08 Aug 2007, 6:43 pm
Ragtime wrote:
greenblue wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Paul said Christians can't marry non-Christians.
I don't remember well my Biblical studies as a kid, I thought Paul said it was better not to marry at all.
I also remember that Paul was a misogynist.
No, he just wasn't a feminist. Nothing wrong with that -- neither am I. It doesn't mean I beat my wife, or stone her if she sleeps with another man, nor would I do so if it was the custom. That'd be cruel!! !
He said to love our wives like our own bodies, and like Christ loves Christians. Yeah, a real misogynist! 
well, I do remember he objectified women as sexual objects and therefore, not being treated equal because they were objects of temptation, as at the time even having sexual thoughts was a sin. Probably hating wouldn't be exactly the right word, but obviously they were considered inferior at the time, and Paul indeed considered them inferior. I think some people see that as mysoginy.
I have a few examples:
Quote:
For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
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.
1 Corinthians 11:7-9
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.
1 Corinthians 11:7-9
Quote:
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
1 Corinthians 14:34-35
And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
1 Corinthians 14:34-35
Quote:
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Ephesians 5:22-23
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Ephesians 5:22-23
Quote:
Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
Ephesians 5:33
Ephesians 5:33
Quote:
Let the woman 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.
Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
1 Timothy 2:11-15
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.
Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
1 Timothy 2:11-15
Last edited by greenblue on 08 Aug 2007, 6:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
08 Aug 2007, 6:43 pm
08 Aug 2007, 6:48 pm
Sedaka wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
calandale wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
My point is of art -- there was clearly an artist behind the design of the female body.
Come off it. That's your hormones talking.
You can't really tell me that you find human
females more appealing - artistically, than
cats. Humans, of all types, are funny-looking
apes.
No, I find art in cats, birds, trees, flowers, even insects. Just proves my point even more.
these points are irrelivant unless you find animals sexually attractive
No, "art" doesn't always give me a boner.
What does sexual attraction have to do with whether something is artistic?Sedaka wrote:
as an artist myself, i am familiar with critiquing art.... plz use some sort of actual critique on the form of men/women/animals...... and relate it to why any of them is sexier/more beautiful
Trying to miss the forest for the trees, eh?
(Lose the main point through the near-sighted study of the minute details.)silly silly silly
you were claiming that the feminine form was more aesthetic (based on artistic views) than the male form
Actually, I wasn't. You didn't even get that right. If you're pursuing accurate answers, you could at least lead by example.
Sedaka wrote:
cal was contending that it was due to your hormones
Which it wasn't. It's common knowledge that women are artistically beautiful.
(I think maybe you should take a break from this debate. You're getting frazzled, and it's no wonder -- we've been arguing all day; I feel like we're WrongPlanet-married.
)Sedaka wrote:
you countered by providing non-sexual examples.............
Exactly, to show that by art I mean non-hormonally discerned aesthetics.
Sedaka wrote:
you have erred logically...............
Do I get to join your club now??
Sedaka wrote:
my point with art... is i doubt you were thinking past your penis (agreeing with cal) and was just fishing to see whether you had actually given it any artistic consideration
I had.
Sedaka wrote:
you havent
You lie. You're not here to see whether I'm thinking with my penis or my brain, so how can you arbitrarily say it's one and not the other? I guess I'm allowed to believe you're lying in all YOUR answers too, right? Fair's fair.
Last edited by Ragtime on 08 Aug 2007, 7:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
08 Aug 2007, 6:57 pm
08 Aug 2007, 6:57 pm
Ragtime wrote:
calandale wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
The world has always tried to silence Christians, through as extreme means as were available to them at the time.
Aww. You poor Christians.
Aw, you poor homosexuals.
I bet most gay people get more sh** for being gay than you've ever had for being a Christian.
Seriously doubt that.
Were you bullied in school for being Christian? Did you lose 'friends' for being Christian? Did your family not accept you for being Christian?
Yes to all three, and I'll continue to lose people, opportunities, money, and possessions for living out my morality.
Are you so sure it was your
mere morality, and not your
personality?
The ones I'm thinking of were all definitely spiritual.
Indeed? I can't imagine spiritual things driving your
family away. Sounds more like going around trying
to proselytize might though.
08 Aug 2007, 6:59 pm
08 Aug 2007, 6:59 pm
08 Aug 2007, 7:02 pm
08 Aug 2007, 7:05 pm
08 Aug 2007, 7:09 pm
08 Aug 2007, 7:11 pm
08 Aug 2007, 7:13 pm
Sedaka wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
Kilroy wrote:
well what do you say
its wrong to be gay?
I wont get into heaven because of it
I have to fallow God to be saved?
what is it
its wrong to be gay?
I wont get into heaven because of it
I have to fallow God to be saved?
what is it
he's gonna say no... it's wrong for you to have sex with men... though it's still ~~ same
why deny who you are even if you "dont" sin?
cause god says so... it's an illogical impass...
Sin is not "who you are". Don't make sin sound like an identity, so that you can excuse it away; I know of that tactic. God deliberately made everyone different, so that "who you are" would be something unique and special. But sin is evil, and not part of that created uniqueness. It's nothing but baggage, or as John Bunyon wrote in his famous "Pilgrim's Progess", one of my most cherished books, sin is "this heavy burden". In his novel, sin was a literal giant sack this guy named "Christian" had to carry on his back through his entire life. England locked up John Bunyon simply for preaching -- just as the Apostle Paul was. The world has always tried to silence Christians, through as extreme means as were available to them at the time. Even the Catholic Church tried to silence them, through threats, torture, and painful executions.
you're missing the fine point that i dont consider homosexuality as a sin... but part of people's personality
By "missing", you must mean "directly addressing". (This is probably where we keep not communicating.)
I didn't miss your point; I responded that it is wrong, and I explained in detail why it is wrong.
no you didnt but thanks for addressing it now.......
i dont care who you say is wrong cause it's subjective. i think you're wrong
whoop di do...
i dont really care cause i hold myself to higher standards than you do
Yes, Miss Uppity Teacher is on a higher plain...
08 Aug 2007, 7:14 pm
08 Aug 2007, 7:14 pm
08 Aug 2007, 7:17 pm
08 Aug 2007, 7:18 pm
Ragtime wrote:
No. Blood transfusions are necessary, and they're in an obvious cult which shuns life-saving medical technology.
In what way? Seems like they're playing
God. Trying to keep alive someone
who's time has come.
Indeed, I see this as a form of persecution,
but so would the original Christian's have been,
before they completely gave up the blood sacrifices.
