the right religion

[1robin]

Again - psycho babble. Many people here have given you well thought out arguments.


The real problem Robin, is that you are a fundamentalist Christian.

No that is your real problem. Since I represent truth and the counter side repress, confuse, and dismiss it wouldn't my arguments be appropriate. As Always the only question is God's existence. What his existence would mean is child's play in comparison.

No matter the reality of the argument - you tell us we can't argue it because YOUR-God is "God!" And as "God" he can do any horrific thing he wants.

AS much as I literally hate the fact that is what divine command theory makes absolutely apparent. Who is going to judge him? By what standard? Who is going to stop him?

The only thing we can do is reject or accept him. That is it. There is no debate about this, no wiggle room, no maybe's. This just is.

You tell us he can murder babies for other people's sins, etc, because he is God. This is just plain BULL! And this type of occurrence in the Bible, tells the rest of us that this arrogant, jealous, revengeful, murdering, God, is just made up by arrogant, jealous, revengeful, murdering, humans.

You can't tell him he cannot take life back he created if needed, especially since he can place that life in eternal contentment before their evil parents culture renders them unqualified for heaven and perpetuates another hundred generations just as bad. You can't even think of a good reason he shouldn't. You can only engage in theatrics (the one thing liberals have mastered) that pull on heart strings when humans who do not create life and cannot place it in heaven take it. The rest of us who? No other being in human history is more associated with perfect sacrificial love, perfect justice, and perfection it's self. Whoever us is, is a lonely bunch of bitter people it seems.

I wish you would make more technical arguments instead of these rants that belong on a freeway yelling at cars. You IMO are the most embittered towards God person I have ever debated.

Ummm! Robin, we are on a Religious Debates Forum, and all of the debate centers on religions.

Half the debates are not centered on religion. I meant my criteria are not exclusive to religion they are required for all claims. No one was trying to get out of a religious debate for goodness sakes.

More of your psycho bull! You are so invested in your religion, - that you claim in your so-called arguments, that we can't logically oppose murder, or anything else the Bible says that God did.

God created life, all of it. On what basis can he not take it? Where is this celestial court that is capable of judging God. What law is he subject to. The law of sensationalism and context stripping in your head is certainly not going to get it. You grant humans the right to take lives in the womb for no reason but convenience, you have disqualified your demanding God may not take live he created for good reasons. This is moral hypocrisy and lunacy on a scale that would be incomprehensible if it did not exist.

More BULL Robin. Blind religious fanaticism - does not a real argument make.


Many very intelligent people have given you superior rebuttal argument, - you just can't see it past your religion.


Haven't you noticed that most people no longer bother to argue with you? That is because you are a fundamentalist, and can't even consider a well written rebuttal.

Most other Christians here are not like you, and hence they have lively, logical, respectful, debate with everyone.

That was just plain nuts. These days typing 7 hours straight I cannot hope to respond to posts to me, and they mostly contain rational arguments if not good ones. I have them find me even in other posts, I have them (you know what, this is starting to sound arrogant, so I will just say your absolutely wrong except about one thing). Christians have the habit of compromising the message fro the seek of civility many times. Christ did not, Paul did not, Luke did not, etc..... and I will not.

More blind babble. It does not matter what the words were for slavery and indentured servants. Other Jews could only be indentured servants. Other people could be kept as slaves forever, bred for more slaves, and handed down as an inheritance.

It most certainly does matter as I have explained several times to your deaf ears. Slavery in out times did not usually contain any property rights. In Israel they had their own house they owned and plots of land they could raise animals and crops on. In our times pulling them apart with horses was a sporting event. In Israel it was a death sentence. I have already been through this someone who does not care a bit several times and you are her. I am not doing it again. Use you liberal sensationalistic tactics if you want. They will probably (and probably already have) destroyed the US but they have no chance against God's kingdom.

Lev 25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

Lev 25:46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be enslaved for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigor.

The word there is "abad" and is definitely enslave.

As you say we have been through this before and you do not want answers and will not accept them so I will not provide them again and again.

We have had this argument over and over. Women are not broodmares, they have to have legal bodily autonomy. They have to have the right to kill clumps of cells within their bodies.

So you demand the rights to your body by taking those exact same rights from the life in your body.

Autonomous born babies, on the other hand, are "autonomous" and have all human rights. The Bible says your God murders them.

So you have injected autonomy into the equation to try and rescue it. My God what a desperate attempt. The Bible says he takes their temporal life that he created and grants them eternal one before his culture could make him as much a son of hell as they were. What a terrible being he must be.

Back to autonomy. Does this mean no robot can be killed. What about all the animals and bugs you did not bat an eye at removing their autonomy forever, despite not having created it, or being able to restore it. What is your definition of autonomy anyway. Self direction, the ability to move, having a soul, being able to reason. You demand exactly what you have deprived thousands of beings of without a second thought.

BULL! We have an actual Bible written by this patriarchal culture.

Bull is an insinuation of lying. I would not use it if you want a discussion. I never denied men wrote the words of the bible. What the heck are you talking about? Those same men made hero's of many women and gave them many of the most prestigious positions possible. I mentioned quite a few. Do you even read what I say? Or just type Bull and make up stuff?

We do not have any proof of the God of this patriarchal culture.

What are you talking about?

No Da Vinci Code. Patriarchal subterfuge. She was more then likely the Apostle to the Apostles. More then likely meant to take over and further the work, - and quite possibly married to Jesus, - as she does the things a wife would do, - including collect and wash the body, etc. It would be cultural taboo for a non-family member to see and wash his naked body.

I wish we could discuss this issue only because it is completely wrong. She was never an apostle to any one. That comes from an apocryphal book where an apostle says she was approved by God, not commissioned by God. This is word for word Da Vinci code and must have a thousand web sites pointing out just how horrible the claims are and how non-historical the book is. It is a travesty. Did you not see the movie?

I have technical issues demanding my attention so I must end here for now but I hope you want to get into Mary's story and your claims above.

 

[Ingledsva]

No that is your real problem. Since I represent truth and the counter side repress, confuse, and dismiss it wouldn't my arguments be appropriate. As Always the only question is God's existence. What his existence would mean is child's play in comparison.


AS much as I literally hate the fact that is what divine command theory makes absolutely apparent. Who is going to judge him? By what standard? Who is going to stop him?

The only thing we can do is reject or accept him. That is it. There is no debate about this, no wiggle room, no maybe's. This just is.


You can't tell him he cannot take life back he created if needed, especially since he can place that life in eternal contentment before their evil parents culture renders them unqualified for heaven and perpetuates another hundred generations just as bad. You can't even think of a good reason he shouldn't. You can only engage in theatrics (the one thing liberals have mastered) that pull on heart strings when humans who do not create life and cannot place it in heaven take it. The rest of us who? No other being in human history is more associated with perfect sacrificial love, perfect justice, and perfection it's self. Whoever us is, is a lonely bunch of bitter people it seems.

I wish you would make more technical arguments instead of these rants that belong on a freeway yelling at cars. You IMO are the most embittered towards God person I have ever debated.

Half the debates are not centered on religion. I meant my criteria are not exclusive to religion they are required for all claims. No one was trying to get out of a religious debate for goodness sakes.


God created life, all of it. On what basis can he not take it? Where is this celestial court that is capable of judging God. What law is he subject to. The law of sensationalism and context stripping in your head is certainly not going to get it. You grant humans the right to take lives in the womb for no reason but convenience, you have disqualified your demanding God may not take live he created for good reasons. This is moral hypocrisy and lunacy on a scale that would be incomprehensible if it did not exist.






That was just plain nuts. These days typing 7 hours straight I cannot hope to respond to posts to me, and they mostly contain rational arguments if not good ones. I have them find me even in other posts, I have them (you know what, this is starting to sound arrogant, so I will just say your absolutely wrong except about one thing). Christians have the habit of compromising the message fro the seek of civility many times. Christ did not, Paul did not, Luke did not, etc..... and I will not.




