It seems to me that many of the atheists on here are just here because they hate Christianity.

[URAVIP2ME]

Yes, but still most believe they are right in their belief, as you do also, this is one reason I left religion.

Which religion in particular did you leave?
To me, Jesus believed he was right by saying that he was the way, the 'religious ' truth, and the life.
Since most do Not want to pick the day we want to stop breathing, pick the day we want to die, then why Not see why Jesus said what he said. To me, how would leaving religion equate with leaving Jesus.

 

[psychoslice]

Which religion in particular did you leave?
To me, Jesus believed he was right by saying that he was the way, the 'religious ' truth, and the life.
Since most do Not want to pick the day we want to stop breathing, pick the day we want to die, then why Not see why Jesus said what he said. To me, how would leaving religion equate with leaving Jesus.

I was a Seventh Day Adventist for many years, for me personally the story of the man Jesus was just that, a story, but with a message, like a parable.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Aren't ALL to be gracious and meek according to Matthew 5:5 ?

But Paul felt it necessary to specify that women are to be obedient and quiet. And the church later felt it necessary to include that in their cannonization. Do you not see the sexism? Most see but simply feel that is the way it is. Are you denying it or saying its acceptable?

The death penalty was carried out for the practice of immorality in the old Hebrew Scriptures.
The old Law was so that the people of ancient Israel would be separate from surrounding nations.
Often the forbidden things had to do with keeping separate from the religious practices of surrounding nations.
Fornication is Not okay because from the beginning it was a marital arrangement between man and woman.
Genesis 2:24. That standard was set up ' before ' the temporary Constitution of the Mosaic Law began.
To me, Jesus re-established that original Genesis 2:24 position or standard - Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:9
So, to me, the specified split is that the Mosaic Law was temporary.
The covenant with Noah - Genesis 9 - remains permanent, as does Genesis 2:24
Love others 'more' than self is superior to the old Law - John 13:34-35

Where does it say that marriage is to be one man and one woman prior to the first covenant?

What is sexism about Genesis 21:12 B where God tells Abraham to listen to wife Sarah ?
Not to be beneath men, but to me, as a ship only has one Captain the final say belongs to the man.
( that should be ' after ' he first listens to the voice of his wife - Genesis 21:12 B )

In that instance. Biblical speaking god was using his wife to get to Abraham rather than telling Abraham that women are to be equals. One time god states that he should listen to his wife does not erase dozens of highly quoted portions of scripture that blatantly states otherwise.

There is No political leadership for either men or woman who follow in Jesus' steps.
Jesus declined political leadership at John 6:15 when Jesus fled away from being made a political king on Earth.
Jesus, now as heavenly king of kings, and head of the Christian congregation - Ephesians 5:23 - shows that Christians ( male and female ) have already cast their vote for Jesus as ' political and religious' head ( Commander in Chief - " Hail to the Chief !")

But women are to be obedient to their husbands. Follow his orders. Husbands just don't beat your wives. Actually wait never-mind you can actually beat your wife or at least its a little vague. You can cut her hand off sometimes but ya'know just .... Sorry I paraphrased slightly.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I was a Seventh Day Adventist for many years, for me personally the story of the man Jesus was just that, a story, but with a message, like a parable.

What did you conclude was the message

 

[URAVIP2ME]

But Paul felt it necessary to specify that women are to be obedient and quiet. And the church later felt it necessary to include that in their cannonization. Do you not see the sexism? Most see but simply feel that is the way it is. Are you denying it or saying its acceptable?
Where does it say that marriage is to be one man and one woman prior to the first covenant?
In that instance. Biblical speaking god was using his wife to get to Abraham rather than telling Abraham that women are to be equals. One time god states that he should listen to his wife does not erase dozens of highly quoted portions of scripture that blatantly states otherwise.
But women are to be obedient to their husbands. Follow his orders. Husbands just don't beat your wives. Actually wait never-mind you can actually beat your wife or at least its a little vague. You can cut her hand off sometimes but ya'know just .... Sorry I paraphrased slightly.

The first marriage was between Adam and Eve and Jesus referred to Genesis 2:24 at Matthew 19:5-6

Paul was referring to do Not interrupt the meeting but to discuss it after the meeting.
It is acceptable Not to interrupt or disturb a meeting.

How was the Moabitess Ruth treated according to Ruth 2:5-7,15-16 but with dignity.
Boaz even made sure foreigner Ruth could stay with other young women for safety sake - Ruth 2:8,10,13-14
Boaz never spoke down to Ruth but instead he re-assured Ruth.
Foreigners were to be treated like a native citizen according to Leviticus 19:33-34 which includes women.

Husbands are to love their wives as he loves his own body according to Ephesians 5:24; Ephesians 5:28-29
What man loves his body so much as to cut off his hand.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The first marriage was between Adam and Eve and Jesus referred to Genesis 2:24 at Matthew 19:5-6

It states wife correct. But this is a translation. What did the original transcript say? I ask because the term spouse is not gendered in every language. And why does this line stop a man from having a husband? It didn't say that he ought not.

Paul was referring to do Not interrupt the meeting but to discuss it after the meeting.
It is acceptable Not to interrupt or disturb a meeting.

Is it acceptable for men to disrupt the meeting? Why or why not?

How was the Moabitess Ruth treated according to Ruth 2:5-7,15-16 but with dignity.
Boaz even made sure foreigner Ruth could stay with other young women for safety sake - Ruth 2:8,10,13-14
Boaz never spoke down to Ruth but instead he re-assured Ruth.
Foreigners were to be treated like a native citizen according to Leviticus 19:33-34 which includes women.

These are examples of men not raping and killing women. This is not examples of counter points in the bible where it gives credence to the idea of equality. If I have stated that 100% of men in the bible rape and beat all women they see then I retract that statement. I don't believe I have said anything near that however.

Boaz wasn't a monster. Most men were not monsters. They were sexist and women were not treated equally to men however. Boaz as a man of power commanded her to stay with the women because he knew that the men would rape her. To not want her to be raped doesn't counter my point.

Foreigners are treated as native citizens. So a foreign woman will be treated like a woman who is a citizen still lower than a man.

Husbands are to love their wives as he loves his own body according to Ephesians 5:24; Ephesians 5:28-29
What man loves his body so much as to cut off his hand.

Deuteronomy 25:11 . If a man if having a roe with another man and she comes to defend him by hitting him in the gonads he should cut off her hand.

"Thanks honey. That guy was kicking my ***. You saved me by yanking his left nut. But you know what this means. Give me your hand. Also a good butcher knife."

 

[Reggie Miller]

I have little to nothing positive to say about any theistic aspect of any religion, but I'm a big fan of service/community-centered religious communities, and of most believers (even many fundamentalist types). The problem is that religious communities are really all about community. The religious aspects of these communities are distractions at best, and enablers for the darkest aspects of human nature at worst (so they run from neutral to seriously nasty).

But I'm guessing the odds are at least fair that you have little or no trouble (particularly comparably) with those who "go into all nations" and spread your religion and those compatible.

No?

Why not?

 

[RabbiO]

......If a man if having a roe with another man....

So there are these two guys sharing fish eggs....?

 

[SkepticX]

Why not?

Because the large majority of Christians see Christian evangelism positively, even if many aren't strong advocates or don't personally participate.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

So there are these two guys sharing fish eggs....?

naturally

 

[URAVIP2ME]

It states wife correct. But this is a translation. What did the original transcript say? I ask because the term spouse is not gendered in every language. And why does this line stop a man from having a husband? It didn't say that he ought not.
Is it acceptable for men to disrupt the meeting? Why or why not?
These are examples of men not raping and killing women. This is not examples of counter points in the bible where it gives credence to the idea of equality. If I have stated that 100% of men in the bible rape and beat all women they see then I retract that statement. I don't believe I have said anything near that however.
Boaz wasn't a monster. Most men were not monsters. They were sexist and women were not treated equally to men however. Boaz as a man of power commanded her to stay with the women because he knew that the men would rape her. To not want her to be raped doesn't counter my point.
Foreigners are treated as native citizens. So a foreign woman will be treated like a woman who is a citizen still lower than a man.
Deuteronomy 25:11 . If a man if having a roe with another man and she comes to defend him by hitting him in the gonads he should cut off her hand.
"Thanks honey. That guy was kicking my ***. You saved me by yanking his left nut. But you know what this means. Give me your hand. Also a good butcher knife."

The Tanach translates the Hebrew word as wife. Man is to cling to his wife.
The meeting disruption was in that particular congregation.
It seems to me that the congregations mentioned in Revelation had ' personalities ', so to speak, so each congregation had both its positive and negative points.
By Boaz having Ruth stay with other woman would also protect her from being harassed by men because she was a foreigner. The Law said consideration was to be given to non-Israelites - Exodus 12:38,49; Exodus 22:21
Ruth had the right to glean as would a native - Leviticus 19:9-10; Exodus 23:9
God expected the Israelites to treat strangers and foreigners like natives - Leviticus 19:33-34
Please see also Deuteronomy 10:17-19 and Malachi 3:5-6
Both Abraham and Boaz set a fine example of how women are to be treated. Not as Second-class citizens.
As far as Deuteronomy 25:11-12 under the Law a husband had the God-given right to have children.
So, if anyone deliberately destroyed that right, then there was that serious consequence.
Again, that old Law was for only one nation the nation of ancient Israel.
Since Pentecost, No one is under that Law, but Now the Law or Jesus' New commandment of John 13:34-35 to have self-sacrificing love for others as Jesus did is in effect.
To me, if you want to be part of the figurative ' sheep '-like people of Matthew 25:31-33,37 (righteous people) then it would be better to concentrate on that New command in order to be part of the humble meek to inherit Earth
- Matthew 5:5

 

[RabbiO]

It states wife correct. But this is a translation. What did the original transcript say? I ask because the term spouse is not gendered in every language. And why does this line stop a man from having a husband? It didn't say that he ought not.

