+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 24 FirstFirst 123456712 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 359

Thread: 50 Reason Why The Bible Lacks Credibility IMO

  1. #16
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    952

    Default

    The term translated as slave in your translation is from the verb root meaning to work or serve. The noun form literally means one who works or serves. It is almost universally translated as servant but slave is okay too. Context is what determines the proper translation. Since your premise seems to be the Bible condones slavery I am not sure you can say that from the original text. It mentioned how people sell themselves into "slavery" which implies indentured servitude. And also mentions to free "slaves " and give them herds etc. at appointed intervals. This seems more like a system to get poor people back on their feet to get them a steady job. "Slaves" who refused to leave upon freedom were pierced in the right ear to indicate a lifetime commitment. I am not trying to say nobody had what was commonly thought of as a slave in that time but only that they had a very enlightened view of slavery for the time. Certainly in translating "eber" as slave is a poor choice over servant or worker but is not technically wrong but doesn't fit most of the context as slaves typically don't have all these rights the Bible gave them at that time.

    Maybe it is all semantics but the Concordance lists all translated words to english and where each usage of that word occurred and what the hebrew word was. It has one time for slave Jer 2:14 and one time for slaves Rev 18:13 and pages of uses of servant and 4 uses of servants.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    posting from Bethesda, MD
    Posts
    13,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shred View Post
    The term translated as slave in your translation is from the verb root meaning to work or serve. The noun form literally means one who works or serves. It is almost universally translated as servant but slave is okay too. Context is what determines the proper translation. Since your premise seems to be the Bible condones slavery I am not sure you can say that from the original text. It mentioned how people sell themselves into "slavery" which implies indentured servitude. And also mentions to free "slaves " and give them herds etc. at appointed intervals. This seems more like a system to get poor people back on their feet to get them a steady job. "Slaves" who refused to leave upon freedom were pierced in the right ear to indicate a lifetime commitment. I am not trying to say nobody had what was commonly thought of as a slave in that time but only that they had a very enlightened view of slavery for the time. Certainly in translating "eber" as slave is a poor choice over servant or worker but is not technically wrong but doesn't fit most of the context as slaves typically don't have all these rights the Bible gave them at that time.

    Maybe it is all semantics but the Concordance lists all translated words to english and where each usage of that word occurred and what the hebrew word was. It has one time for slave Jer 2:14 and one time for slaves Rev 18:13 and pages of uses of servant and 4 uses of servants.
    Honestly, I don't know the context of servitude, slavery, indenture, and so forth , in ancient times. As a Christian in the twenty-first century, those concepts have little relevance, except maybe in how some countries/economic systems continue to treat their people. Also, not being a Biblical scholar, and I trust that neither you nor Katweezel are either, it is difficult for me to know the right answer to why these matters appear in the Old Testament. I could venture a guess, which is what Katweezel is doing IMO, but I may or may not be right. If we have any Christian or Jewish scholars here, it would be instructive to hear from them.

    I do know from my many years of studying the life and teachings of Jesus Christ that slavery is not consistent with His view of humankind. He had the opportunity to speak out against slavery, but He did not. Jesus also had the opportunity to speak out against the Roman oppression, but He did not. He had the opportunity to speak on scientific matters, social matters, economic matters, political matters, mathematical matters, philosophical matters, psychological matters, medical matters, etc., etc., ad infinitum, but he did not. His message was spiritual. He said His kingdom was not of this world. He was a spiritual man, a religious man, and His message had to do with man's spiritual condition, spiritual life, spiritual destiny, spiritual well being, spiritual freedom, spiritual treasure, not earthly things. Jesus is about restoring man to friendship with God. Jesus is about man working to bring about God's Will on earth. All the evils in the world would disappear if men were in right relationship with God and with their fellow man. Jesus' message was to get it right each one individually. Jesus was about personal responsibility. Jesus was not about creating laws to force man to behave properly. Jesus was about man deciding to change his life (repent) and act out of the motive of pure love, which He made possible by reestablishing man's friendship with God, whereby men are empowered by His Holy Spirit to become the persons they are meant to be. But maybe I'm digressing. The point is, Jesus' spiritual message if heeded would cure all mankind's ills. He treated the sickness, not the symptoms. If the world followed Him there would be no slavery, nor any other evil with man as its source.
    Aslan 11/1/90 - 6/15/10 Stormy 1/22/95 -8/23/10
    “There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church,
    but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”
    Bishop Fulton J. Sheen

    “It takes a very long time to become young.” Pablo Picasso

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Third base
    Posts
    11,322

