Page 7 of 17 [ 268 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 17  Next


Are religions unfair to women?
Yes 75%  75%  [ 43 ]
No 25%  25%  [ 14 ]
Total votes : 57

simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

15 Feb 2014, 10:35 pm

Feralucce wrote:
Flag on the play! - technical foul... The gospel of thomas has always been, and is currently considered by some to be fake, and is not available to most practitioners... It also is not canonical and was not discovered til 1945... Making it inadmissible as a foundational document, especially since most believers do not count it as part of the book.


Well, that's what I said, it's not included in the bible. That has nothing to do with my point. The thread is about the attitude of religion toward women. That you don't like non-canonical gospels doesn't magically transform them into physics textbooks or weather reports. Early Gnosticism was still a religion last time I checked.

These anti-female attitudes were around at the time and were not particularly distressing to people of that time. If the broader theology of the Thomas gospel was sufficiently in line with views of early church fathers it might have very well made it's way in and not been buried. Just as Paul's letters were included. The opinions on women were likely less important to the early church than the wider theology of "Thomas", or Paul or the various authors who pretended to be Paul.

Quote:
...which would seem to suggest the eradication of genders in Heaven.

Here are a couple of passages comparing Heaven to a woman:


That's interesting. And like many things surrounding Jesus, contradictory and strange. From what Ive seen Christian apologetics, like Muslim apologetics, is full of highlight reels that include their respective characters saying or doing nice things for women. But they just can't quite erase the parts that don't.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

15 Feb 2014, 11:51 pm

ArrantPariah wrote:
If you go with the Good News Translation, it seems like these are 10 women invited to a wedding. Like bridesmaids. Which is more-or-less how I remember the sermons built around this passage interpreting it.

In the King James version, it does indeed sound more like these are 10 saucy virgins hoping to marry the same man at the same time. And, only 5 of them get to join the bridegroom for the mass deflowering.

It could have made for a much more memorable sermon if the pastor had gone with the King James version.

It does seem like an unlikely interpretation, though, because I think that it would have been unusual for a man to take 5 or 10 new wives at once. And, I think that the influence of the Greeks and Romans may have made the region somewhat more monogamous by that time.

Still, it would make a great basis for a porn flic.

Good answer; with a little research, I'm inclined to agree with you (that the women in question were more likely bridesmaids).
ArrantPariah wrote:
It doesn't say that she had been divorced 5 times: she might have been widowed 5 times. And, it doesn't say whether the Samaritans followed Mosaic marriage laws: they might have, or they might have been more liberal about it. Also, from the rest of the story, this woman doesn't seem to have been an outcast at all, at least among the other Samaritans in her town.

Again, fair enough.
Scratch two off the list. :)

Now, Apple & AR: are you going to address the other two passages (Corinthians and Timothy) that AP cited? Given fair criticism, as above, I'm perfectly willing to allow that the interpretations as given in the Skeptic's Annotated Bible might be off... but I haven't even seen you try, yet. Two passages. C'mon.



Feralucce
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2012
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,143
Location: New Orleans, LA

16 Feb 2014, 1:53 am

ArrantPariah wrote:
The "virgins" versus "young women" translation problem, similar to Isaiah 7:14, except that this time the original is Greek.

10 yard penalty - hearsay... unless you are actually fluent in biblical greek, there is no way to state this with any certainty, and as such, it is hearsay... without a qualified scholar as an expert witness, this evidence is inadmissible.

Quote:
If you go with the Good News Translation, it seems like these are 10 women invited to a wedding. Like bridesmaids. Which is more-or-less how I remember the sermons built around this passage interpreting it.

Flag on the play - roughing the listener! Interpretation cited... again, hearsay... Also double standard rule is in effect, additional 5 yard penalty - you cannot cite an original text and then, 2 sentences later cite a more modern translation.

Quote:
It does seem like an unlikely interpretation, though, because I think that it would have been unusual for a man to take 5 or 10 new wives at once. And, I think that the influence of the Greeks and Romans may have made the region somewhat more monogamous by that time.

