|
|
Post by KittyKadaveral on Jun 22, 2004 17:13:40 GMT -5
(from my perspective, btw, the earth is only about 6,000 years old). Maybe then you could possibly tell me where the dinosaurss fit, the cavemen, the ice age, mammoths and all those other fun and wonderful things that happened way way way longer than 6,000 years ago?  I doubt that was all conjured up by some ancient relative of Steven Spielburg and some good props men that made fake bones and tossed them about for some poor farmer to dig up and ruin his tractor over. |
|
|
|
Post by ghostision on Jun 22, 2004 19:10:26 GMT -5
Actually, no, you can't. Though the Bible does speak of laws for slavery, they weren't anything as bad as what was done to africans in early American History. What's more, the Levitical laws (found in Leviticus and Deuteronomy) weren't even part of the argument used to justify slavery. It was 'The Curse of Ham'. Which brings me to another point. Where is the curse of Ham in the Bible? Chapter and verse, please! As for the crusades? Chapter and verse, please! Persecution of the Jews? Chapter and verse, please! Inferiority of women? Chapter and verse, please!! (When studying this, be sure to pay attention to the historical backdrop to the Epistles.) Actually, you can. I never said they were CONDONED by the bible, I said that they used the bible to justify it. For example. I could easily say that I could kill people if it's done it the name of God. There are lots of examples of people being killed in the bible because they sinned. Now let's take this a step further. The people were killed because they did something God disapproved of. Now, if I believed that I knew what God wanted better than anyone, in theory, I might think that killing other people who I had believed sinned was doing God's work, and therefore, justified. If someone's commited a sin against you, well go kill his kids, why don't you? That's how Moses ended up delivering his people from Egypt. People would have to be crazy and bigoted to believe that, but then again, so is anyone who honestly believes that they can kill people in the name of survival of the fittest. Where in Charles Darwin's writings did he ever say: "We came from animals, therefore we should behave like them." Show me where it says that, and I'll show you where it condones those other things in the bible. Why did the Crusades happen? They justified it by saying they wanted to convert the unbelievers, save their souls, you could say. And look what happened. Not the real reason, of course, but they justified it by the bible. And then there was the American Indians. People of other religions forcibly converted them to "save their souls" done in the name of the bible, got people killed. And women's rights. Let's see what the bible says about that. And slavery is condoned by the bible. It might not be as extreme, but it is. Just because it wasn't one of the MAIN arguments for slavery doesn't change a thing. Since we're on the subject of Hitler, I need to point a few things out. Most of the people in Germany at that time were Christians. He lied to get into power, I know, but even after he showed his true colors a lot of people supported him. On the belts of the Germans, there were the words "Gott Mit Uns." God is with us. I don't know if Hitler was an Aetheist or not. But most of the people who supported him weren't. The bible condones none of the things he did. A lot of people supported him anyway. Social values. Religious people. Do you think it would have been any different with Atheists? I don't. A lot of people prioritize social values over religious, quite normal, actually. If not they can always twist things to make it say what they want, that's how lawyers get people off on technicalities. |
|
|
|
Post by Buddy on Jun 22, 2004 20:50:07 GMT -5
Since we're on the subject of Hitler, I need to point a few things out. Most of the people in Germany at that time were Christians. He lied to get into power, I know, but even after he showed his true colors a lot of people supported him. On the belts of the Germans, there were the words "Gott Mit Uns." God is with us. I don't know if Hitler was an Aetheist or not. But most of the people who supported him weren't. The bible condones none of the things he did. A lot of people supported him anyway. Social values. Religious people. Do you think it would have been any different with Atheists? I don't. A lot of people prioritize social values over religious, quite normal, actually. If not they can always twist things to make it say what they want, that's how lawyers get people off on technicalities. Hitler got power because he was a maser at convincing people. Even after his true colors began to show, people didn't care - not because of religon, but because of what he had done already. He had given the German people jobs, food, money, and a purpose in times when there was none of any of those. After World War 1, the German people lived in poverty. They had no food or money. Hitler came in and esentially told them "Elect me, and I will give you this stuff." And the German people did. Then, with already growing anti-semitism, he convinced the people that the Jews were the reason for all that had happened - that they were the reason for World War 1, that they were the reason for poverty. And from this, he was able to create an-almost brainwashed cult of Jew-haters. The bible had nothing to do with it. At least, not in this case. |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Jun 22, 2004 20:55:49 GMT -5
In case anyone's wondering why I haven't reared my head on this, it's because quite frankly I'm sick of debating. ^-^; Sick of always being right and having no one listen to me So I'm pretty much ignoring the existence of folder, and this thread. Yeah. Just thought I'd post this, though no one really cares. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Buddy on Jun 22, 2004 20:59:39 GMT -5
In case anyone's wondering why I haven't reared my head on this, it's because quite frankly I'm sick of debating. ^-^; Sick of always being right and having no one listen to me So I'm pretty much ignoring the existence of folder, and this thread. Yeah. Just thought I'd post this, though no one really cares. ;D *sigh* Too bad... |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Jun 22, 2004 21:04:37 GMT -5
Okay, and why's that? PM me the answer, we don't want to clutter up the thread. |
|
|
|
Post by ghostision on Jun 22, 2004 21:28:38 GMT -5