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aslan View Post
    Honestly, I don't know the context of servitude, slavery, indenture, and so forth , in ancient times. As a Christian in the twenty-first century, those concepts have little relevance, except maybe in how some countries/economic systems continue to treat their people. Also, not being a Biblical scholar, and I trust that neither you nor Katweezel are either, it is difficult for me to know the right answer to why these matters appear in the Old Testament. I could venture a guess, which is what Katweezel is doing IMO, but I may or may not be right. If we have any Christian or Jewish scholars here, it would be instructive to hear from them.
    No, I'm not a biblical scholar but I have the Internet, and enough intelligence to be able to think for myself. Einstein said QUESTION EVERYTHING. He was and remains a great role model in many respects. He was also an atheist. So with the basic tools, we don't need to be bible scholars; we can search, cut and paste. I found a great biblical scholar... James McDonald, best-selling author of Beyond Belief. He has impeccable credentials (MSc and MA from Oxford Uni) and spent 20 years researching his book. It contains all his vast references for easy checking. Modern scholars like McDonald have done us all a great favor by producing a quality work that resonates with truth. But as we have seen so many times in the past, many Christians are not interested in the truth of the origins of their religion.

    Book Description (from Amazon)

    Publication Date: March 15, 2011
    "Starting from a neutral position, this book looks at claims made by Christian leaders over the centuries and analyses them in the light of modern scholarship. Erudite yet mischievous, the book s scope is wide, from early history to the present day, from America to China, and spanning many different disciplines. Many of the conclusions reached will shock devout believers, though all of them can be verified with reference to sympathetic works by biblical scholars and theologians.

    A recurring theme is that of open secrets facts well known to historians and other academics in the Church, but kept from the faithful masses. These open secrets are not actively denied, just avoided so as not to cause offence to those who are familiar only with the Sunday-School version of events. Many Christians see their system of belief as dating from the earliest times, but this idea becomes difficult to sustain in the light of when and how key doctrines were established. Many ordinary Christians would be shocked to discover, for example, the prominent role played by violence and forgery in developing and promoting Christian doctrine.

    The division of the Roman Empire in early Christian times also reverberates to the present day. To a large extent, the history of the Western World over the last 2,000 years is the history of the Christian Church. Without a proper understanding of the role of the Church, it is not possible to truly understand the history of Europe, the Middle East, or indeed the Americas."
    Dogma schmogma

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Third base
    Posts
    11,322

    Default

    #3 of 50 The Bible is riddled with plagiarisms. (So why should anyone take it seriously?)

    Excerpts from Beyond Belief by James McDonald that demonstrate this:

    ..."Traditionally, Jews believed that the Hebrew text of the Old Testament was the infallible word of God. Orthodox Christians held that the Greek translation called the Septuagint held the same status. For centuries this was the only version used by Christians. The Roman Church later accorded the same status to fourth-century Latin translation (the Vulgate) and later still Protestants accorded it to their own translations.

    Many fundamentalist Christians still believe that the Old Testament is the literal and infallible word of God, but over the last 200 years or so, virtually all Christian scholars have abandoned such beliefs.

    What would we expect of the Old Testament if it were, as claimed, the word of God? We might reasonably expect that there would be no doubt about what constituted the Old Testament. The books in it, called the canon, should be clearly defined. Furthermore, this canon should be unchanged from the earliest days of Christianity. We might even expect some sort of divine confirmation of it. We might also expect that the Bible would be original. We would not for example expect to find stories that have been plagiarised from neighbouring cultures or other religions.

    If the claims made for the bible were true, then in view of their importance we might expect that the original manuscripts would have been carefully preserved. Failing this, we might expect that various copies would at least agree with each other. We certainly would not expect to find evidence of tampering and later editing. We might also reasonably expect various books to have been written by the authors to whom they are attributed, and in the historical periods claimed for them.

    Also, if translations were divinely inspired, as the Greek Septuagint, Latin Vulgate, and English Authorised Version have been claimed to be, then we might expect the same standards of them as of the original text. We would not expect to find evidence of deliberate mistranslation. Also, if the Bible represented the infallible word of God, then it might reasonably be expected to be internally consistent and free from factual errors.

    These expectations are not unreasonable. Neither are they merely the expectations of modern rationalists. Christians have made all of these claims and in the past have persecuted people for doubting them...

    ...Tear down your house, I say, and build a boat. These are the measurements of the barque as you shall build her: let her beam equal her length, let her deck be roofed over like the vault that covers the abyss; then take up into the boat the seed of all living creatures... The Epic of Gilgamesh c.2500 BC

    If the books of the Old Testament contained God's unique revelation, they might reasonably be expected to be original. If on the other hand they were writings typical of the Middle East between 2000 and 3000 years ago, they would be likely to contain material plagiarised from other works and from neighbouring peoples. Which pattern does the Old Testament best fit? Did any biblical stories exist before God revealed them to his chosen people?