Flag on the play - speculation. Speculation is akin to personal interpretation, without having any citations to back up a statement, it needs to be struck from the record.
Citations of extreme polygamy in the bible. King Solomon is said to have had 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3), Jacob has two wives and two concubines (Gen 29-37), Gideon has many wives and many sons (Judges 8:30), David has a seemingly insatiable appetite for women. He has many wives (2 Sam 5:13)...

Quote:
Still, it would make a great basis for a porn flic.

Green card! 5 minute penalty box... invoking rule 34 in a biblical discussion, flagrant violation!


_________________
Yeah. I'm done. Don't bother messaging and expecting a response - i've left WP permanently.


Last edited by Feralucce on 16 Feb 2014, 2:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

Feralucce
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2012
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,143
Location: New Orleans, LA

16 Feb 2014, 2:02 am

ArrantPariah wrote:
By the way, although discovered in 1945, it dates to 340.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas

It may have been important to some early Christians, even if they were heretics.

Flag on the play - 5 yard penalty... wikipedia articles without citation on facts are not facts... The dating is a supposition, and no reliable dating methods have been used on this document. Further, at 340 ad, this falls out of the range that the direct accounts of Jesus' life were composed in and can be inferred to be fake... additionally, there are no accounts of any of the things that were in this document before it was discovered, and it was never considered part of the biblical texts, even to the point of never being in the apocrypha... therefore, whether it is a true document or not, it is inadmissible, as we are discussing christianity, and that is based (however loosely) on the bible.


_________________
Yeah. I'm done. Don't bother messaging and expecting a response - i've left WP permanently.


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,260
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

16 Feb 2014, 6:43 am

LKL wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
If you go with the Good News Translation, it seems like these are 10 women invited to a wedding. Like bridesmaids. Which is more-or-less how I remember the sermons built around this passage interpreting it.

In the King James version, it does indeed sound more like these are 10 saucy virgins hoping to marry the same man at the same time. And, only 5 of them get to join the bridegroom for the mass deflowering.

It could have made for a much more memorable sermon if the pastor had gone with the King James version.

It does seem like an unlikely interpretation, though, because I think that it would have been unusual for a man to take 5 or 10 new wives at once. And, I think that the influence of the Greeks and Romans may have made the region somewhat more monogamous by that time.

Still, it would make a great basis for a porn flic.

Good answer; with a little research, I'm inclined to agree with you (that the women in question were more likely bridesmaids).
ArrantPariah wrote:
It doesn't say that she had been divorced 5 times: she might have been widowed 5 times. And, it doesn't say whether the Samaritans followed Mosaic marriage laws: they might have, or they might have been more liberal about it. Also, from the rest of the story, this woman doesn't seem to have been an outcast at all, at least among the other Samaritans in her town.

Again, fair enough.
Scratch two off the list. :)

Now, Apple & AR: are you going to address the other two passages (Corinthians and Timothy) that AP cited? Given fair criticism, as above, I'm perfectly willing to allow that the interpretations as given in the Skeptic's Annotated Bible might be off... but I haven't even seen you try, yet. Two passages. C'mon.

Getting ready for church now. Once-weekly ritual bath/shaving, and ritual sacrifice of a couple of fowl eggs and presentation offering of various grains and beans along with the pouring of fruit juices. Also slightly dehydrated…shared a bottle of wine with life partner last night just prior to extended mating ritual, so I'm mildly hung over, sore, and craving caffeine. WILL get to you this afternoon…maybe…(odds seem to be in your favor at least).



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 117
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

16 Feb 2014, 8:06 am

Feralucce wrote:
Quote:
It does seem like an unlikely interpretation, though, because I think that it would have been unusual for a man to take 5 or 10 new wives at once. And, I think that the influence of the Greeks and Romans may have made the region somewhat more monogamous by that time.

Flag on the play - speculation. Speculation is akin to personal interpretation, without having any citations to back up a statement, it needs to be struck from the record.
Citations of extreme polygamy in the bible. King Solomon is said to have had 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3), Jacob has two wives and two concubines (Gen 29-37), Gideon has many wives and many sons (Judges 8:30), David has a seemingly insatiable appetite for women. He has many wives (2 Sam 5:13)...


