Good Lord
- Thread starter Cyclone62
- Start date
Yes, they do now. But if a little more equality were shown to women throughout history, perhaps we wouldn't have had to fight so hard to get any level of equality today. I mean, if the men of the bible think women are worthless and as good as slaves who should cook and clean and bear children, then the men reading this book are going to think the same thing.
And yes, the bible was written by men. And interpreted by men. Say for instance my father tells me a story. When I go and retell that same story to my husband, do you really think I'm going to get every single word exactly right? Do you really think I'm going to convey the exact meaning in my words that my father would if he were to tell the story? Don't you think it's even the slightest bit plausable that I might change a few words out to make it easier to tell the story, or in my case add a few words so the person I'm telling it to might see the greater scheme of things, instead of just a smaller portion? Besides, we're only human. God expects us to make mistakes. Don't you think it's possible that some man writting this might have added or subtracted a few words here or there? Or perhaps the person who told him the story, or told the person before that? It's not like God came down to earth, picked up a pen and started writing. If he did, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I am a god fearing man and I do believe that the books of the bible at one time were written by men through the Holy Spirit or inspired by the holy spirit. But they weren't all written at once and immediately copied for mass production in 1000's of different languages across the world. Men did write or copy the books into one book, the bible. The people that were doing this were the people in power. They were also the people most likely to gain by people following what was written in the Bible. I am against organized religion but not against God. A man or group interpreting the bible and then telling me how to believe is not the way for me. I think the Bible holds the keys and it's their for me to figure out, not someone else to tell me how to do it.
The scenario you gave in the retelling of a story is utilized often in trying to discredit the Bible. Fact is, there are many fragments of ancient manuscript continually being discovered to further credit how complete the Bible is. Yes there are some errors, but again, it is said by scholars to be 99% accurate. As far as the early part of the Bible being oral tradition, let me ask this about your story. First, I agree you are going to tell it in your own fashion, however, what if your father was present to make corrections and fill in missed details? That makes it a little difference in the finality of the story to your husband. That is the same as oral tradition. If someone got it wrong, there were many other elders and family/clan members there to correct them. Additionally, they were not just 'telling a story' as this was their family history, which more people are going to be interested in mainaining accuracy.
Actually, God did come down with his hand and write the Bible (through the Biblical authors), but if he had done it literally with his hand, you are right, we wouldn't be having this discussion b/c we'd be discussing how would everyone know if that was truly God's hand. Bottom line is it takes faith.
In regards to the role of women, it is Christianity and Christain based nations that have done more to bring equality to women that any other religion or society in history.
What scholars? No, there isn't a lot of very old fragments found containing passages of the Bible. The biggest find was the Dead Sea Scrolls which are dated around 100AD and they don't have all the books of the Bible. And there is a lot of debate on what they actually say. The Dead Sea Scrolls also had many other religious writings. Could those writings also have been included in the Bible if they were decided by the authority who combined the books into one book called the Bible? And some of the writings aren't even shown by the Vatican. Why not? Why can't we know what was written on some of those scrolls? The oldest Bible is from around 400 and it isn't even translated yet, so how do we know it's 99% accurate. I want to know who can provide evidence that it's 99% accurate?
Why does the argument always come down to this? Did Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John claim that God came down with his hand and wrote their words? No. They were simply recording history in the hopes of saving Christ's message. Paul may have been "inspired" by God when he wrote the letters, but he never claimed that what he wrote was coming directly from God himself. I feel inspired as I write now, but would never claim I'm speaking directly for God. The closest thing we have to the word of God are Christ's teaching as recorded in the Gospels, and as I said before, his message is to NOT judge the sins of others and to treat everyone with respect.
And yet India has had a female Prime Minister, and the US still isn't "ready" for a female president.
This is incorrect, as his message is not to judge OTHERS, we are to strive to be without sin and to spread his message, which is to inform others that they are also sinners and to seek Christ and repent their sins so they may be saved (the only way toward salvation is through the acceptance of a personal relationship with Him and the repentance of our sins, which means we strive to no longer commit those sins). We are to point out the sin in others, but we are not to judge whether they are saved or not (that is a personal relationship with Christ) nor are we to think we are better than any other sinner (we are not - 'For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God).
It is actually imperative, if you are a Christian, to try to bring someone to salvation through Christ's message, and that includes pointing out sinful lifestyles.
Isn't there anyone who is willing to acknowledge the inconsistencies in these stories or try to defend them?
That is one example, and I am talking as a whole, Christian nations have accomplished more for equality for women. Also, I would not say the US is not 'ready' for a female president, I think the US is ready. It is whether there is a female that becomes the candidate for one of the party's that seems to be the 'right' candidate for the nation. There has only been one woman (I believe) that has attempted to make a serious run (prior to Hillary) that had a viable chance and that was Geraldine Ferraro, and I think she bowed out of the race early due to not being to viable of a candidate - I think she was the VP on the ticket (correct me if I'm wrong - I don't remember that too well). I think the right female candidate at the right time and the US would be ready. We may have the chance to see late next year.
I will, but I've been to busy the last couple of hours to do adequate research!!!
"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."
I don't think Jesus could have made it any clearer. Spreading the Word of God doesn't include pointing out what you believe are to be sinful acts.
Much of this is true - Jesus does tell sinners to "go and sin no more". However, I just have two points I wish to respectfully argue:
1. While Christ may or may not not have intended us to view homosexuality as "natural" or innate (although there are several instances of it in the animal kingdom), I do disagree that Christ wouldn't want us to accept it. Christ decreed that we love everyone. I personally believe (although it means nothing) that "encourage" would be better used in place of "accept" here.
2. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that homosexuality is not natural and is a sin. It is still only the Lord who sits in judgment - not me. Not anyone else. It seems to me that we should allow others to choose their own path and walk their own walk - it is not our job to cut off people's hands to prevent them from stealing, nor is it our job to deny them the chance to love whomever they choose. I don't think that this is "reveling" in sin - this is allowing others to develop their own personal relationship with God.
Several denominations (the United Methodist, Episcopal, and Presbyterian churches most notably) are having the same debate that we are. An interpretation of God's Word was used to justify slavery, to deny women the rights to vote, and was the impetus for the Crusades - all of these are items which we now see as clear-cut. I don't disagree with people feeling as they choose on this issue, and enjoy the posts here - I just wanted to point out in my original post that banning certain activities for certain groups leads to many negative things.
Who has a drum ready? Give me a drum roll, please!
But Angie, I thought not letting women vote was a good thing? :wink0st:
Also, we all know that our government should have total control over us; we can't think for ourselves. :rolleyes5cz:
Maybe one of you guys could answer this for me as well. Doesn't the bible also say something about how defecating is immoral? Or is that just a joke that a lot of people use?
I can't wait until the government comes up to me and tells me that I can't write any more political satire because I'm judging our senators and presidents without knowing them, and it's "wrong" to do something like that. :rolleyes5cz:
In response to the annointing of Jesus:
Luke 7 - This is the account of annointing of Jesus' head; this is a completely different account than the account recorded in Matthew 26, Mark 14, and John 12.
As to the difference between annointing Jesus' head in the Matthew and Mark accounts and the feet in John's account, there is no evidence to indicate that Mary of Bethany did not annoint both His feet and head, and the point of the writers emphasis is different b/c each writer has different audiences, thus a different focus, in mind.
Very difficult passages and this is the best I can offer at this time, as I checked the NIV, KJV and Revised Standard Version and they all indicated similar wording.
This was said to the Pharisees who believed they were righteous and could judge the sin of others, believing they followed all of the laws to the letter, thus were free of sin. I have indicated previously that we are not to judge OTHERS. The quote you indicate is due to the Pharisee's being so self-righteous that they could not see their own sin. I am saying that a Christian recognizes his/her own sin and knows they need repentance and forgiveness. If we are not to point out sin in others, how are we to bring people to realize they need Christ? If I point out that an act is sinful, I am not judging that person, I am merely pointing out a sinful act. Now if I do it with arrogance and indicating I am holier than thou, then that is wrong. If I do it as a fellow sinner trying to bring that person to Christ, then I am being a Christian.
This is a great passage that you introduce. I would interpret it maybe just a little differently. First, I think that you need to look at yourself (Let he without sin cast the first stone) before you can look at others. I know I am not alone when I say that there are many sinful things in my life that I need to change. Now while I don't believe that I should go up to somebody and point out their sins, I DO think it is my duty to care about them enough to share God's love with them, regardless of their sins. I think that once they have accepted Christ the cycle will continue, and at THAT point they can look at the log in their own eye and try to clean up their life. It's not my job to tell them what they do wrong, rather to give them the opportunity to accept God and let him do the changing when His time is right.
The biggest problem I have with homosexuality comes with my own responsibility to keep sin from my own life (through my kids). In this day and age, it (homosexual behavior) has become rampant in the media, and while I wouldn't go up to these people and declare them sinners I also don't want it in my face, and I sure as heck don't want my kids exposed to it. I compared it earlier with exposing my kids to swearing/violence/etc on tv. While it's not illegal, to me it's immoral/inappropriate and as a Christian parent it is my duty to protect my children from immorality as much as I can. I guess to summarize my point, I'm not going to tell a homosexual to change his ways, but when it's exposed to my kids I'm going to tell him to keep it to himself.
The answer is both are sinners. We all are sinners. We all are born of the original sin of Adam and his fall from grace. He doomed the entire human race. Because of this, we all need salvation that only Christ can give. Who knows if the heterosexual boy ends up being an adulterer/abuser of women, who is less of a sinner? We don't know as that is up to God and only He can judge. I understand and believe that homosexuals are probably born with a tendency toward homosexuality, but people are born with a tendency toward alcoholism, but it does not make it right. They have different sins and issues they need to overcome.
By the way, I saw the same show. It is very interesting and gets the debate of nature vs. nurture. Please understand I am not trying to be judgemental toward anyone, only that ALL of US sin and need forgiveness. I have pointed out before that I have and continue to fail miserably in trying to refrain from sinning. I don't know who is more or less of a sinner, that is up to God to judge our hearts.