    The Old Testament is not a single work but a collection of ancient Jewish writings. As a cursory glance shows, it is an amalgamation of laws, genealogies, chronicles (or histories), myths, proverbs, poetry, songs, eroticism, propaganda, prophecy, allegories, morality tales and humorous stories. In the original Hebrew there are numerous folk etymologies, puns and acrostics. However, nearly all of these are lost in translation. Any good story or choice morsel circulating in the Middle East could be included in the anthology, subject to amendments where necessary.

    The Jewish scholars who compiled the books that now comprise the Old Testament borrowed from the songs, folk tales and myths not only of the Jews themselves, but of their neighbours too. This sort of plagiarism was both widespread and acceptable in the Middle East at the time.

    To take a well-known example, the story of Noah's Ark (Genesis 6-8) closely parallels the story of a flood given in the Epic of Gilgamesh. Gilgamesh is an Assyrian work dating from around 2500 BC, almost 2000 years before the biblical account was written. The story from Gilgamesh is the more complete version. In fact the biblical account appears to be an amalgamation of two derivitave versions of the Gilgamesh story.

    Odd details are lost in the biblical account: for example, where in Gilgamesh a raven, a dove and a swallow are sent to find dry land, in the biblical version only a raven and a dove are sent. Both stories appear to explain rainbows. In the biblical version Jahveh places his bow in the sky as a reminder of his covenant not to cause such a flood again. In the older version the goddess Ishtar dedicates her spectacular necklace with the 'jewels of Heaven' made by the sky god.

    The Jews would certainly have known this epic. It was to be found in many Eastern libraries - fragments have been found in Turkey, Syria, Israel and Egypt. A Babylonian version of the story is also known, again older than the biblical version, and again more complete. There is also a well-known Greek version of the story.

    The story of Moses' mother hiding her infant son in a basket of rushes caulked with pitch, and entrusting him to the river, is also adapted from an older Middle Eastern story. The original river was the Euphrates, the role of Pharoah's daughter was played by the goddess Ishtar, and the child grew up to be the Mesopotanian king, Sargon of Akkad.

    In ancient times rivers were thought of as the embodiment of gods, so in the original tale the mother was entrusting her child to a deity, not abandoning him to the elements. The story of Moses, which may be found in Exodus 2:1-10, dates from about 1000 years after that of Sargon.

    Another well-known story from the Old Testament is that of God giving Moses tablets of stone on which were inscribed God's commandments. But long before then the Babylonian Sun god Shamash had handed stone tablets of the law to Hammurabi, a king during the first dynasty of Babylon, around 4000 years ago. Again, there are clear parallels: Hammurabi received his tablets on top of a ziggurat, while Moses received his on top of a mountain.

    The laws given to Hammurabi are sophisticated, exceeding 280 in number. They evidently provided the basis not only for the story of divine laws being inscribed on tablets, but also for some of the later Jewish laws."...
    Dogma schmogma

  5. #20
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    952

    Default

    The first thing one must examine is what one would expect to find of old written forms from antiquity. The oldest surviving written forms are cut or set in stone. These are from 2 to 3K years BC. In order for one of these to survive it needed to be recorded in stone and needed to survive repeated conquest by cultures that would see a need to destroy them. In an archaeology class we learned of a find of ruins of a settlement that had stone pillars at its gates with writing inscribed that had been chiseled off. They were able to decypher some of it and it became a significant find by its distinction of being the only reference surviving of the King David that was from his time. It was not chiseled of in antiquity but at a much later time most likely by islamic people wanting to erase any claim on the land by the descendants of Israel. Many of the surviving stone writings that survive were from pyramids cliffs and other sites protected from people with destructive intent.

    If it was not in stone it was likely on papyrus or parchment. Archaeologist have found stashes of old manuscripts stored like in Kumran (dead sea scrolls). The more contemporary copies survived in storage but the older ones they brought there were largely in fragments. As hard as they tried to preserve them the materials just don't hold up to time. Fragments of gospels from the New Testament which were contemporary at the time were found. Ancient copies of Isaiah are pretty much intact from Kumran. Many conquerers tried to destroy all copies of and time was successful at destroying or partially destroying the remainder found thus far.

    Copies were made by scribes who made mistakes that needed to be corrected. Many corrections were made by the scribe themselves some by proof readers and others due to older manuscripts being found. I am sure that some tried to change things. The problem is they would have to change all hand copied manuscripts. This would require a vast worldwide conspiracy. Not impossible but very unlikely. The differences are more likely from translation differences which are not going to be identical unless only one translation was ever done (we know that is not true) or scribal error that was repeated until it was caught in comparison to an older document in the lineage of that copy. Unlike the Hebrew scribes who copied errors to preserve the text and made comments in the margin as to what they thought was right christian scribes just made the correction when found most of the time.