Your extreme polygamy examples are from several centuries prior to Jesus. Were there any polygamists in, say, Maccabees? I think that even the Herods were monogamists.

Feralucce wrote:
Quote:
Still, it would make a great basis for a porn flic.

Green card! 5 minute penalty box... invoking rule 34 in a biblical discussion, flagrant violation!


If you can find it, then I'd love to watch it.



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 117
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

16 Feb 2014, 8:19 am

Feralucce wrote:
10 yard penalty - hearsay... unless you are actually fluent in biblical greek, there is no way to state this with any certainty, and as such, it is hearsay... without a qualified scholar as an expert witness, this evidence is inadmissible.


Here is the Greek wrote:
Τότε ὁμοιωθήσεται ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν δέκα παρθένοις, αἵτινες λαβοῦσαι τὰς λαμπάδας [a]ἑαυτῶν ἐξῆλθον εἰς [b]ὑπάντησιν τοῦ νυμφίου. 2 πέντε δὲ [c]ἐξ αὐτῶν ἦσαν [d]μωραὶ καὶ πέντε φρόνιμοι. 3 [e]αἱ γὰρ μωραὶ λαβοῦσαι τὰς λαμπάδας αὐτῶν οὐκ ἔλαβον μεθ’ ἑαυτῶν ἔλαιον· 4 αἱ δὲ φρόνιμοι ἔλαβον ἔλαιον ἐν τοῖς [f]ἀγγείοις μετὰ τῶν λαμπάδων [g]ἑαυτῶν. 5 χρονίζοντος δὲ τοῦ νυμφίου ἐνύσταξαν πᾶσαι καὶ ἐκάθευδον. 6 μέσης δὲ νυκτὸς κραυγὴ γέγονεν· Ἰδοὺ ὁ [h]νυμφίος, ἐξέρχεσθε εἰς ἀπάντησιν [i]αὐτοῦ. 7 τότε ἠγέρθησαν πᾶσαι αἱ παρθένοι ἐκεῖναι καὶ ἐκόσμησαν τὰς λαμπάδας [j]ἑαυτῶν. 8 αἱ δὲ μωραὶ ταῖς φρονίμοις εἶπαν· Δότε ἡμῖν ἐκ τοῦ ἐλαίου ὑμῶν, ὅτι αἱ λαμπάδες ἡμῶν σβέννυνται. 9 ἀπεκρίθησαν δὲ αἱ φρόνιμοι λέγουσαι· Μήποτε [k]οὐ μὴ ἀρκέσῃ ἡμῖν καὶ ὑμῖν· [l]πορεύεσθε μᾶλλον πρὸς τοὺς πωλοῦντας καὶ ἀγοράσατε ἑαυταῖς. 10 ἀπερχομένων δὲ αὐτῶν ἀγοράσαι ἦλθεν ὁ νυμφίος, καὶ αἱ ἕτοιμοι εἰσῆλθον μετ’ αὐτοῦ εἰς τοὺς γάμους, καὶ ἐκλείσθη ἡ θύρα. 11 ὕστερον δὲ ἔρχονται καὶ αἱ λοιπαὶ παρθένοι λέγουσαι· Κύριε κύριε, ἄνοιξον ἡμῖν· 12 ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν· Ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, οὐκ οἶδα ὑμᾶς. 13 γρηγορεῖτε οὖν, ὅτι οὐκ οἴδατε τὴν ἡμέραν οὐδὲ τὴν [m]ὥραν.