Hitler got power because he was a maser at convincing people. Even after his true colors began to show, people didn't care - not because of religon, but because of what he had done already. He had given the German people , food, money, and a purpose in times when there was none of any of those. After World War 1, the German people lived in poverty. They had no food or money. Hitler came in and esentially told them "Elect me, and I will give you this stuff." And the German people did. Then, with already growing anti-semitism, he convinced the people that the Jews were the reason for all that had happened - that they were the reason for World War 1, that they were the reason for poverty. And from this, he was able to create an-almost brainwashed cult of Jew-haters. The bible had nothing to do with it. At least, not in this case. I know. I'm just saying, that usually, social values take precedence over biblical, no matter if you're religious or aetheist. |
|
|
|
Post by KittyKadaveral on Jun 22, 2004 22:05:54 GMT -5
In case anyone's wondering why I haven't reared my head on this, it's because quite frankly I'm sick of debating. ^-^; Sick of always being right and having no one listen to me So I'm pretty much ignoring the existence of folder, and this thread. Yeah. Just thought I'd post this, though no one really cares. ;D Sick of always being right? I hope that's not the case because if that's how you truly feel then perhaps that is why no one wants to listen to you |
|
|
|
Post by Ducky being lazy on Jun 22, 2004 22:10:25 GMT -5
Sick of always being right? I hope that's not the case because if that's how you truly feel then perhaps that is why no one wants to listen to you That was incredibly rude. He was probably joking. (Although I do have many of the same viewpoints as him.) |
|
|
|
Post by KittyKadaveral on Jun 22, 2004 22:18:22 GMT -5
That was incredibly rude. He was probably joking. (Although I do have many of the same viewpoints as him.) I wasn't trying to be rude, but it's kind of scary if someone honestly thinks they're always right about something. |
|
|
|
Post by Kiddo on Jun 22, 2004 22:24:09 GMT -5
Alright, I need to speak on the subject of women in the Bible as that's something I feel very strongly about.
"Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-- for we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. "
Talk about putting something in context. Women are called to submit to their husbands, but in the same way that we are called to submit to Christ. In submitting to Christ, we give ourselves over to someone who will love, cherish, and never forsake us. It is marriage in it's ideal form and what I ask for in my prayers - that I will someday meet a man I can submit to as his wife.
In turn the man is told to love and cherish his wife, holding her above himself and seeing to her needs. He is to love her as Christ loved the church. Now, Christ went to the cross for the church, and anyone who has seen the Passion knows how brutal that is.
I personally think women get a pretty good deal in this. And judging by the relationship Jay and I have right now - a Biblical one I might add - that passage has become one of my favorites.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crystal on Jun 22, 2004 22:36:22 GMT -5
I wasn't trying to be rude, but it's kind of scary if someone honestly thinks they're always right about something. Actually, most of the time when people say these things it's either meant as a joke or you misunderstood it. Few people in this forum would be rude on purpose. |
|
|
|
Post by Princess Ember Mononoke on Jun 22, 2004 22:56:20 GMT -5
Alright, I need to speak on the subject of women in the Bible as that's something I feel very strongly about. "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-- for we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. " Talk about putting something in context. Women are called to submit to their husbands, but in the same way that we are called to submit to Christ. In submitting to Christ, we give ourselves over to someone who will love, cherish, and never forsake us. It is marriage in it's ideal form and what I ask for in my prayers - that I will someday meet a man I can submit to as his wife. In turn the man is told to love and cherish his wife, holding her above himself and seeing to her needs. He is to love her as Christ loved the church. Now, Christ went to the cross for the church, and anyone who has seen the Passion knows how brutal that is. I personally think women get a pretty good deal in this. And judging by the relationship Jay and I have right now - a Biblical one I might add - that passage has become one of my favorites. Well, that's all well and good, but I'd just as soon it were the other way around half the time, you know? It's nothing horrible, and it's actually GOOD for a lot of people, but as long as there are gender roles there will be sexism, and that's something I'd generally like to avoid. See me, I'd prefer we just BOTH love eachother unconditionally, BOTH provide for eachother and the rest of the household in whatever way we could, and compromise when we disagree. I'm not "submitting in everything" to anyone or anything, no matter how much they love me. I don't hold anything against women who will, it's just not the life for me. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2004 23:43:13 GMT -5
Maybe then you could possibly tell me where the dinosaurss fit, the cavemen, the ice age, mammoths and all those other fun and wonderful things that happened way way way longer than 6,000 years ago? I doubt that was all conjured up by some ancient relative of Steven Spielburg and some good props men that made fake bones and tossed them about for some poor farmer to dig up and ruin his tractor over. My theory is that God has a different concept of time than we do. 1 million years to us would be like a day to him. Yeesh, I know what I want to say but I have absolutely no idea on how to explain it... |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Jun 23, 2004 10:32:08 GMT -5
Kitty, do you not think that you're right when you debate something? Because it seems to me that you think you are. For the most part, I was kidding. That's why I put the emoticon there. Anyone who's debated with me knows I have a very set mindframe when it comes to issues regarding morality, the Bible, religion, and so forth. Buddy can testify to that point. Everyone knows that I think that I'm right when I debate, just as everyone else thinks that they're right (why else would you be in a debate?). My statement was just meant as a humorous jest at the fact that I tend to get frustrated when debating. I believe myself to be right (as my opponents think themselves are--notice how often I'm repeating this fact) and they don't listen or see me to be correct...highly frustrating, is it not?  So that's pretty much what I meant. Hope that clears things up. |
|
I doubt that was all conjured up by some ancient relative of Steven Spielburg and some good props men that made fake bones and tossed them about for some poor farmer to dig up and ruin his tractor over.