    When it comes to religious overlap in different cultures one must ask do these point to a common ancestry as anthropologists say is our history, divergence from a common cultural branch or the borrowing of cultures independent of one history generating them all. We will look at your Noah's flood example. Cultural Anthropologists are a bit amazed at the global universality of this story in various forms around the world by cultures that they believe had no contact with one another. Almost every tribal history from around the world tell of a great flood that cleansed the Earth and how messengers instructed them how to escape by building a floating sanctuary. This has rather baffled Anthropologists how cultures as scattered and separate that they believe had no contact as global trade and interaction was not believed to have occurred despite any evidence that might suggest otherwise. You have the Hopi (native American) story of crossing the pacific as floods to cleanse the third world in preparation for our fourth incarnation of the world. From Australia you have the Aboriginal story of an Ark carrying Aboriginals and animals to the Fitzroy River area. Tasmania , Africa, New Zealand, the cultures of North and South America, Asia and Europe all tell a similar story of salvation from a cleansing flood. Scientists generally believe these cultures to evolve separate and distinct from one another for the most part.

    How could this be so? 1) They all describe a global event that was experienced by all cultures individually or descending from a common story. 2) They each describe a local flood that happened to each culture individually and have for some unknown reason eerie similarities. 3) There was a global trading of cultures in a world wide network of interaction that allowed them all to borrow the same story. Obviously we don't know which is true and only can speculate.

    What is the evidence for who borrowed from whom if borrowing occurred? The author quoted by Kat assumes the oldest written record is the oldest source. This is by no means a given but more of a starting point for investigation. It is likely an event happened that was significant to all cultures in antiquity and each "witness" tells its own version carried forward by its cultures own traditions.

    Another explanation is a spiritual lesson was to be learned by all cultures and each had their own participants in the symbolic story. A Directed Panspermia of mental evolution.

    Archaeologic finds like Tel el Amarna (before 2500 BC, found 1988 Egypt) and Ebla (1400 BC found 1975 in Syria) provide proof of the existence of Abraham, Esau and Moses by other cultures writings. Not sure why your author didn't include these in his study (tongue in cheek, I think we all know why he ignored these finds which no doubt predate his book).

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    posting from Bethesda, MD
    Posts
    13,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Katweezel View Post
    No, I'm not a biblical scholar but I have the Internet, and enough intelligence to be able to think for myself. Einstein said QUESTION EVERYTHING. He was and remains a great role model in many respects. He was also an atheist. There is another saying, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." It goes without question that Albert Einstein was great in his field, a real genius. Unfortunately, as so often happens, that greatness did not follow into other fields, in this case theology or religion. So with the basic tools, we don't need to be bible scholars; we can search, cut and paste. I found a great biblical scholar... James McDonald, best-selling author of Beyond Belief. He has impeccable credentials (MSc and MA from Oxford Uni) and spent 20 years researching his book. It contains all his vast references for easy checking. Modern scholars like McDonald have done us all a great favor by producing a quality work that resonates with truth. But as we have seen so many times in the past, many Christians are not interested in the truth of the origins of their religion. It is all to easy to find a "scholar" to support one's prejudices. But then, as I've said before, spiritual matters are discerned spiritually, and not every one, no matter how brilliant, has the capacity to know spiritual truth when they see it. The Spirit of God jumps off the pages of the Bible, but those who are not spiritual are blind to it. Pray that God will give you the gift of faith whereby you will be able to see what others see. You don't have to believe to do this. Just ask God if He is real to open your eyes.

    Book Description (from Amazon)

    Publication Date: March 15, 2011
    "Starting from a neutral position, this book looks at claims made by Christian leaders over the centuries and analyses them in the light of modern scholarship. Erudite yet mischievous, the book s scope is wide, from early history to the present day, from America to China, and spanning many different disciplines. Many of the conclusions reached will shock devout believers, though all of them can be verified with reference to sympathetic works by biblical scholars and theologians.

    A recurring theme is that of open secrets facts well known to historians and other academics in the Church, but kept from the faithful masses. These open secrets are not actively denied, just avoided so as not to cause offence to those who are familiar only with the Sunday-School version of events. Many Christians see their system of belief as dating from the earliest times, but this idea becomes difficult to sustain in the light of when and how key doctrines were established. Many ordinary Christians would be shocked to discover, for example, the prominent role played by violence and forgery in developing and promoting Christian doctrine.

    The division of the Roman Empire in early Christian times also reverberates to the present day. To a large extent, the history of the Western World over the last 2,000 years is the history of the Christian Church. Without a proper understanding of the role of the Church, it is not possible to truly understand the history of Europe, the Middle East, or indeed the Americas."
    See my comments in blue above.
    Aslan 11/1/90 - 6/15/10 Stormy 1/22/95 -8/23/10
    “There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church,
    but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”
    Bishop Fulton J. Sheen

    “It takes a very long time to become young.” Pablo Picasso

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Third base
    Posts
    11,322

    Default

    #4 of 50
    The Bible was written by mostly unknown Jewish Tribesmen and is riddled with liars, forgeries and lies. So why should any of it be be taken seriously?

    Bart D. Ehrman

    Author, 'Forged: Writing in the Name of God—Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are'


    Who Wrote The Bible and Why It Matters


    Posted: 03/25/11 09:38 PM ET


    Christianity , 1 Timothy , 2 Peter , Paul's Letters , The Bible , Bible Authorship , Biblical Authors , Christian History , Early Christianity , Epistles , Who Wrote The Bible , Religion News







    Apart from the most rabid fundamentalists among us, nearly everyone admits that the Bible might contain errors -- a faulty creation story here, a historical mistake there, a contradiction or two in some other place. But is it possible that the problem is worse than that -- that the Bible actually contains lies?


    Most people wouldn't put it that way, since the Bible is, after all, sacred Scripture for millions on our planet. But good Christian scholars of the Bible, including the top Protestant and Catholic scholars of America, will tell you that the Bible is full of lies, even if they refuse to use the term. And here is the truth: Many of the books of the New Testament were written by people who lied about their identity, claiming to be a famous apostle -- Peter, Paul or James -- knowing full well they were someone else. In modern parlance, that is a lie, and a book written by someone who lies about his identity is a forgery.


    Most modern scholars of the Bible shy away from these terms, and for understandable reasons, some having to do with their clientele. Teaching in Christian seminaries, or to largely Christian undergraduate populations, who wants to denigrate the cherished texts of Scripture by calling them forgeries built on lies? And so scholars use a different term for this phenomenon and call such books "pseudepigrapha."
    You will find this antiseptic term throughout the writings of modern scholars of the Bible. It's the term used in university classes on the New Testament, and in seminary courses, and in Ph.D. seminars. What the people who use the term do not tell you is that it literally means "writing that is inscribed with a lie."


    And that's what such writings are. Whoever wrote the New Testament book of 2 Peter claimed to be Peter. But scholars everywhere -- except for our friends among the fundamentalists -- will tell you that there is no way on God's green earth that Peter wrote the book. Someone else wrote it claiming to be Peter. Scholars may also tell you that it was an acceptable practice in the ancient world for someone to write a book in the name of someone else. But that is where they are wrong. If you look at what ancient people actually said about the practice, you'll see that they invariably called it lying and condemned it as a deceitful practice, even in Christian circles.

    2 Peter was finally accepted into the New Testament because the church fathers, centuries later, were convinced that Peter wrote it. But he didn't. Someone else did. And that someone else lied about his identity.

    The same is true of many of the letters allegedly written by Paul. Most scholars will tell you that whereas seven of the 13 letters that go under Paul's name are his, the other six are not. Their authors merely claimed to be Paul. In the ancient world, books like that were labeled as pseudoi -- lies.



    This may all seem like a bit of antiquarian curiosity, especially for people whose lives don't depend on the Bible or even people of faith for whom biblical matters are a peripheral interest at best. But in fact, it matters sometimes. Whoever wrote the book of 1 Timothy claimed to be Paul. But he was lying about that -- he was someone else living after Paul had died. In his book, the author of 1 Timothy used Paul's name and authority to address a problem that he saw in the church. Women were speaking out, exercising authority and teaching men. That had to stop.

    The author told women to be silent and submissive, and reminded his readers about what happened the first time a woman was allowed to exercise authority over a man, in that little incident in the garden of Eden. No, the author argued, if women wanted to be saved, they were to have babies (1 Tim. 2:11-15).


    Largely on the basis of this passage, the apostle Paul has been branded, by more liberation minded people of recent generations, as one of history's great misogynists. The problem, of course, is that Paul never said any such thing. And why does it matter? Because the passage is still used by church leaders today to oppress and silence women. Why are there no women priests in the Catholic Church? Why are women not allowed to preach in conservative evangelical churches? Why are there churches today that do not allow women even to speak?

    In no small measure it is because Paul allegedly taught that women had to be silent, submissive and pregnant. Except that the person who taught this was not Paul, but someone lying about his identity so that his readers would think he was Paul.

    It may be one of the greatest ironies of the Christian scriptures that some of them insist on truth, while telling a lie. For no author is truth more important than for the "Paul" of Ephesians. He refers to the gospel as "the word of truth" (1:13); he indicates that the "truth is in Jesus"; he tells his readers to "speak the truth" to their neighbors (4:24-25); and he instructs his readers to "fasten the belt of truth around your waist" (6:14). And yet he himself lied about who he was. He was not really Paul.



    It appears that some of the New Testament writers, such as the authors of 2 Peter, 1 Timothy and Ephesians, felt they were perfectly justified to lie in order to tell the truth. But we today can at least evaluate their claims and realize just how human, and fallible, they were. They were creatures of their time and place. And so too were their teachings, lies and all.


    Bart D. Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and the New York Times bestselling author of 'Misquoting Jesus' and 'Jesus, Interrupted'. His latest book, 'Forged: Writing in the Name of God -- Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are', is now available from HarperOne.



    SOURCE: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d..._b_840301.html
    Last edited by Katweezel; April 30th, 2012 at 03:15 AM.
    Dogma schmogma

  8. #23
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    952

    Default

    Why no women priests? I want to know, why no male nuns? Why can't men give birth? Why can't men act irrationally bitchy and have it be OK? They are a bunch of men haters. It's not fair. I guess its a matter of perspective who got the short end of evolution's stick. LOL

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Third base
    Posts
    11,322

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shred View Post
    Why no women priests? I want to know, why no male nuns? Why can't men give birth? Why can't men act irrationally bitchy and have it be OK? They are a bunch of men haters. It's not fair. I guess its a matter of perspective who got the short end of evolution's stick. LOL
    Well you being a Christian man, like most all of them, you never notice the rampant sexism and misogyny throughout the Bible.

    #5 of 50. The Bible is riddled with rampant sexism and misognyny... So why should any of it be taken seriously?


    Here's a small sample example:



    The Dark Bible
    Women's Inferior Status

    Back To Table Of Contents

    The Biblical view of women
    The God of the Bible decrees that woman must submit to the dominance of man.
    "The social and legal position of an Israelite wife was inferior to the position a wife occupied in the great countries round about... all the texts show that Israelites wanted mainly sons to perpetuate the family line and fortune, and to preserve the ancestral inheritance... A husband could divorce his wife; women on the other hand could not ask for divorce... the wife called her husband Ba'al or master; she also called him adon or lord; she addressed him, in fact, as a slave addressed his master or subject, his king. The Decalogue includes a man's wife among his possessions... all her life she remains a minor. The wife does not inherit from her husband, nor daughters from their father, except when there is no male heir. A vow made by a girl or married woman needs, to be valid, the consent of the father or husband and if this consent is withheld, the vow is null and void. A man had a right to sell his daughter. Women were excluded from the succession."
    -Roland de Vaux, archaeologist and priest


    Blue words represent Bible quotes


    Burn The Daughter!

    "And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire." (Leviticus 21:9)
    Comment

    A priest's daughter, if found to have lost her virginity without marriage, can receive the death penalty, but in the form of incineration.
    How many fundamentalist priests who so easily condemn others would carry out the burning of their daughters if they found them "whoring"?
    (See also Genesis 38:24)


    Cut Off Her Hand!

    "When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her." (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)
    Comment

    A wife would naturally wish to come to the aid of her husband in any way she could if he desperately struggled with an opponent, but the Hebrew law specifically forbade a wife to help her husband in distress if that support consisted of her grabbing the enemy's genitals in an effort to stifle his onslaught. The penalty? Amputation of the hand that fondled the genitals!
    Only in an overly obsessive male dominated culture could men create such atrocious laws. As such, the penis ranked sacrosanct in the minds of men (as it still stands today). If a male lost his penis for any reason, he would lose the right to enter a congregation of God. (See Deuteronomy 23:1)


    Female Births Get Penalty

    "Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean." (Leviticus 12:2)
    "But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days." (Leviticus 12:5)
    Comment

    A woman who gives birth to a child must undergo a purification ritual lest her "uncleanness" contaminate others. This not only entails her isolation, but also payments to priests for the ritual acts. Thus the male dominators had even made birth dirty.
    Notice here that if a woman bears a female child, her isolation must last twice as long as that if she gives birth to a male child!
    (See also Psalms 51:3-5)
    "The Bible and the church have been the greatest stumbling blocks in the way of woman's emancipation."
    --Elizabeth Cady Stanton

    Female Inferiority

    "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3)
    "For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (I Corinthians 11:8-9)
    Comment

    The Bible's decree of male supremacy has kept woman inferior to men for centuries. For the religious, it comes as a sad fact that a human must have a penis to receive any respect or power within the Church.
    All woman should realize that such phrases in the Bible has justified for many Christian men, not only their supremacy but a reason to sexually abuse women.
    (See also I Cor. 14:34-36, I Timothy 2:8-15, I Peter 3:1-7, Ephesians 5:22-24, Col. 3:18-19)


    Jesus Will Kill Children

    "Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works." (Revelation 2:22-23)
    Comment

    If anyone thinks Jesus represents only a peaceful loving soul, then think again. For an act of adultery, Jesus would kill innocent children for the adultery of others; hardly fair justice, love, or the concern for human beings.
    Some apologists claim that "children" refers to the followers of a cult of Jezebel and not to children birthed from Jezebel. However, if this proved the case, the situation would appear even more horrific, for a cult of believers could number in the dozens, hundreds, thousands, or more. The deaths of these multitude of cult believers (which would include children within its membership) would only make the moralistic problem far more atrocious.
    "It's interesting to speculate how it developed that in two of the most anti-feminist institutions, the church and the law court, the men are wearing the dresses."
    --Flo Kennedy

    Kill The Witches!