It says, in the Hebrew-
על כן יעזב איש את אביו ואת אמו ודבק באשתו והיו לבשר אחד

The Tanach translates the Hebrew word as wife.

As you can see the Tanakh does not translate the Hebrew word. It is in Hebrew.

The word in question is gendered and can be translated as "wife."

 

[Monk Of Reason]

It says, in the Hebrew-
על כן יעזב איש את אביו ואת אמו ודבק באשתו והיו לבשר אחד



As you can see the Tanakh does not translate the Hebrew word. It is in Hebrew.

The word in question is gendered and can be translated as "wife."

Thank you.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The Tanach translates the Hebrew word as wife. Man is to cling to his wife.
The meeting disruption was in that particular congregation.
It seems to me that the congregations mentioned in Revelation had ' personalities ', so to speak, so each congregation had both its positive and negative points.
By Boaz having Ruth stay with other woman would also protect her from being harassed by men because she was a foreigner. The Law said consideration was to be given to non-Israelites - Exodus 12:38,49; Exodus 22:21
Ruth had the right to glean as would a native - Leviticus 19:9-10; Exodus 23:9
God expected the Israelites to treat strangers and foreigners like natives - Leviticus 19:33-34
Please see also Deuteronomy 10:17-19 and Malachi 3:5-6
Both Abraham and Boaz set a fine example of how women are to be treated. Not as Second-class citizens.
As far as Deuteronomy 25:11-12 under the Law a husband had the God-given right to have children.
So, if anyone deliberately destroyed that right, then there was that serious consequence.
Again, that old Law was for only one nation the nation of ancient Israel.
Since Pentecost, No one is under that Law, but Now the Law or Jesus' New commandment of John 13:34-35 to have self-sacrificing love for others as Jesus did is in effect.
To me, if you want to be part of the figurative ' sheep '-like people of Matthew 25:31-33,37 (righteous people) then it would be better to concentrate on that New command in order to be part of the humble meek to inherit Earth
- Matthew 5:5

I don't think we will agree on this because you see "to be treated well" as okay when I see "unequal" as bad. Reguardless of how "well off" someone is inequality is a negative. And since past it has kept women out of politics. It has kept women from owning property ect.

I also find it strange that if a man is not found to be a virgin upon the night of his wedding he is not to be stoned to death.

And again with the old law and the new law. Where did you get to keep certain things but not others? Where is it specified?

 

[dgirl1986]

I was a pagan when I joined this website and came to speak with other pagans. I became an atheist some time after that and stuck around because I like the site and varied discussions.

I get that Christianity is widely recognised, but it is not the only religion or topic of conversation here. The same could be said for America.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Because the large majority of Christians see Christian evangelism positively, even if many aren't strong advocates or don't personally participate.

Well, Jesus did command us to evangelize as did the Apostles.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

It says, in the Hebrew-
על כן יעזב איש את אביו ואת אמו ודבק באשתו והיו לבשר אחד
As you can see the Tanakh does not translate the Hebrew word. It is in Hebrew.
The word in question is gendered and can be translated as "wife."

Thank you RabbiO.
Since I can Not read Hebrew, I was going by the use of the word ' wife ' in English at Genesis 2:24
Thank you for your input. It is appreciated.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Well, Jesus did command us to evangelize as did the Apostles.

.... and to me, all the more to do so in our time frame of Revelation 1:10
Evangelize so as to fill the whole Earth with the good news message about God's kingdom government according to Matthew 24:14; Acts of the Apostles 1:8

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I don't think we will agree on this because you see "to be treated well" as okay when I see "unequal" as bad. Reguardless of how "well off" someone is inequality is a negative. And since past it has kept women out of politics. It has kept women from owning property ect.
I also find it strange that if a man is not found to be a virgin upon the night of his wedding he is not to be stoned to death.
And again with the old law and the new law. Where did you get to keep certain things but not others? Where is it specified?

Jesus' NEW commandment trumps over the Golden Rule in that we are all to have self-sacrificing love for all others as Jesus did - John 13:34-35 - in other words, now love others 'more' than self.

To me, if women could Not own property, then how do you explain that Zelophehad's daughters did according to
-> Numbers 27:7; Joshua 17:3-4

Not only the first-century Christian woman were neutral in political affairs, so was Jesus, and so were the apostles.
No Christians got involved in the political issues of the day. That included the issues between the Jews and Romans.
To me, Jesus was offered political office (king) but Jesus declined according to John 6:15

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Because the large majority of Christians see Christian evangelism positively, even if many aren't strong advocates or don't personally participate.

To me, is it the large majority of Christians, or rather the large majority of 'so-called' Christians because Jesus taught that MANY (majority) would come ' in his name ' but prove false according to Matthew 7:21-23