Here is the result from Google Translate wrote:
Omoiothisetai Then the kingdom of heaven ten parthenois , Haitians lavousai their lamps [a] yourself out into [b] ypantisin nymph . But two five [c] them were [d] Babies and five wise . 3 [e] al gar babies lavousai their lamps CDR took meth se oils ; 4 But aye wise took oil was per [f] angeiois after the lamps [g] self. 5 longstanding nymph But they all slumbered And ekathefdon . 6 medium But by night cry gegonen ; Behold the [h] bridegroom , exerchesthe in reply [i] them. 7 igerthisan then all those virgins And graced their lamps [j] self. But the 8th century fronimois In like babies they said ; donors to us from the oil you, that al candles amortized us . 9 But aye wise answered saying, lest · [k] shall never arkesῃ And unto you to us · [l] porefesthe rather to selling and buyers eaftais . 10 Retiring But these boys he came the bridegroom , and Al ready entered with him to the wedding and the door was closed . 11 But afterwards , the others come virgins ; saying, Lord Lord, open to us ; 12 But he answered and said: Verily I say unto you , I do not know upon you . 13 Quick ODN , that CDR oidate day nor the [m] hour.


Well, okay. Maybe that extra oil was required for the orgy. I don't know why the bridegroom wouldn't just let them in. Maybe he was already worn out with the first five, and didn't have any strength or semen left for another five.

If I had just finished deflowering five virgins, and another five showed up with their vessels full of oil, then I might have sent them away, too. If I had already paid the dowries for them, then I could always just pick them up later, when I was horny again.



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 117
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

16 Feb 2014, 10:21 am

But, on the topic of divorce, some Jews still take the Mosaic traditions very seriously

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipKb36BG39o[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pNKeLXk1cU[/youtube]

By the way, I think that the women still have some leverage, because they can refuse to accept the get.

But, anyway, if Jewish women consider this system to be unfair to them, then why don't they just quit the religion? The get has no legal bearing on divorce in the USA. They can just go to a state court, get divorced, and then go and get themselves some gentile cock.

Same for Catholics. I don't see any point in going to the expense and bother of a religious annulment. Unless you live in the Philippines, and there is no other way. Otherwise, there are plenty of Protestant churches that would be glad to accept your tithes.



appletheclown
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2013
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,378
Location: Soul Society

16 Feb 2014, 1:08 pm

I'm non denominational.


_________________
comedic burp


ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 117
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

16 Feb 2014, 2:25 pm

Looking again at that bit about Jesus and the Samaritan woman

John 4 wrote:
The Pharisees heard that Jesus was winning and baptizing more disciples than John. Actually, Jesus himself did not baptize anyone; only his disciples did. So when Jesus heard what was being said, he left Judea and went back to Galilee; on his way there he had to go through Samaria.

In Samaria he came to a town named Sychar, which was not far from the field that Jacob had given to his son Joseph. Jacob's well was there, and Jesus, tired out by the trip, sat down by the well. It was about noon.

A Samaritan woman came to draw some water, and Jesus said to her, “Give me a drink of water.” ( His disciples had gone into town to buy food.)

The woman answered, “You are a Jew, and I am a Samaritan—so how can you ask me for a drink?” (Jews will not use the same cups and bowls that Samaritans use.)

Jesus answered, “If you only knew what God gives and who it is that is asking you for a drink, you would ask him, and he would give you life-giving water.”

“Sir,” the woman said, “you don't have a bucket, and the well is deep. Where would you get that life-giving water? It was our ancestor Jacob who gave us this well; he and his children and his flocks all drank from it. You don't claim to be greater than Jacob, do you?”

Jesus answered, “Those who drink this water will get thirsty again, but those who drink the water that I will give them will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give them will become in them a spring which will provide them with life-giving water and give them eternal life.”

“Sir,” the woman said, “give me that water! Then I will never be thirsty again, nor will I have to come here to draw water.”

“Go and call your husband,” Jesus told her, “and come back.”

“I don't have a husband,” she answered.

Jesus replied, “You are right when you say you don't have a husband. You have been married to five men, and the man you live with now is not really your husband. You have told me the truth.”

“I see you are a prophet, sir,” the woman said. “My Samaritan ancestors worshiped God on this mountain, but you Jews say that Jerusalem is the place where we should worship God.”