    "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Whoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death. He that sacrificeth unto any god, save to the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed." (Exodus 22:18-20)
    Comment

    These verses attest to the power of belief as they led to the slaughter of thousands of defenseless people throughout Europe and the rest of the world.
    Understand that these verses not only authorize the executions but they explicitly command them.
    Verse 18 justified the burning of women in Europe judged as witches. In early America, the Salem witch trials resulted in the deaths of women and men.
    Verse 19 refers to bestiality, a sin considered worthy of death. Christians used verse 20 to justify religious wars, Crusades and the slaughter of unbelievers throughout Europe. And the condemnation of heretics still goes on.


    Rape My Daughter

    "Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go." (Judges 19:24-25)
    Comment

    Judges 19 describe a father who offers his virgin daughter to a drunken mob. When the father says "unto this man do not so vile a thing," he makes clear that sexual abuse should never befall a man (meaning him), yet a woman, even his own flesh and blood, or a concubine belonging to a perfect stranger, can receive punishment from men to do what they wish. This attitude against women still persists to this day and we have the Bible, in large part, to thank for this attitude against women.
    Verse 25 describes the hours long gang rape of the poor concubine. The Bible gives not one hint of passion or concern for the raped girl. Considering that many people believe that every word in the Bible comes from God, it should not surprise anyone why people still use these verses to justify such atrocities.


    Silence The Woman!

    "Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14)
    Comment

    Another case where the Bible makes it quite clear that women live for man and must submit to them.
    "Man enjoys the great advantage of having a god endorse the code he writes; and since man exercises a sovereign authority over women it is especially fortunate that this authority has been vested in him by the Supreme Being. For the Jews, Mohammedans and Christians among others, man is master by divine right; the fear of God will therefore repress any impulse towards revolt in the downtrodden female."
    --Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex 1949
    (See also I Cor. 11:3-12, I Cor. 14:34-36, I Peter 3:1-7, Ephesians 5:22-24, Col. 3:18-19.)

    More at SOURCE: http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible7.htm
    Last edited by Katweezel; April 30th, 2012 at 06:55 PM.
    Dogma schmogma

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    posting from Bethesda, MD
    Posts
    13,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shred View Post
    Why no women priests? I want to know, why no male nuns? Why can't men give birth? Why can't men act irrationally bitchy and have it be OK? They are a bunch of men haters. It's not fair. I guess its a matter of perspective who got the short end of evolution's stick. LOL
    I can't speak fpr other Christian sects, but the Catholic Church honors a woman above all other saints, Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Mary holds a singular position in Catholicism as one who was sinless throughout her life, and later honored by God as Queen of heaven and earth, Queen of all the angels and saints. No male saint is considered as influential with God as Mary. So, to suggest that Christianity somehow discriminates against women is absurd on the face of it.

    The reason for the male priesthood? You'll have to ask Jesus, since He is the one who chose only men for His apostles. Did not nature choose to construct women physically different than men so that women could bear children? Does that mean that nature discriminates against men? Of course not! Likewise, just because only men are priests, does that mean that God discriminates against women? Of course not!

    Next we'll be hearing from Katweezel about the horrible things that the Church did to people. Forget about the fact that he gets all his facts wrong, just consider that what church officials did to anyone makes not a whit of difference in so far as whether or not the teachings of Jesus Christ are true and worthy of belief. Then he will tell us that the teachings of Jesus are not the teachings of Jesus, that they are somehow forgeries and fakes. More blather! The earliest Christians believed and practiced certain truths taught by Christ and passed them on both in writing and by word of mouth to generation after generation. Catholics do not believe that the Bible is the only source of Jesus' teachings. Catholics believe also that the teaching of Jesus were transmitted orally by Jesus' followers and that this too is a valid a source of Jesus' teachings. That's what they mean by the oral revelation, which was also written down by various church leaders down through the ages.
    Aslan 11/1/90 - 6/15/10 Stormy 1/22/95 -8/23/10
    “There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church,
    but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”
    Bishop Fulton J. Sheen

    “It takes a very long time to become young.” Pablo Picasso

  11. #26
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    952

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aslan View Post

    Next we'll be hearing from Katweezel about the horrible things that the Church did to people. Forget about the fact that he gets all his facts wrong, just consider that what church officials did to anyone makes not a whit of difference in so far as whether or not the teachings of Jesus Christ are true and worthy of belief. Then he will tell us that the teachings of Jesus are not the teachings of Jesus, that they are somehow forgeries and fakes.

