightly lower. the roads a woman needs to travel to spread the word is only from her house to the church she preaches in. and that only adresses the issue of women as priests.

or he simply wanted a boys club. which still doesn't say jesus thought women were inferior to men.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
He was gay!!

Makes perfect sense to me. Never a girlfriend to speak of in the Bible, never married, no kids and hung round with 12 guys all the time.

Surely 'bent as a nine bob note'.

some say he got some from magdalene 😀

there is a more logical explanation though: when you know you will die horribly at 33 and you have a lot of sh|t to tell humanity you kinda skip the dating process.
plus there was no dating back then, you either got married and made a footbal team of kids(which puts a dent in the travelling and spreading the word plan) or you went celibate. messing around was frowned upon. 😛

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
this was copied exactly word for word from my previous post. it was expected since your attention span equals that of a 3 year old and you read other posts diagonally

"also there is a reason jesus only chose men as apostles, because all of humanity at that time was made of mysoginist men and the women who served them. having a woman speaking in public wo ...[text shortened]... imply wanted a boys club. which still doesn't say jesus thought women were inferior to men.

thankyou for this admittance, i hope you did not choke when wording it. so Christ chose men because it was a practical solution. Now if Christ set the pattern, and Paul simply follows the pattern, it cannot be said that its Paul arrangement, can it? secondly your statement that a women should obey men in everything is without foundation, did not Sarah call Abraham 'Lord', in her heart? please tell me the significance of this if you can? Are not husbands counselled by Paul to love their wives as their own body, to feed and cherish her? to be self sacrificing and to put her interests ahead of your own? does that sound like a misogynist, hardly, does it!

Originally posted by Proper Knob
He was gay!!

Makes perfect sense to me. Never a girlfriend to speak of in the Bible, never married, no kids and hung round with 12 guys all the time.

Surely 'bent as a nine bob note'.

Noobster, you have gone too far, you are blaspheming and i ask you to stop it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Noobster, you have gone too far, you are blaspheming and i ask you to stop it.

No, he wasn't blaspheming. To be gay is as much honourous as being hetero. To be homophobic on the other hand... but Jesus wasn't homophobic.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
No, he wasn't blaspheming. To be gay is as much honourous as being hetero. To be homophobic on the other hand... but Jesus wasn't homophobic.

yes perhaps in your little ol materialistic world, to me, i evaluate these things differently, and to me it is obscene. But i dont expect you to accept or understand that.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes perhaps in your little ol materialistic world, to me, i evaluate these things differently, and to me it is obscene. But i dont expect you to accept or understand that.

No, I don't understand your twisted ideas, nor I don't accept your homophobism.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
No, I don't understand your twisted ideas, nor I don't accept your homophobism.

good, for i also resent your lewd appraisals of holy things and defamatory and insidious remarks!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
good, for i also resent your lewd appraisals of holy things and defamatory and insidious remarks!

This has nothing to do with religion. I respect Jesus weather or not he is gay. You don't. Says more about you than about me, don't you think?

You have a hateful mind...

Originally posted by FabianFnas
This has nothing to do with religion. I respect Jesus weather or not he is gay. You don't. Says more about you than about me, don't you think?

You have a hateful mind...

no, its simply because you people are beyond all moral sense, that you hide behind a thinly veiled type of secular liberalism, where anything goes. As soon as someone prepares to take a moral stance, he is labelled a bigot, a homophone, a misogynist etc etc etc. That is why you are truly beyond all moral sense! when you are called upon to produce evidence for your stance, there is nothing, a vacuous region and hide behind these defamatory assertions, tell me what is virtuous about that?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no, its simply because you people are beyond all moral sense, that you hide behind a thinly veiled type of secular liberalism, where anything goes. As soon as someone prepares to take a moral stance, he is labelled a bigot, a homophone, a misogynist etc etc etc. That is why you are truly beyond all moral sense! when you are called upon to produce ...[text shortened]... vacuous region and hide behind these defamatory assertions, tell me what is virtuous about that?

What? Anythings goes? No, paedopilia doesn't go. No, necrophilia doesn't go. No, zoophilia doesn't go. And - No, homophobia doesn't go.

You have nothing against homosexual people, so you say.
But you have something against what they are doing in their private bedroom, so you say.
But this is not of your business, whatever they do, in consent with eachother. As I have nothing to do with if you masturbate with your right hand or your left one. It's not of my business.

So if you hate homosexuality, then you are of a hateful mind, becuse you want to know what they do in order to label it immorality. It's not of your business.

You know what they do, you do probably the same, you have sex.

Don't you think Jesus had sex? If so, with whom? Is it of your business? Then how do you know what he did, or not did? What is the immoral with that?

Have respect for other people, whatever they do, if they don't hurt anyone. Have respect for them, because what they do is not your business to judge.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
thankyou for this admittance, i hope you did not choke when wording it. so Christ chose men because it was a practical solution. Now if Christ set the pattern, and Paul simply follows the pattern, it cannot be said that its Paul arrangement, can it? secondly your statement that a women should obey men in everything is without foundation, did not Sa ...[text shortened]... d to put her interests ahead of your own? does that sound like a misogynist, hardly, does it!

oh unintelligent one. it was a practical solution to a particular problem. as in don't send the woman that cooks in the airport restaurant to pilot a plane, send the pilot.
problem that doesn't exist today. not to mention jesus didn't choose the men to be his apostles, he chose 12 men. that were adequate for that job. then. and you still haven't posted any verse that jesus intended this pattern to be perpetuated throughout history till the end of time.


paul however demanded that women everywhere not teach in churches. women everywhere obey their husband, no matter how stupid the husband is and no matter how intelligent the woman is. and he didn't set up a time limit as in "this is only to be done until the b*tches start asking for voting rights and a right to a job and so on"



secondly your statement that a women should obey men in everything is without foundation, did not Sarah call Abraham 'Lord', in her heart? please tell me the significance of this if you can? Are not husbands counselled by Paul to love their wives as their own body, to feed and cherish her? to be self sacrificing and to put her interests ahead of your own? does that sound like a misogynist, hardly, does it!

oh man where to begin.
-women obeying their husbands is exactly what paul means. i know that because he
says so. no room for metaphors.
-how does sarah calling abe "lord" is any relevant to your claim that my statement is without foundation? if anything, it supports it.
-a woman must obey her husband. as in MUST. men are advised by paul to care for them. as in "dude you shouldn't be a dick". from the start they are not equal.
- what do you think being a mysoginistic man means? to beat and abuse a woman? or is that the man that doesn't let the woman teach, have a job or do anything other than cook and take care of children?
-from your logic we understand that if a woman is cherished and fed, she couldn't possibly ask for anything else. which is mysoginistic. she couldn't possibly ask for the same things that a man has, like an education, a position of importance, of responsibility.
-your "logic" still doesn't adress the fact that the woman must obey the husband in every way. paul only says the man has to cherish and feed his wife. a retard can do that. he can love and cherish his wife and then invest the family life savings in manure and the wife cannot do anything about it because she must obey him. on probably wouldn't know investing in manure might be a bad move because "SHE WASN'T FREAKIN ALLOWED AN EDUCATION"



it is hard work to instruct the carrobies

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no, its simply because you people are beyond all moral sense, that you hide behind a thinly veiled type of secular liberalism, where anything goes. As soon as someone prepares to take a moral stance, he is labelled a bigot, a homophone, a misogynist etc etc etc. That is why you are truly beyond all moral sense! when you are called upon to produce ...[text shortened]... vacuous region and hide behind these defamatory assertions, tell me what is virtuous about that?

my my, touchy aren't we?

and you can still claim with a straight face you aren't a homophobe ?

let's make an exercise: assume that jesus wasn't gay but he DID get it on with mary magdalene(jesus if you hear me, this is only an exercise for the carrobie, i mean no offence, praise you)

suddenly it isn't so blasphemous is it? it is only preposterous. Jesus and magdalene? no way. but when you hear of jesus and peter, your blood begins to boil.