It most certainly does matter as I have explained several times to your deaf ears. Slavery in out times did not usually contain any property rights. In Israel they had their own house they owned and plots of land they could raise animals and crops on. In our times pulling them apart with horses was a sporting event. In Israel it was a death sentence. I have already been through this someone who does not care a bit several times and you are her. I am not doing it again. Use you liberal sensationalistic tactics if you want. They will probably (and probably already have) destroyed the US but they have no chance against God's kingdom.

As you say we have been through this before and you do not want answers and will not accept them so I will not provide them again and again.






So you demand the rights to your body by taking those exact same rights from the life in your body.


So you have injected autonomy into the equation to try and rescue it. My God what a desperate attempt. The Bible says he takes their temporal life that he created and grants them eternal one before his culture could make him as much a son of hell as they were. What a terrible being he must be.

Back to autonomy. Does this mean no robot can be killed. What about all the animals and bugs you did not bat an eye at removing their autonomy forever, despite not having created it, or being able to restore it. What is your definition of autonomy anyway. Self direction, the ability to move, having a soul, being able to reason. You demand exactly what you have deprived thousands of beings of without a second thought.






Bull is an insinuation of lying. I would not use it if you want a discussion. I never denied men wrote the words of the bible. What the heck are you talking about? Those same men made hero's of many women and gave them many of the most prestigious positions possible. I mentioned quite a few. Do you even read what I say? Or just type Bull and make up stuff?


What are you talking about?

I wish we could discuss this issue only because it is completely wrong. She was never an apostle to any one. That comes from an apocryphal book where an apostle says she was approved by God, not commissioned by God. This is word for word Da Vinci code and must have a thousand web sites pointing out just how horrible the claims are and how non-historical the book is. It is a travesty. Did you not see the movie?

I have technical issues demanding my attention so I must end here for now but I hope you want to get into Mary's story and your claims above.

And again, - you are a fundamentalist Christian , - proven by your very first sentence, and as such this is the only reply needed.

Again - psycho babble. Many people here have given you well thought out arguments.


The real problem Robin, is that you are a fundamentalist Christian.

No that is your real problem. Since I represent truth and the counter side repress, confuse, and dismiss it wouldn't my arguments be appropriate. As Always the only question is God's existence. What his existence would mean is child's play in comparison.

*

 

[Ouroboros]

It is not the most efficient model possible - it is the patriarchal idea of the perfect model![/B]

And there are examples from the animal kingdom where the female are dominant, like elephants, baboons, praying mantis, and more. I think I remember some bird species where the female hunts and protects while male nests, but I can't say for sure.

Anyway, I agree with you, and Robin is wrong.

 

[Ingledsva]

And there are examples from the animal kingdom where the female are dominant, like elephants, baboons, praying mantis, and more. I think I remember some bird species where the female hunts and protects while male nests, but I can't say for sure.

Anyway, I agree with you, and Robin is wrong.

Yes, and we also have examples of female warriors surviving into this era, including the ones the French fought.


And as strange as it sounds, there is a surviving matriarchy in China - the Mosuo.


The Khasi, and others, in India are matrilineal.


I don't know where men get the idea that women can't lead countries, or fight in battle. I have a couple pages of such female warriors that I have collected.


Here are a few of these more recent groups -


70% of the 800,000 Russian women who served in the Soviet army in WW2 fought at the front. One hundred thousand of them were decorated for defending their country.


Soviet Union had 1,000 women aviators, and 30 of them were awarded the Gold Star of a Hero of the Soviet Union for their heroism in combat.


The Indian National Army (INA) had an all women regiment called the Rani of Jhansi Regiment during WW2. They were involved in active combat in Burma. (interview with Colonel Lakshmi Sahgal)


Bracha Fuld trained Jewish women soldiers, led her own platoons, captained military detachments and fought at the Battle of Sarona in Palestine during WW2.


The last surviving veteran of the female regiments of the Dahomey people in Africa died in 1979. (source "Amazons of Black Sparta : The Women Warriors of Dahomey" - Stanley B. Alpern - New York Univ Pr - 0814706789)

- These are the warrior women that fought the French.


Peshmerga Force for Women, a Kurdish guerrilla group in Northern Iraq, was founded in 1996 - "The Guardian" newspaper, 8/3/03


In 1999 there were around 10,000 women in active combat units opposed to the regime in Iran (Marie Claire magazine, UK edition, May 1999)


And of course we have many ancient reports of female warriors.



*

 

[Ouroboros]

Yes, and we also have examples of female warriors surviving into this era, including the ones the French fought.
...

And also, genetically, women have two complete DNAs. Males don't. The Y-chromosome is essentially a short (damaged) version of the X-chromosome.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

To add to the discussion about patriarchy and the Abrahamic religions, let's not forget that the first take of Elohim creating humans had him (them?) creating male and female humans at the same time. The Adam and Eve story is a different, later take on it. It seems like it was tacked onto it.

 

[Ingledsva]

To add to the discussion about patriarchy and the Abrahamic religions, let's not forget that the first take of Elohim creating humans had him (them?) creating male and female humans at the same time. The Adam and Eve story is a different, later take on it. It seems like it was tacked onto it.

Indeed, and that second story can be read differently - as Adam (first being) was a dual being - both male and female - that split.




*

 

[RabbiO]

To add to the discussion about patriarchy and the Abrahamic religions, let's not forget that the first take of Elohim creating humans had him (them?) creating male and female humans at the same time. The Adam and Eve story is a different, later take on it. It seems like it was tacked onto it.

Actually, from an academic standpoint, the Adam and Eve narrative probably was written prior to the writing of Genesis 1.

Peter

 

[1robin]

And again, - you are a fundamentalist Christian , - proven by your very first sentence, and as such this is the only reply needed.

Well I guess fundamentalist, is the new fascist, which was the new Bolshevik. You can apparently just label someone out of a discussion if you cannot debate them.

I believe truth is exclusive.
I believe there are fundamental truths.
I believe traditional Christianity is founded on fundamental truths.

I must be a terrible person to hold that position that has done more for the humaneness of humanity than any other world view, including it's mistakes.

Since, only categorizing people instead of debate seems to be all I get from you then I will leave you to it.

 

[1robin]

And there are examples from the animal kingdom where the female are dominant, like elephants, baboons, praying mantis, and more. I think I remember some bird species where the female hunts and protects while male nests, but I can't say for sure.

Anyway, I agree with you, and Robin is wrong.

What was I wrong about. There was nothing in the statement above that had anything to do with my claims. I said in humanity (not the bird world, or the turtle world) at one time required the ability to hunt and do heavily physical tasks. In that time it would be perfectly rational to have a male led clan or house. In our day not so much so. Either way I do not believe God was sexist in any way and often gave women extremely central roles in the bible. He viewed them as equal, possessing sanctity and right, but with differing level of capability for certain things. He viewed them as they are. What do the birds have to do with that?

 

[1robin]

Yes, and we also have examples of female warriors surviving into this era, including the ones the French fought.

Your doing what your own signature warns about. I never said anything about women being unfit for combat. However when you see units throughout history that had to win and did at any cost they normally only used men. The greatest fighting force in the Greek era were the Spartans (men), The greatest in to Roman era was the Legion. Instead of giving evidence of men dominating war throughout history. I will tell you an interesting story.

Rome invaded England a second time after an earlier aborted invasion. In general England was better off in most ways but one rotten tax collector killed a friendly tribes King, and raped the daughters and Queen. At this time 90% of the legions were on the other side of the nation. The Queen Boudicca got a huge army together and attacked the nearest city and killed every civilian, the few guards, even the animals, then burned it down. Now tribes started joining up with here and they did the same thing to the city that eventually became London. By now the Legions were on their way back to face her. She just kept murdering, stealing, and burning village after village on her way to face the one and a half legions coming for her. She led by pure emotion but the Romans were well trained efficient and experienced and the commander a wise general. Even so it was the Queens over 200,000 against Rome's approx. 10,000. The enraged mobs many of the women attacked all day long in waves. The Romans simply slaughtered them all day long. The estimates vary but for Rome's maybe 2000 losses Boudicca lost close to 100,000.

And as strange as it sounds, there is a surviving matriarchy in China - the Mosuo.

I am sure there are many.

The Khasi, and others, in India are matrilineal.

What does matrilineal mean?

I don't know where men get the idea that women can't lead countries, or fight in battle. I have a couple pages of such female warriors that I have collected.

They can lead countries. In fact at least one women was appointed to run Israel and did a great Job. I wouldn't take a thousand Obama's for on Thatcher. They cannot however fight as men have until modern warfare became a push button video game. Can you see any group of eleven women beating Seattle, or Leila Ally beat her father, almost every time one of the women (Sorenstam, or that race car lady) think they are good enough to compete with men they are embarrassed.

We are equal but different.

Here are a few of these more recent groups -


70% of the 800,000 Russian women who served in the Soviet army in WW2 fought at the front. One hundred thousand of them were decorated for defending their country.

Russians didn't fight at the front as we think of fighting. They simply conscripted targets in such numbers it would take the German's so long to shoot them all that Russia behind the Ural's could gear up for a real defense. The women were also mainly used to dig the ditches more tat shooting but they did do some. What Russia did is not a justification for anything. It was human wave attacks that never had any real chance until they built the T-54 and we sent them so much equipment they could actually start fighting the war without using their citizens as cannon fodder. Women however do make just as good targets as men do.

Soviet Union had 1,000 women aviators, and 30 of them were awarded the Gold Star of a Hero of the Soviet Union for their heroism in combat.

Just for fighters there were 30,000 total pilots. There were over 12000 gold stars award for WW2. You are also cherry picking what I have already mentioned. As Axes and lances are replaced by bottoms and knobs women have become far more equal with men concerning fighting ability. However that is only a tiny fraction of military history and not the times talked about in the OT, which was the subject.

The Indian National Army (INA) had an all women regiment called the Rani of Jhansi Regiment during WW2. They were involved in active combat in Burma. (interview with Colonel Lakshmi Sahgal)

So a country of a billion people had a thousand women who fought for them (that's taking he average size of a 19th century regiment). What does this prove?

Bracha Fuld trained Jewish women soldiers, led her own platoons, captained military detachments and fought at the Battle of Sarona in Palestine during WW2.

The disparity between population between Israel and her enemies means everyone is involved in the military. I think almost the whole adult population must serve a number of years. In al the documentaries and book I have read on Yom Kippur, the six days, the war of independence, or any other was a single women ever mentioned. I have no doubt they helped in many ways but the did little taking of tanks out or destroying aircraft.

The last surviving veteran of the female regiments of the Dahomey people in Africa died in 1979. (source "Amazons of Black Sparta : The Women Warriors of Dahomey" - Stanley B. Alpern - New York Univ Pr - 0814706789)

- These are the warrior women that fought the French.


Peshmerga Force for Women, a Kurdish guerrilla group in Northern Iraq, was founded in 1996 - "The Guardian" newspaper, 8/3/03


In 1999 there were around 10,000 women in active combat units opposed to the regime in Iran (Marie Claire magazine, UK edition, May 1999)

I am unfamiliar with these.

And of course we have many ancient reports of female warriors

The great military armies in history chronologically.

1. Egypt - little to no women in the ranks.
2. Babylon - No recollection of women involvement.
3. Sparta - Hardest soldiers that ever lived. No women, actually the women did have political rights but not military roles.
4. Athens - Virtually no women, but they did have a legendary regiment of homosexuals called the band of brothers.
5. Rome - Virtually no female troops.
6. Carthage - Virtually no female troops.
7. Alexander's Macedonia - No women in the lines.
8. Persia - Overwhelmingly male.
9. The Gualls, Britannic, and Germanic tribes. Primarily male. Boudicca's revolt being an exception.
10. Mongols - Almost all male.
11. Chinese - IDK
12. Japanese bushido - All male.
13. Conquistadors - Almost exclusively male.
14. Jihad - Almost exclusively male.

At this point we have left the OT context long behind.
All the later armies, Napoleon, British, Spanish, Russian, Israel, Iraq, Iran, etc... Were mostly overwhelmingly male dominated.

However Russia and Israel as you point out have had to use women. These wars are also fought using mechanical or electronic means and women are no longer as unequal to men, but you discussing words that governed a society 3000 years ago.

This is a weird discussion. The point is that male dominated societies made sense pre 500AD at least and almost exclusively have been so. The sexes are equal under the law and both are used in God's plan's but do not have the same capacities and have in general differing roles.

 

[1robin]

And also, genetically, women have two complete DNAs. Males don't. The Y-chromosome is essentially a short (damaged) version of the X-chromosome.

What does that mean? We all start life as males as well, does that mean we win. I also don't think what you said is technically accurate.

 

[1robin]

To add to the discussion about patriarchy and the Abrahamic religions, let's not forget that the first take of Elohim creating humans had him (them?) creating male and female humans at the same time. The Adam and Eve story is a different, later take on it. It seems like it was tacked onto it.

What text are you reading this from that predates Genesis. The Jewish poster who's texts these are, suggests that Adam and Eve predates even genesis. What texts are you using?

 

[1robin]

Indeed, and that second story can be read differently - as Adam (first being) was a dual being - both male and female - that split.

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' Matthew 19:4

Instead of what laymen with a bizarre preference and agenda have to say let's see what the biblical scholars take on it is.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

19:3-12 The Pharisees were desirous of drawing something from Jesus which they might represent as contrary to the law of Moses. Cases about marriage have been numerous, and sometimes perplexed; made so, not by the law of God, but by the lusts and follies of men; and often people fix what they will do, before they ask for advice. Jesus replied by asking whether they had not read the account of the creation, and the first example of marriage; thus pointing out that every departure therefrom was wrong. That condition is best for us, and to be chosen and kept to accordingly, which is best for our souls, and tends most to prepare us for, and preserve us to, the kingdom of heaven. When the gospel is really embraced, it makes men kind relatives and faithful friends; it teaches them to bear the burdens, and to bear with the infirmities of those with whom they are connected, to consider their peace and happiness more than their own. As to ungodly persons, it is proper that they should be restrained by laws, from breaking the peace of society. And we learn that the married state should be entered upon with great seriousness and earnest prayer.
Matthew 19:4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

And he answered and said unto them,.... Not by replying directly to the question, but by referring them to the original creation of man, and to the first institution of marriage, previous to the law of Moses;

have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning, made them male and female? This may be read in Genesis 1:27 and from thence this sense of things collected; that God, who in the beginning of time, or of the creation, as Mark expresses it, made all things, the heavens, and the earth, and all that is therein, and particularly "man", as the Vulgate Latin, and Munster's Hebrew Gospel supply it here, made the first parents of mankind, male and female; not male and females, but one male, and one female; first, one male, and then, of him one female, who, upon her creation, was brought and married to him; so that in this original constitution, no provision was made for divorce, or polygamy. Adam could not marry more wives than one, nor could he put away Eve for every cause, and marry another: now either the Pharisees had read this account, or they had not; if they had not, they were guilty of great negligence and sloth; if they had, they either understood it or not; if they did not understand it, it was greatly to their reproach, who pretended to great knowledge of the Scriptures, and to be able to explain them to others; and if they did understand it, there was no need for this question, which therefore must be put with an evil design.
Matthew 19:4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'

Every other respected commentator said the same thing. This verse is about divorce, and Jesus' reply that we were created as two distinct species with the idea of marriage in mind. This has nothing to do with Adam being both sexes. How did you ever come up with that?

You are again doing what you signature said would be done.

 

[Ingledsva]

Yes, and we also have examples of female warriors surviving into this era, including the ones the French fought.

Your doing what your own signature warns about. I never said anything about women being unfit for combat. However when you see units throughout history that had to win and did at any cost they normally only used men. The greatest fighting force in the Greek era were the Spartans (men), The greatest in to Roman era was the Legion. Instead of giving evidence of men dominating war throughout history.

....

LOL! I wasn't replying to you.


And of course we are going to hear about mainly male warriors as we have had patriarchy for thousands of years.


We also, because of patriarchy, have had mainly males, up until recent historical times, writing the histories, and doing the archaeological digs.


Hence a very ONE-SIDED history.



*

 

[Ingledsva]

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' Matthew 19:4

Instead of what laymen with a bizarre preference and agenda have to say let's see what the biblical scholars take on it is.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

19:3-12 The Pharisees were desirous of drawing something from Jesus which they might represent as contrary to the law of Moses. Cases about marriage have been numerous, and sometimes perplexed; made so, not by the law of God, but by the lusts and follies of men; and often people fix what they will do, before they ask for advice. Jesus replied by asking whether they had not read the account of the creation, and the first example of marriage; thus pointing out that every departure therefrom was wrong. That condition is best for us, and to be chosen and kept to accordingly, which is best for our souls, and tends most to prepare us for, and preserve us to, the kingdom of heaven. When the gospel is really embraced, it makes men kind relatives and faithful friends; it teaches them to bear the burdens, and to bear with the infirmities of those with whom they are connected, to consider their peace and happiness more than their own. As to ungodly persons, it is proper that they should be restrained by laws, from breaking the peace of society. And we learn that the married state should be entered upon with great seriousness and earnest prayer.
Matthew 19:4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

And he answered and said unto them,.... Not by replying directly to the question, but by referring them to the original creation of man, and to the first institution of marriage, previous to the law of Moses;

have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning, made them male and female? This may be read in Genesis 1:27 and from thence this sense of things collected; that God, who in the beginning of time, or of the creation, as Mark expresses it, made all things, the heavens, and the earth, and all that is therein, and particularly "man", as the Vulgate Latin, and Munster's Hebrew Gospel supply it here, made the first parents of mankind, male and female; not male and females, but one male, and one female; first, one male, and then, of him one female, who, upon her creation, was brought and married to him; so that in this original constitution, no provision was made for divorce, or polygamy. Adam could not marry more wives than one, nor could he put away Eve for every cause, and marry another: now either the Pharisees had read this account, or they had not; if they had not, they were guilty of great negligence and sloth; if they had, they either understood it or not; if they did not understand it, it was greatly to their reproach, who pretended to great knowledge of the Scriptures, and to be able to explain them to others; and if they did understand it, there was no need for this question, which therefore must be put with an evil design.
Matthew 19:4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'

Every other respected commentator said the same thing. This verse is about divorce, and Jesus' reply that we were created as two distinct species with the idea of marriage in mind. This has nothing to do with Adam being both sexes. How did you ever come up with that?

You are again doing what you signature said would be done.

MY! MY! You were not paying attention to what we were discussing.


The Second creation story "traditional" says ADAM was created, and then women made secondary from his rib.


However, if you look at this story in the Hebrew, "Adam" appears to be a human being with both within, which is split in half, to create male and female, - NOT women as a secondary afterthought from a MALE rib.


You can find this in Jewish commentary on Adam and Chavvah.


And of course Christianity has jumped on the traditional interpretation to say the FIRST story actually means the same thing, and two is just clarifying the first one.


NOW on to MAT 19 -


I believe we have debated this text before.


It is NOT in any way a commentary saying only male and female can marry - as you keep implying.


Jesus was asked a specific question about - ONLY - already married men and women.


Mat 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for any cause?
Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
Mat 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Mat 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.


NOW - below these verses you will note there is a EUNUCH clause!


And included under that clause is pretty much any sexual function, or dysfunction, other then their patriarchal ideas of heterosexual norm.


Mat 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
Mat 19:10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

Mat 19:11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
Mat 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.


I've always thought this also referred to gay men.


The subject is "can "MARRIED" men put away their wives." He basically says no -BUT gives a clause = eunuchs!

We know that men with deformed penises, removed organs, erection problems, and such, were NOT ALLOWED TO MARRY by LAW.


And Children were married off in arranged marriages very early.


SO - The only "MARRIED" men given the "right to divorce women clause" - "as eunuchs" - would be gay men. Other "eunuchs" were not allowed to marry.

I believe Those who grew up and realized they were homosexual, were allowed to divorce their arranged wives.

In other words The only people whom are "eunuchs" from the "womb" when it comes to "their WIVES (females)", are homosexuals!!


In other words the reference to male and female coming together for procreation in the beginning - is just that - and nothing more. It is just a reference to the fact that you need human creation to be male and female for procreation.


It says nothing about ,- nor condemns, homosexuals.


Nor does it say anything about the rights of homosexuals to marry each other.



*

 

[Ingledsva]

What does that mean? We all start life as males as well, does that mean we win. I also don't think what you said is technically accurate.

That is NOT correct!



*

 

[Ingledsva]

And again, - you are a fundamentalist Christian , - proven by your very first sentence, and as such this is the only reply needed.


1Robin - "No that is your real problem. Since I represent truth and the counter side repress, confuse, and dismiss it wouldn't my arguments be appropriate. As Always the only question is God's existence."

Well I guess fundamentalist, is the new fascist, which was the new Bolshevik. You can apparently just label someone out of a discussion if you cannot debate them.

I believe truth is exclusive.
I believe there are fundamental truths.
I believe traditional Christianity is founded on fundamental truths.

I must be a terrible person to hold that position that has done more for the humaneness of humanity than any other world view, including it's mistakes.

Since, only categorizing people instead of debate seems to be all I get from you then I will leave you to it.

No - I've given you more then enough logical debate.


You are a Christian fundamentalist, and there is no point in trying to debate with you.


Your answer is always the same.


Your God can be a violent, whacko, murderer of babies, and other innocent people, and your answer is, that it is just honkey-dory, because he is God.


That is fundamentalism - not a debate.



*

 

[Muffled]

John 14:2-- Gods house is in heaven.--- Jesus spoke these words to the bride-little flock--144,000 bought from the earth with Jesus blood-rev 14:3

I believe those words are not in Rev 14:2 And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and the voice which I heard was as the voice of harpers harping with their harps:

I believe Jesus does not speak to the chosen of Israel from Heaven but from Mount Zion on earth. Rev 14:1 And I saw, and behold, the Lamb standing on the mount Zion, and with him a hundred and forty and four thousand, having his name, and the name of his Father, written on their foreheads.

I believe, however it does not say that they were redeemed from earth to Heaven but that they follow Jesus. Rev 14: 4 These are they that were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they that follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth.

 

[Muffled]

And you have every right to believe however you want to.


For those like me - we need real proof - or Christianity is just like any other of the thousands of religions claiming to be from God.


You are not a Christian fundamentalist like Robin. - and hence - most people hold normal - respectful - debates with you.


*

I believe my wife was like that. She was an agnostic because as a materialist she could not envision anything spiritual as being real. A friend introduced her to the ouija board and she was asking it quesions. One day it spelled out "ecce homo" which is a Latin phrase but my wife did not know any Latin so she asked me what it meant because she knew that I had studied Latin. I told her it meant "behold the man" a famous quote by Pilot when presenting Jesus after Jesus was flagellated. Later a spirit kept her from getting off the couch and being afraid of it she started singing "Jesus Loves Me" one of the few things she learned in Sunday School and the spirit fled and did not return. After that she believed in Jesus because spirituality had become real to her.

I confess that I am a bit unorthodox but I believe Robin reflects fairly standard teaching in Christianity and Ihave not recognized a fundamental background in him but I never asked him either and it may be that like most preachers he is just too long winded for me to read all his posts.

I believe that I debate logically and many people appreciate that but some have less than flattering things to say about my faith. It is sometimes difficult for a person like me who has walked by faith for so long to remember how much of a struggle it ws to understand things in the beginning before I was saved. I can remember in Sunday School at the high school level telling the teacher that I didn't believe a particular teaching. I had a worldly view of things at the time.