    More blather!

    The earliest Christians believed and practiced certain truths taught by Christ and passed them on both in writing and by word of mouth to generation after generation. Catholics do not believe that the Bible is the only source of Jesus' teachings. Catholics believe also that the teaching of Jesus were transmitted orally by Jesus' followers and that this too is a valid a source of Jesus' teachings. That's what they mean by the oral revelation, which was also written down by various church leaders down through the ages.
    Kat believes whatever he reads. He was showering and got shampoo in his eyes while he read the directions: Blather, rinse, repeat. He has been doing it ever since.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Third base
    Posts
    11,322

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shred View Post
    Kat believes whatever he reads. He was showering and got shampoo in his eyes while he read the directions: Blather, rinse, repeat. He has been doing it ever since.
    LOL. Funny how you Christians always stick together; no matter how much logic, reason and science is stacked up against you. Take this one here above, where I painstakingly found and listed so many Bible texts that clearly demonstrate Bible Sexism and Misogyny. Instead of discussion-involvement, Aslan predictably preaches yet another RCC sermon designed to try to prove the most Sexist, Misogynist church on the planet, is not. And that his church is as white, innocent and pure as snow.

    And Shred, you also choose to ignore the overwhelming evidence and predictably, get distracted and resort once again to your unfortunate ingrained habit: personal abuse.


    BTW, I see the Mormon Romney could be your next President. Are you two afraid of that church or something? Are you being over-polite by pretending to respect Mormon whacko beliefs? Is a Mormon a Christian? How can you NOT separate the man from his religious beliefs? I see his 'apostate' brother left the LDS and is now shunned by his brother Mitt and family. I take it you two approve of Mitt and his church.

    Name:  aa codgers.jpg
Views: 137
Size:  20.2 KBName:  aa i want mormon.jpg
Views: 150
Size:  33.2 KBName:  aa aslan lol.jpg
Views: 142
Size:  90.6 KBName:  aa aslan jeeps.jpg
Views: 154
Size:  64.5 KBName:  aa brains.jpg
Views: 153
Size:  25.3 KB
    Dogma schmogma

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Third base
    Posts
    11,322

    Default

    Aaaaaah. Cool, refreshing science.

    Dogma schmogma

  14. #29
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    952

    Default

    Can't even inject some humor without being accused of ulterior motives. I can't speak for Aslan but I respect everyones beliefs that don't include murder , hate or bigotry. I don't care for Mitt or Obama when it comes to being president but it is not about religion, it is politics. They are two peas in a pod to me. They look identical politically. Looks like third party vote again.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Third base
    Posts
    11,322

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shred View Post
    Can't even inject some humor without being accused of ulterior motives. I can't speak for Aslan but I respect everyones beliefs that don't include murder , hate or bigotry. I don't care for Mitt or Obama when it comes to being president but it is not about religion, it is politics. They are two peas in a pod to me. They look identical politically. Looks like third party vote again.
    Thank the lord you can't speak for Aslan. Don't matter. He can pontificate for his religion by hisself, as you may have noticed. Why lie about respecting everyone's beliefs? Don't tell me you respect the beliefs of Scientology? And how about Islam? Are you honestly going to look me in the face and tell me you respect those idiotic beliefs written down in the 12th century by a pedophile who was a camel-train bandit chieftain and may have been insane? And Mormonism, which preaches similar stuff to Scientology, but cloaked with a veneer of Jesus stuff, made up by Joseph Smith, before he was murdered by an angry mob. Many of your Founding Fathers saw religion for what it is. Who convinced you that you should respect obviously insane religious beliefs? Honestly? If you do so, then you are as crazy as they are. Um, have you been to Topeka and listened to Fred Phelps down at Westboro Baptist? Now there is one wacky Xian who is giving you all a bad name. Now don't tell me you also respect his beliefs?
    Dogma schmogma

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. The Reason JFK Jr. Was Murdered
    By zengrifter in forum ZenZone General Discussion
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: December 15th, 2014, 04:07 AM
  2. The TRUE Reason for the Civil War...
    By zengrifter in forum History, Secret or Otherwise
    Replies: 180
    Last Post: July 23rd, 2014, 03:20 AM
  3. One Reason to Believe in Christianity
    By aslan in forum Religious Cults & Spirituality
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: June 14th, 2014, 09:53 PM
  4. One reason you should be a Christian
    By moo321 in forum Religious Cults & Spirituality
    Replies: 85
    Last Post: March 22nd, 2014, 07:15 PM
  5. The reason why sh*t happens
    By Katweezel in forum Anything Else But
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: April 16th, 2011, 10:48 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts