Paul's view of women

[Shuttlecraft]

Originally Posted by Shuttlecraft
Nah not if it was just carrying tiny samples of DNA from every creature on earth!
There'd still have been enough space left for a karaoke ballroom, bingo hall and bowling alley

And how exactly did these ancient wandering tribesmen extract that DNA, and then bring back these animals?
The birds obviously weren't in DNA form - as they were sent out.
Such ideas are as ridiculous as the Ark story itself.

Like I said, just because something is written in symbology and metaphor doesn't mean it's a myth..

 

[Ingledsva]

Yeah, and that doesn't refute what I said at all. If you know what 'flood' means, there was most likely many animals that survived. Really, you aren't going to win this argument, you are taking the story waaaay too literally for Scripture. On the other hand, you seem to be staunchly against the narrative regardless of plausibility..how is this not 'belief'? You are as much or more of a 'believer' as I am, just taking an opposite stance. As usual.

LOL! Let us cut to the chase. Your Bible story says everything else - DIED!


19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits.[g][h] 21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.


*

 

[Ingledsva]

Like I said, just because something is written in symbology and metaphor doesn't mean it's a myth..

Most Christians expect us to believe this story - as written in the Bible!


It is obvious myth.



*

 

[Desert Snake]

Your Bible story

No, that's the point. You don't know how to read the Bible, at all. It is like a foreign language to you, or, worse, hieroglyphics.. that's why it is pointless to argue Biblical topics with you, it's simply nonsense.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

In the social order women are to be subservient to men. However god favors neither men nor women when it comes to judging us spiritually..

We all know divorcees whose lives have been a mess since they kicked out their hubs (my sister for example) because they no longer have his strong guiding hand to run the family efficiently, hence Paul's advice to women to relax, put their feet up and let hub do it..
Mind you, if a woman is good enough to climb the social order, the church has no beef with them-
Paul said-
"I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church in Cenchrea..she has been a great help to many people, including me..
Greet Priscilla , my fellow worker in Christ Jesus, she risked her life for me.
Greet Mary, who worked very hard for you..
Greet Tryphena and Tryphosa and Persis, those women who work hard in the Lord.
Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and his mother, who has been a mother to me, too.
Greet Julia.." (Romans ch 16)

PS- the Feminist thing has made lots of women think they're "wasted" at home all day and should get a job to "fulfill" themselves.
Isn't looking after the home and kids one of the most worthwhile jobs there is?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

We all know divorcees whose lives have been a mess since they kicked out their hubs (my sister for example) because they no longer have his strong guiding hand to run the family efficiently, hence Paul's advice to women to relax, put their feet up and let hub do it..
Mind you, if a woman is good enough to climb the social order, the church has no beef with them-
Paul said-
"I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church in Cenchrea..she has been a great help to many people, including me..
Greet Priscilla , my fellow worker in Christ Jesus, she risked her life for me.
Greet Mary, who worked very hard for you..
Greet Tryphena and Tryphosa and Persis, those women who work hard in the Lord.
Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and his mother, who has been a mother to me, too.
Greet Julia.." (Romans ch 16)

It is still sexist to the core to ever state that women have a religious duty to be subservient to men. Even more so to assume it is for the good of the woman during this day and age. I understand exactly what he was trying to say and have researched the topic a bit more as I had a very intimate debate (collegiate debate not an online forum debate) about the subject. I was given the task to defend his position from sexism and the defense I used was that men during the time were the household heads and in a way it needed to be so to keep social order and to keep the women safe.

Another important fact we need to keep in mind is that Paul also defended women in certain passages and that the original translation of "women" and "men" in the passages should have been more correctly translated to "Husbands" and "wives" which would have made it a family dynamic directive.

 

[Desert Snake]

Most Christians expect us to believe this story - as written in the Bible!

No, some do. Since I think that many animals survived the flood, obviously my take on it is different. Regardless, I do believe the narrative in it's basic essence, i.e. large flood, /ark etc.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

It is still sexist to the core to ever state that women have a religious duty to be subservient to men..

I can't cook for toffee and would therefore happily be subservient to a woman doing the cooking for us; I'd regard the kitchen as her personal domain and would keep out from under her feet..

 

[fantome profane]

Like I said, just because something is written in symbology and metaphor doesn't mean it's a myth..

um, that is pretty much the definition of "myth".

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I can't cook for toffee and would therefore happily be subservient to a woman doing the cooking for us; I'd regard the kitchen as her personal domain and would keep out from under her feet..

It depends on what you mean now by "subservient". Do you mean "subservient" or "respectful"?

 

[Shuttlecraft]

It depends on what you mean now by "subservient". Do you mean "subservient" or "respectful"?

"Subservient" is a loaded word and yes I'm sure there are better ones like "respectful" to avoid treading on each others toes..
Everything depends on context of course, for example my niece drove us out to Dartmoor for a picnic a couple of years ago, but she couldn't find Dartmoor (don't you dare laugh!) and we ended up lost in country lanes.
But because it was her car I sat respectfully and silently in the back without stepping on her toes by trying to tell her which way to go (I had a map).
As a result we never did get to Dartmoor, and ended up picnicking in a field miles away from it.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Originally Posted by Shuttlecraft
Like I said, just because something is written in symbology and metaphor doesn't mean it's a myth..

um, that is pretty much the definition of "myth".

Not necessarily, for example if Genesis had said- "God anaesthetized Adam and took a section of his rib to extract DNA to make Eve" people would have been scratching their heads wondering what it meant, so it had to be put into easily-understood language thus-

21- "So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh.
22- Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man"

 

[Monk Of Reason]

"Subservient" is a loaded word and yes I'm sure there are better ones like "respectful" to avoid treading on each others toes..
Everything depends on context of course, for example my niece drove us out to Dartmoor for a picnic a couple of years ago, but she couldn't find Dartmoor (don't you dare laugh!) and we ended up lost in country lanes.
But because it was her car I sat respectfully and silently in the back without stepping on her toes by trying to tell her which way to go (I had a map).
As a result we never did get to Dartmoor, and ended up picnicking in a field miles away from it.

The difference and context of the way Paul used the term is what is important. The context was still within the context of marriage and a wife's place next to her husband and it does reflect on the archaic Jewish culture in general.

 

[Ingledsva]

ING - You can hold all the faith you want. It is NOT a debate technique!

1. Neither is ignoring a simple question.


ING - I have answered your questions, you just don't like the answers.

*

You sway no one by such circular logic.

2. After your exhibition of shoddy logic, neither do you sway anyone by your faith.


ING - Again! You are the one with shoddy circular logic. You just keep repeating that the Bible says it, so it is so.

I on the other hand - pointed you to sites with real Biblical Scholarship, and their debates on dates, and actual authors.


3. I proved you wrong several times. The text indicates Paul as the author. There, your wrong about him not authoring the epistles. Now you have to prove to me from the same text he was not....And I have asked you multiple times to answer my question and prove me wrong. You won't--so I will assume you can't.


ING - You have repeated this idiocy over and over. So I guess we need to go to children's story level. In this story we SWITCH sides - so I can show how ridiculous what you are saying is.

1. I tell -YOU- that I believe in the Book of Truffle.

2. I tell -YOU- that WanHo wrote the third chapter, - because the book says so.

3. You (now in my shoes) say there is scholarship concerning the Book of Truffle, which refutes this, or brings it into question, so go check it out.

4. I now (playing you) say PROVE it using the Book of Truffle.


If THE BOOK is in contention - obviously I am not going to use what IT says - to disprove what IT says! That is ludicrous. I am going to use the scholarship done concerning it. It is simple to Google this and read both sides of the argument.

*

What exactly does that have to do with the fact that you lied , saying you had read all the material?

4. A false accusation from the "fallacy" queen? Why am I not surprised...LOL! Can you prove to me I lied about reading all the material? I'll give you a heads up--it's a trick question, which I'm sure you'll ignore.

ING - Fact of the mater - it would be almost impossible for you to read all the material even if reading day and night in a cave. So - again - NO you didn't read all the related exegeses!

Dude - You are being about as illogical as it gets. You are telling me to disprove Paul wrote them - by using the Bible text in question - that says he did! You are the one using Circular logic - not me. I pointed you to Biblical scholarship debating the authors, and dates.

5. Faith to a Christian is far from illogical. If the bible contains contradictions, as you believe, you should have no problem finding a statement stating Paul did not author Timothy and Titus. C'mon ING that shouldn't be too hard for ya, right?

ING - What I want to say at this point would probably get me banned - so - SEE SIMPLE STORY ABOVE!

*

I've already pointed you to sites showing the authorship and date debates.

6. Liberal, speculative opinions about the text and its authorship is unconvincing to say the least. I want proof from the text you claim contradictory stating Paul did not author Timothy and Titus. Still waiting...


ING - See simple story above, - from the disputed text, - is ridiculous!


*

Again - you have refuted nothing - you try to use circular logic as fact, - and continue to put up these long pages that have no debate what so ever in them.

7. And you have proved nothing and continue to to put up these long responses that do not have the answer to my question.


ING - See simple story above.


*

It is truth and you need to take a look at your own posts.

7a. Then you should have no problem linking me to more than one post proving to me the reason people (plural) give up on me and put me on their ignore list is due to my circular logic. I eagerly await the answer to this one. I feel another "flatulent" stinky fallacy coming from you...LOL!


ING - I don't have to prove this - YOU KNOW THIS - as they said it to you.

*

LOL! Well, at least you know your argument is illogical because it is circular logic, - rather then evidence. No I don't have a circular argument. I have shown sources, translations, etc. Real Biblical scholarship, etc.

8. Yes, maam. It's about the one thing we both have in common---"faith" in our sources.


ING - It is far more logical to put "faith" in scholarship, - rather then, - because the Bible says so.

*

Circle-Circle-Circle - see 8 and 9 above. Another few minutes of my time - wasted - because you refuse to actually debate.

9. Here let me help you solve your illogical, self-perpetuating, circular dilemma....Stop responding..LOL! Or answer my simple question: Where in the text does it specifically state Paul did not ultimately author his epistles?

ING - SEE SIMPLE STORY ABOVE.

*

Faith is not circular logic. Trying to use the text in question - as proof of its own authenticity - IS!

10. Faith is using the text in question as proof of its own authenticity. You just contradicted and refuted yourself in an attempt to explain how faith is not circular. You simply can't stop embarrassing yourself...LOL! You obviously have no books on logic in that messy (your word not mine) library of yours. Wait...Perhaps that is where and how your "messy" logic originated...LOL! Keep it com-ING...I have all the time in the world to expose your "soiled" thinking.

You need to reread that. Faith is just belief.

Trying to use the BOOK of your faith - when it is being questioned, - by asking me repeatedly to disprove it, - from it - very definitely is!



*

 

[Ingledsva]

No, that's the point. You don't know how to read the Bible, at all. It is like a foreign language to you, or, worse, hieroglyphics.. that's why it is pointless to argue Biblical topics with you, it's simply nonsense.

I can read it just fine - You folks are the ones wanting us to believe these obvious myths.

LOL! Let us cut to the chase. Your Bible story says everything else - DIED!


19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits.[g][h] 21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.


*

 

[fantome profane]

Not necessarily, for example if Genesis had said- "God anaesthetized Adam and took a section of his rib to extract DNA to make Eve" people would have been scratching their heads wondering what it meant, so it had to be put into easily-understood language thus-

21- "So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh.
22- Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man"

We have a long time member here with the username "Thief", if you haven't met him yet should talk to him. You would enjoy it.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Not necessarily, for example if Genesis had said- "God anaesthetized Adam and took a section of his rib to extract DNA to make Eve" people would have been scratching their heads wondering what it meant, so it had to be put into easily-understood language thus-

There is no indication of knowledge about genetics. It simply says she was made out of the same stuff as Adam, which provides consistency with the 'Kind produces after kind' in the story of creation.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Most Christians expect us to believe this story - as written in the Bible!
It is obvious myth.

I was taught this story as a child. It teaches various lessons. It teaches about the violence in people, and it says violence is wrong. At the end of the story it teaches that murder is wrong, because all people are in God's image. I agree that its myth and children need to realize its myth when they are old enough to understand that.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

..I agree that its myth and children need to realize its myth when they are old enough to understand that.

Nah, Jesus was TOO BIG to be a myth, heck he was almost as big as Elvis and the similarities are uncanny..
"After Jesus spent the night in prayer, everybody tried to touch him because power was coming from him" (Luke 6:12-19)
Right Elv?

"uh-huh"..

 

[Brickjectivity]

Nah, Jesus was TOO BIG to be a myth, heck he was almost as big as Elvis and the similarities are uncanny..
"After Jesus spent the night in prayer, everybody tried to touch him because power was coming from him" (Luke 6:12-19)
Right Elv?

Noah's Ark is obvious, and look at how the message of Noah's ark is reduced by children who grow up insisting that the story is factual history. They totally miss the point. I know I did. I just thought Noah's Ark was some way of proving God was real, like God actually had provided means to prove things. That is not at all the case. Noah's Ark is about non-violence and about how wrong it is to kill people. It is not a way to prove God does miracles, and it seems like it was never meant to.