Jesus said to her, “Believe me, woman, the time will come when people will not worship the Father either on this mountain or in Jerusalem. You Samaritans do not really know whom you worship; but we Jews know whom we worship, because it is from the Jews that salvation comes. But the time is coming and is already here, when by the power of God's Spirit people will worship the Father as he really is, offering him the true worship that he wants. God is Spirit, and only by the power of his Spirit can people worship him as he really is.”

The woman said to him, “I know that the Messiah will come, and when he comes, he will tell us everything.”

Jesus answered, “I am he, I who am talking with you.”

At that moment Jesus' disciples returned, and they were greatly surprised to find him talking with a woman. But none of them said to her, “What do you want?” or asked him, “Why are you talking with her?”

Then the woman left her water jar, went back to the town, and said to the people there, “Come and see the man who told me everything I have ever done. Could he be the Messiah?” So they left the town and went to Jesus....

...Many of the Samaritans in that town believed in Jesus because the woman had said, “He told me everything I have ever done.” So when the Samaritans came to him, they begged him to stay with them, and Jesus stayed there two days.

Many more believed because of his message, and they told the woman, “We believe now, not because of what you said, but because we ourselves have heard him, and we know that he really is the Savior of the world.


I think that what is really going on here is another swipe at the Jews. Something like the Good Samaritan story of Luke. Through much of John, the Jews are presented as evil, and as responsible for the death of Jesus. (At least the Pharisees, who were basically the only Jews left in the Roman Empire, after the Roman war, and when John was written). In this passage, the Samaritans appear to be basically good people who were easy converts to Christianity.

During the first century, there was quite a lot of animosity between the Jews and the Samaritans. After the Roman War, when the region was depopulated of Jews, this animosity was moot. But, still useful to drive home the message: "See? Even the Samaritans are better than the Jews!"

Matthew and Mark have Jesus saying: "No divorce! Unless she commits adultery!" John doesn't get into that. So, if some of the Samaritan woman's previous husbands had divorced her, then it would seem that Jesus was cool with that. Heck, John's Jesus was even cool with this woman living with a man with whom she wasn't married, after five husbands. 8)



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,540

16 Feb 2014, 3:04 pm

ArrantPariah wrote:
Looking again at that bit about Jesus and the Samaritan woman

John 4 wrote:
The Pharisees heard that Jesus was winning and baptizing more disciples than John. Actually, Jesus himself did not baptize anyone; only his disciples did. So when Jesus heard what was being said, he left Judea and went back to Galilee; on his way there he had to go through Samaria.

In Samaria he came to a town named Sychar, which was not far from the field that Jacob had given to his son Joseph. Jacob's well was there, and Jesus, tired out by the trip, sat down by the well. It was about noon.

A Samaritan woman came to draw some water, and Jesus said to her, “Give me a drink of water.” ( His disciples had gone into town to buy food.)

The woman answered, “You are a Jew, and I am a Samaritan—so how can you ask me for a drink?” (Jews will not use the same cups and bowls that Samaritans use.)

Jesus answered, “If you only knew what God gives and who it is that is asking you for a drink, you would ask him, and he would give you life-giving water.”

“Sir,” the woman said, “you don't have a bucket, and the well is deep. Where would you get that life-giving water? It was our ancestor Jacob who gave us this well; he and his children and his flocks all drank from it. You don't claim to be greater than Jacob, do you?”

Jesus answered, “Those who drink this water will get thirsty again, but those who drink the water that I will give them will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give them will become in them a spring which will provide them with life-giving water and give them eternal life.”

“Sir,” the woman said, “give me that water! Then I will never be thirsty again, nor will I have to come here to draw water.”

“Go and call your husband,” Jesus told her, “and come back.”

“I don't have a husband,” she answered.

Jesus replied, “You are right when you say you don't have a husband. You have been married to five men, and the man you live with now is not really your husband. You have told me the truth.”

“I see you are a prophet, sir,” the woman said. “My Samaritan ancestors worshiped God on this mountain, but you Jews say that Jerusalem is the place where we should worship God.”

Jesus said to her, “Believe me, woman, the time will come when people will not worship the Father either on this mountain or in Jerusalem. You Samaritans do not really know whom you worship; but we Jews know whom we worship, because it is from the Jews that salvation comes. But the time is coming and is already here, when by the power of God's Spirit people will worship the Father as he really is, offering him the true worship that he wants. God is Spirit, and only by the power of his Spirit can people worship him as he really is.”

The woman said to him, “I know that the Messiah will come, and when he comes, he will tell us everything.”

Jesus answered, “I am he, I who am talking with you.”

At that moment Jesus' disciples returned, and they were greatly surprised to find him talking with a woman. But none of them said to her, “What do you want?” or asked him, “Why are you talking with her?”

Then the woman left her water jar, went back to the town, and said to the people there, “Come and see the man who told me everything I have ever done. Could he be the Messiah?” So they left the town and went to Jesus....

...Many of the Samaritans in that town believed in Jesus because the woman had said, “He told me everything I have ever done.” So when the Samaritans came to him, they begged him to stay with them, and Jesus stayed there two days.

Many more believed because of his message, and they told the woman, “We believe now, not because of what you said, but because we ourselves have heard him, and we know that he really is the Savior of the world.


I think that what is really going on here is another swipe at the Jews. Something like the Good Samaritan story of Luke. Through much of John, the Jews are presented as evil, and as responsible for the death of Jesus. (At least the Pharisees, who were basically the only Jews left in the Roman Empire, after the Roman war, and when John was written). In this passage, the Samaritans appear to be basically good people who were easy converts to Christianity.

During the first century, there was quite a lot of animosity between the Jews and the Samaritans. After the Roman War, when the region was depopulated of Jews, this animosity was moot. But, still useful to drive home the message: "See? Even the Samaritans are better than the Jews!"

Matthew and Mark have Jesus saying: "No divorce! Unless she commits adultery!" John doesn't get into that. So, if some of the Samaritan woman's previous husbands had divorced her, then it would seem that Jesus was cool with that. Heck, John's Jesus was even cool with this woman living with a man with whom she wasn't married, after five husbands. 8)


YES AND APPARENTLY JESUS WAS A SOCIO-SEX-PSYCHOLOGIST A head of his time...
With the if ya look at THE 'OTHER' HUMANS with lust ya commit adultery...

What he was saying there ..IS.. guess what..

everyone lusts...
so in effect everyone commits adultery..using them social mirror neurons and all of that..
whether ONE insertS the A into the V or not...

So basically lusting ain't a friggin sin..that's just so yesterday..ya knowNOW and really just basic human nature..for them human juices of horniness..HORMONES..to be flowing freely most of the day...

Anyway it explains all that make up on the evangelical PREACHER MAN'S WIFE'S face...AND TIGHT..SHAPELY DRESS...

to turn on the congregation..and keep 'em creative..and filling the tills with green..

SO YAH...

When it comes right down to it..

WE AS HUMAN BEINGS..OVER.. ALL .. ARE ALL FRIGGIN PROSTITUTES IN SOME FORM OR FASHION...
WHETHER IT IS
T
OR
A
OR
P
OR WHATEVER GETS THE JOB FULLY DONE..
THAT GAME OF LIFE..
YANOWNOW...:)

THAT INCLUDES LUST...FOR BASIC HUMAN CREATION ACTIVITY..
ALL OF IT..YAH..
THAT STUFF CALLED
CREATIVITY....

AND YES..AS MENTIONED EARLIER IT'S A SCIENTIFIC RESEARCHED PHENOMENAL
FINDING...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCK6zoiafio[/youtube]


AND NO.. THAT'S NOT A symbolic REPRESENTATION OF JESUS..AS FAR AS I KNOW..IN THAT VIDEO THUMBNAIL IN THE PG RATED DOCUMENTARY LINKED ABOVE...designed only
to get folks attention..to view the documentary....

yah..sex sells everywhere..
even
in
advertising..
science..documentaries..


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


Feralucce
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2012
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,143
Location: New Orleans, LA

16 Feb 2014, 4:36 pm

ArrantPariah wrote:
Feralucce wrote:
Quote:
It does seem like an unlikely interpretation, though, because I think that it would have been unusual for a man to take 5 or 10 new wives at once. And, I think that the influence of the Greeks and Romans may have made the region somewhat more monogamous by that time.

Flag on the play - speculation. Speculation is akin to personal interpretation, without having any citations to back up a statement, it needs to be struck from the record.
Citations of extreme polygamy in the bible. King Solomon is said to have had 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3), Jacob has two wives and two concubines (Gen 29-37), Gideon has many wives and many sons (Judges 8:30), David has a seemingly insatiable appetite for women. He has many wives (2 Sam 5:13)...


Your extreme polygamy examples are from several centuries prior to Jesus. Were there any polygamists in, say, Maccabees? I think that even the Herods were monogamists.

Feralucce wrote:
Quote:
Still, it would make a great basis for a porn flic.

Green card! 5 minute penalty box... invoking rule 34 in a biblical discussion, flagrant violation!


If you can find it, then I'd love to watch it.

point of order:
You can't separate the two. It is THE BIBLE... the old testament is as much of it as the new testament and christianity, on the whole, uses the whole book to commit its attrocities.


_________________
Yeah. I'm done. Don't bother messaging and expecting a response - i've left WP permanently.


ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 117
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

16 Feb 2014, 8:45 pm

I thought that we could look at this one next.

LKL wrote:
b]Matthew[/b]:
Jesus says that divorce is permissible when the wife is guilty of fornication. But what if the husband is unfaithful? Jesus doesn't seem to care about that. 5:32, 19:9


Matthew 5 wrote:
It was also said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a written notice of divorce.’ But now I tell you: if a man divorces his wife for any cause other than her unfaithfulness, then he is guilty of making her commit adultery if she marries again; and the man who marries her commits adultery also.


Matthew 19 wrote:
Some Pharisees came to him and tried to trap him by asking, “Does our Law allow a man to divorce his wife for whatever reason he wishes?”

Jesus answered, “Haven't you read the scripture that says that in the beginning the Creator made people male and female? And God said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and unite with his wife, and the two will become one.’ So they are no longer two, but one. No human being must separate, then, what God has joined together.”

The Pharisees asked him, “Why, then, did Moses give the law for a man to hand his wife a divorce notice and send her away?”

Jesus answered, “Moses gave you permission to divorce your wives because you are so hard to teach. But it was not like that at the time of creation. I tell you, then, that any man who divorces his wife for any cause other than her unfaithfulness, commits adultery if he marries some other woman.”

His disciples said to him, “If this is how it is between a man and his wife, it is better not to marry.”

Jesus answered, “This teaching does not apply to everyone, but only to those to whom God has given it. For there are different reasons why men cannot marry: some, because they were born that way; others, because men made them that way; and others do not marry for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven. Let him who can accept this teaching do so.”


Mark 10 wrote:
Some Pharisees came to him and tried to trap him. “Tell us,” they asked, “does our Law allow a man to divorce his wife?”

Jesus answered with a question, “What law did Moses give you?”

Their answer was, “Moses gave permission for a man to write a divorce notice and send his wife away.”

Jesus said to them, “Moses wrote this law for you because you are so hard to teach. But in the beginning, at the time of creation, ‘God made them male and female,’ as the scripture says. ‘And for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and unite with his wife, and the two will become one.’ So they are no longer two, but one. No human being must separate, then, what God has joined together.”

When they went back into the house, the disciples asked Jesus about this matter. He said to them, “A man who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against his wife. In the same way, a woman who divorces her husband and marries another man commits adultery.”


Luke 18 wrote:
Any man who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery; and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.


Matthew 5 seems to be the most consistent with the Jewish notions of divorce and adultery: a man may divorce his wife with a written notice (a "get"). The addition to traditional Judaism is that the woman commits adultery against her first husband if she marries again, and her second husband commits adultery against her first husband. And, if the reason that the first husband divorced her was for anything other than adultery, then he is guilty for having caused it all.

In Matthew 19, a man commits adultery if he divorces his wife and marries another woman (except if his first wife had committed adultery). This is quite contrary to traditional notions, where a man may build a whole harem of wives and concubines. And, where adultery would only occur in the case of a married woman making the beast-with-two-backs with a man other than her husband.

Mark 10 is is even more contrary to Jewish tradition: a woman divorcing her husband!

In Luke 18, it is only the men who commit adultery (by divorcing his wife and marrying another, or by marrying a divorced woman).

It would seem that these Gospels were written for gentile audiences, as the notions of divorce and adultery may have been more consistent with Greek or Roman than with Jewish culture.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

16 Feb 2014, 10:11 pm

ArrantPariah wrote:
But, anyway, if Jewish women consider this system to be unfair to them, then why don't they just quit the religion? The get has no legal bearing on divorce in the USA. They can just go to a state court, get divorced, and then go and get themselves some gentile cock.

Same for Catholics. I don't see any point in going to the expense and bother of a religious annulment. Unless you live in the Philippines, and there is no other way. Otherwise, there are plenty of Protestant churches that would be glad to accept your tithes.

Same for Muslim women, right? Same for the Hindu women who are supposed to throw themselves on their husbands' funeral pyres, rather than live on as widows? Same for Amish women, and the girls and women in FLDS encampments? Why don't they just leave, eh?
For that matter, why don't the gay kids, boys and girls, in bible-belt communities just come out of the closet and live in the open?

It's hard to leave your family. It's hard to buck everything you've been taught from childhood, especially when you've been taught that not only will you go to hell for it, but the only reason that you'd ever want anything different in the first place is because you're selfish and/or evil. Didn't the Jesuits say something along the lines of, 'give me a child until he is seven, and he will be God's forever'?
Shunning works as a punishment in religious communities because it is genuinely painful.



91
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

16 Feb 2014, 10:29 pm

@LKL

Sati is not a Hindu doctrine it is a cultural practice (and one that occasionally finds its way out of India). It is more akin to Seppuku than to a specifically religious duty, it is utterly illegal in India. It was traditionally practiced (rarely even at its hight) by the Brahmins, which is now the most westernised caste within India. But I agree with your interpretations of two of the versus you have focused, they probably won't sit well with modern views of gender.


_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,540

16 Feb 2014, 10:29 pm

LKL wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
But, anyway, if Jewish women consider this system to be unfair to them, then why don't they just quit the religion? The get has no legal bearing on divorce in the USA. They can just go to a state court, get divorced, and then go and get themselves some gentile cock.

Same for Catholics. I don't see any point in going to the expense and bother of a religious annulment. Unless you live in the Philippines, and there is no other way. Otherwise, there are plenty of Protestant churches that would be glad to accept your tithes.

Same for Muslim women, right? Same for the Hindu women who are supposed to throw themselves on their husbands' funeral pyres, rather than live on as widows? Same for Amish women, and the girls and women in FLDS encampments? Why don't they just leave, eh?
For that matter, why don't the gay kids, boys and girls, in bible-belt communities just come out of the closet and live in the open?

It's hard to leave your family. It's hard to buck everything you've been taught from childhood, especially when you've been taught that not only will you go to hell for it, but the only reason that you'd ever want anything different in the first place is because you're selfish and/or evil. Didn't the Jesuits say something along the lines of, 'give me a child until he is seven, and he will be God's forever'?
Shunning works as a punishment in religious communities because it is genuinely painful.


I think it's more about social acceptance than anything else..

The basic need 'right' under food/water..shelter and sex..
is the social need for acceptance..whether it is a dog..a wolf
or a human being..

And a human will do almost anything culture brain washes it to do..
when it comes to social acceptance..in meeting the perceived social norm...

I guess that's a good thing..about the information highway..facebook..blogs..
social communities..and all of that..

@least for SOME OF the true mavericks that forge another path...
APART FROM THE HERD...
there is someone out there on the information..highway..
in some dam country...
to truly relate to ..at least virtually..
if never
FULL flesh and blood connection..

IF ONE looks long enough..
i have not found it here..and that's for sure..

but yes..in other countries..far far away...
from where i live..in
the repressed deep south..
red state country....


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick