View Full Version : Declaration of Sentiments by Elizabeth Cady Stanton
Here is a list of the Declaration of Sentiments composed by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, as presented at the first women’s rights convention at Seneca Falls, NY. If one looks over these statements carefully it can be concluded that these 'denied rights' are for the most part drawn directly from the Bible.
He has never permitted her to exercise her inalienable right to the elective franchise.
He has compelled her to submit to laws, in the formation of which she had no voice.
He has withheld from her rights which are given to the most ignorant and degraded men - both natives and foreigners.
Having deprived her of this first right as a citizen, the elective franchise, thereby leaving her without representation in the halls of legislation, he has oppressed her on all sides.
He has made her, if married, in the eye of the law, civilly dead.
He has taken from her all right in property, even to the wages she earns.
He has made her morally, an irresponsible being, as she can commit many crimes with impunity, provided they be done in the presence of her husband. In the covenant of marriage, she is compelled to promise obedience to her husband, he becoming, to all intents and purposes, her master - the law giving him power to deprive her of her liberty, and to administer chastisement.
He has so framed the laws of divorce, as to what shall be the proper causes of divorce, in case of separation, to whom the guardianship of the children shall be given; as to be wholly regardless of the happiness of the women - the law, in all cases, going upon a false supposition of the supremacy of a man, and giving all power into his hands.
After depriving her of all rights as a married woman, if single and the owner of property, he has taxed her to support a government which recognizes her only when her property can be made profitable to it.
He has monopolized nearly all the profitable employments, and from those she is permitted to follow, she receives but a scanty remuneration.
He closes against her all the avenues to wealth and distinction, which he considers most honorable to himself. As a teacher of theology, medicine, or law, she is not known.
He has denied her the facilities for obtaining a thorough education - all colleges being closed against her.
He allows her in church, as well as State, but a subordinate position, claiming Apostolic authority for her exclusion from the ministry, and, with some exceptions, from any public participation in the affairs of the Church.
He has created a false public sentiment by giving to the world a different code of morals for men and women, by which moral delinquencies which exclude women from society, are not only tolerated but deemed of little account in man.
He has usurped the prerogative of Jehovah himself, claiming it as his right to assign for her a sphere of action, when that belongs to her conscience and her God.
He has endeavored, in every way that he could to destroy her confidence in her own powers, to lessen her self-respect, and to make her willing to lead a dependent and abject life.
The Bibles promotion of sexism is one of histories greatest long term injustices which has caused untold suffering for women at the hands of men who believed they were carrying out the will of the biblegod.
Rose
The Bibles promotion of sexism is one of histories greatest long term injustices which has caused untold suffering for women at the hands of men who believed they were carrying out the will of the biblegod.
Correction: the Bible does not promote sexism and injustice, it is evil men making use of passages and the supposed sexism passages in the Bible and loopholes in national laws on human rights for their own benefits and political agendas.
Same with what some terrorists are doing by using the passages in Islam and the fervent beliefs of Islam to promote their own terrorist's and political activities.
Same as those who abuse the loopholes in national laws such as the right to sue, divorce, abortion etc. for their own benefits.
Simple logic.
God Bless us all.:pray:
Richard Amiel McGough
05-20-2012, 04:10 PM
Correction: the Bible does not promote sexism and injustice, it is evil men making use of passages and the supposed sexism passages in the Bible and loopholes in national laws for their own benefits and political agendas.
Same with what some terrorists are doing by using the passages in Islam and the fervent beliefs of Islam to promote their own terrorist's and political activities.
Same as those who abuse the loopholes in national laws such as the right to sue, divorce, abortion etc. for their own benefits.
Simple logic.
God Bless us all.:pray:
I think everyone can agree that the history of all cultures that have been based on the Bible have been thoroughly sexist. The Bible is the "tree" that brought the fruit of Christian civilizations.
Matthew 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
I think everyone can agree that the history of all cultures that have been based on the Bible have been thoroughly sexist. The Bible is the "tree" that brought the fruit of Christian civilizations.
Matthew 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
The Bible is not sexist. Show me any sexist verse or passage in the Bible and I can show you it is not sexist. It is evil men that abused the supposed sexist's passages in the Bible for their own benefits. Same can be said of the Muslim laws and even the Buddhist's religious laws, Hindu laws etc.. Why do you deliberately target only on the Bible and Christianity? Everybody knew that people throughout the ages have been abusing religious and national laws for their own benefits.
If you said that it is men who wrote the Bible then it can also be rightly said that it is evil men who abused what was written in the Bible to achieve their own benefits and agendas.
God Bless. :pray:
Richard Amiel McGough
05-20-2012, 05:28 PM
The Bible is not sexist. Show me any sexist verse or passage in the Bible and I can show you it is not sexist. It is evil men that abused the supposed sexist's passages in the Bible for their own benefits. Same can be said of the Muslim laws and even the Buddhist's religious laws, Hindu laws etc.. Why do you deliberately target only on the Bible and Christianity? Everybody knew that people throughout the ages have been abusing religious and national laws for their own benefits.
If you said that it is men who wrote the Bible then it can also be rightly said that it is evil men who abused what was written in the Bible to achieve their own benefits and agendas.
God Bless. :pray:
I don't think you know what sexist means. Here's a good definition (http://civilliberty.about.com/od/gendersexuality/g/Sexism-Definition.htm):
Definition: A sexist system is any system in which people's life decisions are unnecessarily preordained on the basis of perceived biological sex. In the United States and most of the rest of the West, it specifically refers to any belief or behavior that puts women and girls in a position of subservience to men and boys.
The Bible explicitly states that women are to be subject to men. It explicitly states that men are the "head" over women in the same way that Christ is head over men. This is, by definition, sexist.
I don't think you know what sexist means. Here's a good definition (http://civilliberty.about.com/od/gendersexuality/g/Sexism-Definition.htm):
Definition: A sexist system is any system in which people's life decisions are unnecessarily preordained on the basis of perceived biological sex. In the United States and most of the rest of the West, it specifically refers to any belief or behavior that puts women and girls in a position of subservience to men and boys.
The Bible explicitly states that women are to be subject to men. It explicitly states that men are the "head" over women in the same way that Christ is head over men. This is, by definition, sexist.
From you definition of sexist, I don't see any verse or passage in the Bible in which Eve was subservient to Adam even though Adam rule over Eve. Did you? I don't see any passage in the bible in which women or girls were subservient to men or boys. What I see are passages which are misinterpreted as sexist or that evil men abused the passages in the Bible to gain dominance (in the negative sense) over women and girls. Dominance is ok if the dominance is not abused in the negative way which I have said in my previous posts about dominance of bosses over his employees or of President Obama which is ok and rightly so as long as he don't abused his power. I hope you can agree with me on dominance.
May God Bess us all.:pray:
Richard Amiel McGough
05-20-2012, 06:27 PM
From you definition of sexist, I don't see any verse or passage in the Bible in which Eve was subservient to Adam even though Adam rule over Eve. Did you? I don't see any passage in the bible in which women or girls were subservient to men or boys. What I see are passages which are misinterpreted as sexist or that evil men abused the passages in the Bible to gain dominance (in the negative sense) over women and girls. Dominance is ok if the dominance is not abused in the negative way which I have said in my previous posts about dominance of bosses over his employees or of President Obama which is ok and rightly so as long as he don't abused his power. I hope you can agree with me on dominance.
May God Bess us all.:pray:
You did not address the passages I mentioned. The Bible explicitly states that women are to be subject to men. It explicitly states that men are the "head" over women in the same way that Christ is head over men. This is, by definition, sexist.
1 Timothy 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
1 Corinthians 11:3 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. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7 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. 8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 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.
How many times do I have to present the facts before you will choose to deal with them?
[QUOTE=Richard Amiel McGough;44233]You did not address the passages I mentioned. The Bible explicitly states that women are to be subject to men. It explicitly states that men are the "head" over women in the same way that Christ is head over men. This is, by definition, sexist.
1 Timothy 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
Nothing subservient. The sentence highlighted in bold simply means "I much prefer that woman do not teach the scriptures nor show that she be more authoritative over the man but to be silent". Paul being conservative, do not wish women who were less educated to showoff as more powerful and knowledgeable than learned men.
1 Corinthians 11:3 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. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7 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. 8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
Nothing subservient; just some tradition of covering or not covering the head. Nothing mention that a woman must cover her head and be subservient to the man. Same as current behavior that woman should have (but not a must) longer hair than man so as to differentiate between woman and man. Be the head over the woman does not mean subservient. Are the citizen of USA subservient to President Obama as he is the most powerful man in the country?
Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 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.
How many times do I have to present the facts before you will choose to deal with them?
Submit does not mean subservient. Submit means trust and respect not subservient to authority. If I submit myself to the Lord, am I subservient to the Lord? Obviously no.
Now answer my question, "Is dominance without abuse of power ok?"
God Bless.:pray:
My 2 cents on the foolishness of accusing God of unfair treatment of women.
First, I am admonished in the scriptures to love my wife (my one & only wife for over 40 years) in the same manner as Christ loved the Church (read Ephesians 5:24-33). What more needs to be said? It is a directive from God, to obey or disobey. Regarding fellow humans, To love them as oneself, another directive from God.
The Old Testament certainly presents some rather unseemly behavior by God toward His creation. Could some of those scriptural accounts in the OT be in error or simply allegorical and not historical? Maybe. Even if that were true, there are far too many examples of terrifying things allowed by God to dismiss them all as invalid. Even in the NT God makes an appearance demonstrating His authority to execute humans, witness Ananias & Sapphira (read Acts 5). Should people cease from their faith in God and His Word because of such acts? Why should they? All through the Bible, warnings are posted that God is terrible and greatly to be feared. Far too many to list in this brief post. The NT states that He has the power to create one vessel for honor and another for destruction (read Romans 9 and then read Psalm 2, and compare its 9th verse). This controversial statement begs the question, "which am I?".
The God of the Bible sets His own limitations. Does this seem unreasonable to anyone? His character exhibits many attributes. He has no equal. He is the Supreme Being. He has the power of Life and Death. Heaven and Hell are His to award. He demonstrates that the world is at His disposal. He is the final authority, He condemns... He justifies, He gives life, He take life away, and the wise will abide by His word.
How foolish that sinful human weaklings with limited intellect attempt to summon the Creator of the Universe into their own pitiful little court of justice, to a trial conducted by misfits who fearlessly pronounce His guilt and condemnation, fully incapable of sentencing Him and far too puny to carry it out. The rant of such heathen is relegated to nothing more than the derision and laughter of God Himself (Psalm 2:4).
And now, a paradox: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life".
The Word of God is so complete that it contains both the seed of faith and the seed of doubt. So, choose you this day whom you will serve.
John
"We who live by faith have evidence the world cannot see and assurance of the hope of Eternal Life"
My 2 cents on the foolishness of accusing God of unfair treatment of women.
First, I am admonished in the scriptures to love my wife (my one & only wife for over 40 years) in the same manner as Christ loved the Church (read Ephesians 5:24-33). What more needs to be said? It is a directive from God, to obey or disobey. Regarding fellow humans, To love them as oneself, another directive from God.
Hi John
Do you really think that admonishing a man to love his wife is going to make him love her if he doesn't already? You already love your wife, no one has to tell you to do so, just like I love Richard that is why I married him, the Bible doesn't have to tell me to love him. Love is not something you can make people do. What you can do though is teach people to treat others with kindness and respect, but that goes for both genders not placing one above the other.
The Old Testament certainly presents some rather unseemly behavior by God toward His creation. Could some of those scriptural accounts in the OT be in error or simply allegorical and not historical? Maybe. Even if that were true, there are far too many examples of terrifying things allowed by God to dismiss them all as invalid. Even in the NT God makes an appearance demonstrating His authority to execute humans, witness Ananias & Sapphira (read Acts 5). Should people cease from their faith in God and His Word because of such acts? Why should they? All through the Bible, warnings are posted that God is terrible and greatly to be feared. Far too many to list in this brief post. The NT states that He has the power to create one vessel for honor and another for destruction (read Romans 9 and then read Psalm 2, and compare its 9th verse). This controversial statement begs the question, "which am I?".
The God of the Bible sets His own limitations. Does this seem unreasonable to anyone? His character exhibits many attributes. He has no equal. He is the Supreme Being. He has the power of Life and Death. Heaven and Hell are His to award. He demonstrates that the world is at His disposal. He is the final authority, He condemns... He justifies, He gives life, He take life away, and the wise will abide by His word.
What people should do is take a good look at the biblegod and question whether or not such a god is believable. From what I read in the Bible there are no limitations to what the biblegod can do. On one hand he commands "thou shalt not kill" and on the other hand he orders the Hebrews to slaughter all the men, women and children (and show no mercy) in the land called the "Promised Land" so he can give them their houses, vineyards, livestock, and wells...and that's just the beginning...god's moral atrocities are splattered everywhere in the Bible.
I say it is totally unreasonable to believe in a God who commits such moral atrocities against his own creations and then somehow expects his creations to have a sense of what is moral. It's nothing less than outrageous!
How foolish that sinful human weaklings with limited intellect attempt to summon the Creator of the Universe into their own pitiful little court of justice, to a trial conducted by misfits who fearlessly pronounce His guilt and condemnation, fully incapable of sentencing Him and far too puny to carry it out. The rant of such heathen is relegated to nothing more than the derision and laughter of God Himself (Psalm 2:4).
And now, a paradox: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life".
The Word of God is so complete that it contains both the seed of faith and the seed of doubt. So, choose you this day whom you will serve.
John
"We who live by faith have evidence the world cannot see and assurance of the hope of Eternal Life"
I would say that humans with limited intellect were the ones who created the biblegod, whom people feel compelled to believe because of its antiquity without questioning its validity.
I choose to serve the ideals of equal human value, kindness and love, not a god who caters to his own whims and demands praise and worship for treating humans unequally and unjustly.
All the best,
Rose
Richard Amiel McGough
05-21-2012, 10:20 AM
My 2 cents on the foolishness of accusing God of unfair treatment of women.
Good morning John, :yo:
I'm glad you shared your "2 cents" with us.
First, I am admonished in the scriptures to love my wife (my one & only wife for over 40 years) in the same manner as Christ loved the Church (read Ephesians 5:24-33). What more needs to be said? It is a directive from God, to obey or disobey. Regarding fellow humans, To love them as oneself, another directive from God.
There's a lot more to be said. The passage you cite establishes the man over the woman and equates that relation to the submissive role that men should have under God:
Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 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. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. 25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
Therefore, the man is set up as "God" over the woman. This is, by definition, sexist, and this teaching is repeated many times in Scripture:
1 Corinthians 11:3 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.
And Paul explicitly states that women should not teach or "usurp authority over men: -
1 Timothy 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
Paul here is linking back to the story in Genesis where the woman is blamed for all the sin in the world. His reference to the woman being "saved in childbearing" connects directly with the curse put upon Eve. So it is impossible to "explain away" these sexist teachings. They are inextricably entwined with the fundamental Biblical teachings about the nature of God and HIS relation to man in both the Old and New Testaments.
The Old Testament certainly presents some rather unseemly behavior by God toward His creation. Could some of those scriptural accounts in the OT be in error or simply allegorical and not historical? Maybe. Even if that were true, there are far too many examples of terrifying things allowed by God to dismiss them all as invalid. Even in the NT God makes an appearance demonstrating His authority to execute humans, witness Ananias & Sapphira (read Acts 5). Should people cease from their faith in God and His Word because of such acts? Why should they? All through the Bible, warnings are posted that God is terrible and greatly to be feared. Far too many to list in this brief post. The NT states that He has the power to create one vessel for honor and another for destruction (read Romans 9 and then read Psalm 2, and compare its 9th verse). This controversial statement begs the question, "which am I?".
It is one thing for God himself to execute people. I've never focused on that as a moral problem though there are some issues with it. The real problem is with God impersonating a brutal Bronze age tribal war god who goes about commanding his people to commit genocide and to show no mercy when invading their land to steal their belongings. Personally, I do not find the idea that those events may not have happened to be a satisfying solution. If we go that route, then why believe anything in the Bible?
Should people lose faith in God of the Bible because of his immoral commands? I think the answer is obvious. Christians go about saying how we could have no morality at all if not for the Christian God but then in the same breath say that infanticide, genocide, and slavery are not immoral because God commanded or instituted such things. You can watch a Christian doing that the debate with Hector Avalos posted on this forum. When Christians say that it is impossible to judge God as evil they don't realize that they are also saying it is impossible to judge God as good. If "whatever the Bible says about God" is defined as "good" then the word "good" has no meaning. But we all know that the word "good" has meaning. That's the problem - the things said of God in the Bible contradict what we mean when we say "good." So insisting that God is good despite what the Bible says about him destroys the meaning of that word.
The God of the Bible sets His own limitations. Does this seem unreasonable to anyone? His character exhibits many attributes. He has no equal. He is the Supreme Being. He has the power of Life and Death. Heaven and Hell are His to award. He demonstrates that the world is at His disposal. He is the final authority, He condemns... He justifies, He gives life, He take life away, and the wise will abide by His word.
No, it's not unreasonable. But if God "sets his own standards" then we cannot say that he is "good" or the word "good" will have lost all meaning.
How foolish that sinful human weaklings with limited intellect attempt to summon the Creator of the Universe into their own pitiful little court of justice, to a trial conducted by misfits who fearlessly pronounce His guilt and condemnation, fully incapable of sentencing Him and far too puny to carry it out. The rant of such heathen is relegated to nothing more than the derision and laughter of God Himself (Psalm 2:4).
There is nothing foolish in judging what a BOOK written by fallible humans says about God. If you reject what the Koran says about Allah, are you judging God? The problem is that you begin with the presumption that the Bible is accurate in all it says about God. I see no reason to make that presupposition, especially since it directly contradicts our most basic moral sensibilities.
And now, a paradox: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life".
The Word of God is so complete that it contains both the seed of faith and the seed of doubt. So, choose you this day whom you will serve.
John
"We who live by faith have evidence the world cannot see and assurance of the hope of Eternal Life"
That's exactly what I used to say! The Bible contains everything the believer needs to believe, and everything the unbeliever needs to unbelieve. It was my attempt to deal with the many problems in the Bible. I thought that the Bible Wheel gave sufficient evidence for the presupposition that the Bible is "God's Word." But given the problems with what the Bible actually states, I don't feel that implication can stand. So now I'm mystified by how a design like the Bible Wheel could have gotten in the Bible, but that mystery is not sufficient to trump all the problems I see just as clearly in the book. I don't know what the solution will be, but I am quite sure that it won't involve going back to traditional Christianity since that view is entirely untenable as far as I can tell.
Great chatting! Thanks again for your two cents.
Richard
Good morning John, :yo:
I'm glad you shared your "2 cents" with us.
There's a lot more to be said. The passage you cite establishes the man over the woman and equates that relation to the submissive role that men should have under God:
Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 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. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. 25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
Therefore, the man is set up as "God" over the woman. This is, by definition, sexist, and this teaching is repeated many times in Scripture:
1 Corinthians 11:3 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.
And Paul explicitly states that women should not teach or "usurp authority over men: -
1 Timothy 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
Paul here is linking back to the story in Genesis where the woman is blamed for all the sin in the world. His reference to the woman being "saved in childbearing" connects directly with the curse put upon Eve. So it is impossible to "explain away" these sexist teachings. They are inextricably entwined with the fundamental Biblical teachings about the nature of God and HIS relation to man in both the Old and New Testaments.
This is the order ordained by God. What is wrong with it? Should there not be a head of the house? What if the two disagree, is it a stalemate with no solution?
It is one thing for God himself to execute people. I've never focused on that as a moral problem though there are some issues with it. The real problem is with God impersonating a brutal Bronze age tribal war god who goes about commanding his people to commit genocide and to show no mercy when invading their land to steal their belongings. Personally, I do not find the idea that those events may not have happened to be a satisfying solution. If we go that route, then why believe anything in the Bible?
Why disbelieve in the Bible on the grounds that God does not meet human expectation?
Should people lose faith in God of the Bible because of his immoral commands? I think the answer is obvious. Christians go about saying how we could have no morality at all if not for the Christian God but then in the same breath say that infanticide, genocide, and slavery are not immoral because God commanded or instituted such things. You can watch a Christian doing that the debate with Hector Avalos posted on this forum. When Christians say that it is impossible to judge God as evil they don't realize that they are also saying it is impossible to judge God as good. If "whatever the Bible says about God" is defined as "good" then the word "good" has no meaning. But we all know that the word "good" has meaning. That's the problem - the things said of God in the Bible contradict what we mean when we say "good." So insisting that God is good despite what the Bible says about him destroys the meaning of that word.
Do we really have a handle on what it means to be Holy?
No, it's not unreasonable. But if God "sets his own standards" then we cannot say that he is "good" or the word "good" will have lost all meaning.
Because of our limited understanding, and because we do not know the final destiny of every man's eternal soul, how can anyone accuse God of being "not good"? Judging the movie before it's stunning conclusion or unexpected ending accomplishes nothing.
There is nothing foolish in judging what a BOOK written by fallible humans says about God. If you reject what the Koran says about Allah, are you judging God? The problem is that you begin with the presumption that the Bible is accurate in all it says about God. I see no reason to make that presupposition, especially since it directly contradicts our most basic moral sensibilities.
For the wisdom of men is foolishness to God and He will destroy the wisdom of the wise and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent (1 Cor. 1:19-25). In this way, man has no alternative but to trust God and His Word. The 2nd birth and the righteousness of God can be attained only by faith. I'm not stating that man should not use his intellect, that would be foolish indeed. It seems important that when we come up against something in the scriptures that doesn't "add up", it could be our math set is still incomplete. For me personally, it really comes down to this... Either God is trustworthy or He is not. I say we are not worthy of His trust.
That's exactly what I used to say! The Bible contains everything the believer needs to believe, and everything the unbeliever needs to unbelieve. It was my attempt to deal with the many problems in the Bible. I thought that the Bible Wheel gave sufficient evidence for the presupposition that the Bible is "God's Word." But given the problems with what the Bible actually states, I don't feel that implication can stand. So now I'm mystified by how a design like the Bible Wheel could have gotten in the Bible, but that mystery is not sufficient to trump all the problems I see just as clearly in the book. I don't know what the solution will be, but I am quite sure that it won't involve going back to traditional Christianity since that view is entirely untenable as far as I can tell.
Richard, I would never doubt your earnest desire to seek and understand Biblical Truth. Over the few short years that we have dialogued and the position you have espoused as witnessed in your posts, you have demonstrated your sincere desire to live a life in the quest of God. I say that you have found Him, or I should say He has found you.
Great chatting! Thanks again for your two cents.
Richard
My sentiments exactly.
John
Hi John
Do you really think that admonishing a man to love his wife is going to make him love her if he doesn't already? You already love your wife, no one has to tell you to do so, just like I love Richard that is why I married him, the Bible doesn't have to tell me to love him. Love is not something you can make people do. What you can do though is teach people to treat others with kindness and respect, but that goes for both genders not placing one above the other.
Living in the real world as long as I have, I see the world's definition of love redefined about every decade. If nothing more than an emotion or a sexual gratification attraction, it will diminish in favor of someone else. It is in the nature of man as evidenced in real life and the scriptures, which portray real life rather explicitly. Loving my wife by doing what I can to care for her and meet her needs requires more than affection, it is a life long commitment. In short, it is a verb. Do you think if this was not a biblical directive, the world would be better?
What people should do is take a good look at the biblegod and question whether or not such a god is believable. From what I read in the Bible there are no limitations to what the biblegod can do. On one hand he commands "thou shalt not kill" and on the other hand he orders the Hebrews to slaughter all the men, women and children (and show no mercy) in the land called the "Promised Land" so he can give them their houses, vineyards, livestock, and wells...and that's just the beginning...god's moral atrocities are splattered everywhere in the Bible.
Me thinks He is very believable. Should I disbelieve because He is both Terrible and Good all in one Character?
I say it is totally unreasonable to believe in a God who commits such moral atrocities against his own creations and then somehow expects his creations to have a sense of what is moral. It's nothing less than outrageous!
Well then, I guess "Rose Knows".
I would say that humans with limited intellect were the ones who created the biblegod, whom people feel compelled to believe because of its antiquity without questioning its validity.
There you go again with... "I would say".
I choose to serve the ideals of equal human value, kindness and love, not a god who caters to his own whims and demands praise and worship for treating humans unequally and unjustly.
Have you fallen short of your ideal lately? If not, you belong in a superhero movie, If so, you need a Redeemer.
All the best,
Rose
Of course. Same to you Rose!
John
Living in the real world as long as I have, I see the world's definition of love redefined about every decade. If nothing more than an emotion or a sexual gratification attraction, it will diminish in favor of someone else. It is in the nature of man as evidenced in real life and the scriptures, which portray real life rather explicitly. Loving my wife by doing what I can to care for her and meet her needs requires more than affection, it is a life long commitment. In short, it is a verb. Do you think if this was not a biblical directive, the world would be better?
Hi John,
I think the world would be a better place if the Bible had directed people to treat each other equally, instead of putting one gender over the other. The sad thing is that the Bible exacerbates the domineering, and aggressive qualities many men already have by decreeing that the man should rule over the woman. Males and females are equal and should be treated as such in all areas of life. Human rights belong equally to women as well as men.
Me thinks He is very believable. Should I disbelieve because He is both Terrible and Good all in one Character?
No, it's because the biblegod is moral and immoral all in one character!
Well then, I guess "Rose Knows".
There you go again with... "I would say".
Have you fallen short of your ideal lately? If not, you belong in a superhero movie, If so, you need a Redeemer.
Of course. Same to you Rose!
John
So, John do you always treat women with sarcasm? I notice in your answers to Richard you refrain from using the sarcasm and put-downs you always use with me. Is it because I'm a woman and you think you are superior to me? Just wondering...
Have a nice day,
Rose
Richard Amiel McGough
05-21-2012, 10:16 PM
This is the order ordained by God. What is wrong with it? Should there not be a head of the house? What if the two disagree, is it a stalemate with no solution?
If sexism is not wrong, then there's nothing wrong with it.
If sexism is wrong, then that's what's wrong with it.
Why should there be only one head of a house? Two heads are better than one. And if they can't agree, then there is probably a reason they cannot agree, and so they should talk about it until they come to an agreement. Why should the man have the last word? There's no reason to think that half the population is always right merely because they are male!
Why disbelieve in the Bible on the grounds that God does not meet human expectation?
We are not talking about "human expectations." We are talking about morality. I cannot believe that the God of the Bible is the true God because he acts in ways that are immoral. I have no choice in this matter. I simply cannot believe that God would command his people to become merciless genocidal maniacs.
Do we really have a handle on what it means to be Holy?
I have enough of a handle on holiness to know that neither Hitler nor anyone who acts like him is holy.
No, it's not unreasonable. But if God "sets his own standards" then we cannot say that he is "good" or the word "good" will have lost all meaning.
Because of our limited understanding, and because we do not know the final destiny of every man's eternal soul, how can anyone accuse God of being "not good"? Judging the movie before it's stunning conclusion or unexpected ending accomplishes nothing.
You missed my point. If we cannot judge God, then we cannot judge that God is good. We could only parrot the words "God is good" but they would have no real content. If we say that God is good no matter what he does, then the word "good" has no meaning.
For the wisdom of men is foolishness to God and He will destroy the wisdom of the wise and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent (1 Cor. 1:19-25). In this way, man has no alternative but to trust God and His Word. The 2nd birth and the righteousness of God can be attained only by faith. I'm not stating that man should not use his intellect, that would be foolish indeed. It seems important that when we come up against something in the scriptures that doesn't "add up", it could be our math set is still incomplete. For me personally, it really comes down to this... Either God is trustworthy or He is not. I say we are not worthy of His trust.
There is a flaw in your logic. You begin with the presupposition that the Bible is the Word of God. If you began with the presupposition that the Koran was the Word of God you would say that anything in the Koran that "doesn't add up" would only mean that "our math is still incomplete." Therefore, you would be trapped in a false religion with no way out.
Richard, I would never doubt your earnest desire to seek and understand Biblical Truth. Over the few short years that we have dialogued and the position you have espoused as witnessed in your posts, you have demonstrated your sincere desire to live a life in the quest of God. I say that you have found Him, or I should say He has found you.
I very much appreciate your kind words.
All the very best to you my friend,
Richard
David M
05-22-2012, 03:14 AM
Thank you John (jce) for your comments; I am in agreement with you. As for the others I would add this;
The content of the Bible does involve mainly men. It was necessary for God to create both male and female for the purpose of procreation. From the creation story, God created animals to procreate and multiply, yet the text does not state that God created male and female of the species; it is accepted. However, as the pinnacle of God's creation, man and woman was treated differently. Attention is made of the fact that the male was created first. Whichever sex God created first, it brings in the matter of loneliness and then partnership. Mankind is more than just a species to procreate (as Evolution would have us be). If God had created the female first, that would have set a precedent and we would be having the converse of the argument we are having now and Richard would be campaigning about male human rights and female bias in the Bible. God set a precedent by creating the man first. That translated into God creating His only begotten Son or it would have been God's only begotten Daughter. It would not make sense for God to have produced a daughter, if the intention was for the only begotten offspring not to procreate. Questions: Does a sexless person look more like a male than a female? What is the one distinguishing feature that immediately identifies the female? There is something to be said for us all wearing the burqa if we do not want to appear as male or female. Seeing as this life is a temporary state leading the the Kingdom of God, to those who belive this, it is a small price to pay for those who can dedicate themselves not to marry and devote their time and efforts in serving God. However, God knows that this is not practical for everyone and the human desires that having a sex imposes on us, is such that God understands the need for men and women to form partnerships and therefore while the ideal would be to remain single as Jesus stayed single, this married men and women are not excluded. Their human rights are respected and in this God does not differentiate when selecting the individuals who will enter in His Kingdom. Eventually, its God's intention to select individuals to be in His kingdom and those individuals will be given sexless incorruptible bodies. Until then, we have to accept the the body we have been dealt.
God does not look at the heart and judge people by whether they are female or male. God does not discriminate in that way. Whether we are female or male, we can all exhibit the same characteristics of love, humility, compassion and all those qualities God looks for and loves. Whether we are male or female, both responsible for giving birth to a child. Because of the difference in sex and the nurture needed to be given to the child for which the female has been supplied with breasts, it is obvious men and women cannot do exactly the same. Men are physically stronger (in general) and that makes them different. Scientific understanding can explain the difference in the sexes and relate this to hormones etc. Yet the physical attributes that our sex gives us should not come into play concerning our faith and belief in God or how we should conduct our lives. If Jesus had been a woman, Paul would have written the same concerning having the mind of Christ. That is what counts, whether female or male, that we have the mind of Christ.
Coming back to the phrase by the Apostle Paul; "in whatsoever state I am; therewith to be content" This is particularly true when coming into association with Jesus (at the time of baptism). Whatever state we occupy as servant or master, we should be content and not look to change our estate. That is the message the "angels" of Jude received the hard way when they rebelled and changed their estate. That is why these things are written for our learning. We have to understand that there is a hierarchy to the way God has structured things and in the perfect world there would be complete harmony between the sexes and accepting their respective restrictions according to sex. It is mankind that has created the bias toward men and the lack of human rights toward women. This is not universal and that is why under man's rule this is the way it appears and it is not the way God intended it to be.
On the question of God giving the instruction to humans not to kill and for God to kill people as a form of punishment is a completely different subject to the divisions amongst the sexes. John has already explained this so I will not repeat what John has written. I will add that there is the same difference in thinking between someone who sees and applies the wisdom of God and someone who does not understand the wisdom of God. The same arguments will continue as long as there are humanists and atheists. It is the humanist and atheist that must change because God is unchangeable. Mankind has had 6,000 years to rule himself and look at where that rule has gotten us. This is why it is futile of anyone to think they have the solution to these problems. It might seem right in our eyes, but in the long term our ways will be proven no to work. The problem remains and although we might have a better solution and God could have used a different tactic, it would not have altered where we are now. We are living under man's rule and we are living with the conseqences. Once again I say; blame man and not God.
It is a matter of personal trust, and I would not trust man to tell me or anyone else what to do, when God has shown us the right way to live and what we should do. God's way gives us hope and man's does not. I would rather go with hope than have none at all. If having hope means I am less free now than those who claim to have more freedom, I would hope in the freedom to come in the Kingdom of God than have no freedom when confined to the grave for eternity. This is the choice God gives us. Thanks be to God for the hope that He has given.
David
[QUOTE=Rose;44253]Hi John,
I think the world would be a better place if the Bible had directed people to treat each other equally, instead of putting one gender over the other. The sad thing is that the Bible exacerbates the domineering, and aggressive qualities many men already have by decreeing that the man should rule over the woman. Males and females are equal and should be treated as such in all areas of life.
Human rights belong equally to women as well as men.
Is there anything wrong putting oneself above the other as long as that that person treat those under himself fairly and does not abuse his power. Do you know that there are hierarchy in the kingdom of heaven where Jesus said that man is slightly higher rank than angels? Men can be head of the family so can women if the men has died or is chronically ill. The woman will then have to be the head of the family.
No, it's because the biblegod is moral and immoral all in one character!
The Biblegod is not immoral; human is.
So, John do you always treat women with sarcasm? I notice in your answers to Richard you refrain from using the sarcasm and put-downs you always use with me. Is it because I'm a woman and you think you are superior to me? Just wondering...
I don't see man as superior than woman except that he has a higher responsibility over the family. You have a psychological problem, no doubt.
God Bless.
Is there anything wrong putting oneself above the other as long as that that person treat those under himself fairly and does not abuse his power. Do you know that there are hierarchy in the kingdom of heaven where Jesus said that man is slightly higher rank than angels? Men can be head of the family so can women if the men has died or is chronically ill. The woman will then have to be the head of the family.
All humans are equal. Men have no more of a right to be the head of the family than a woman does, and in many cases the woman is much more qualified as head of the family than the man is.
The Biblegod is not immoral; human is.
Of course the biblegod is immoral, because it was immoral humans who created him.
I don't see man as superior than woman except that he has a higher responsibility over the family. You have a psychological problem, no doubt.
God Bless.
If anyone should have the higher responsibility over the family it should be the mother who bore the children, she has much more of an innate intuition on caring for her children than the man does. The ideal family is an equal partnership, with both parties sharing equal responsibility.
All humans are equal. Men have no more of a right to be the head of the family than a woman does, and in many cases the woman is much more qualified as head of the family than the man is.
Of course the biblegod is immoral, because it was immoral humans who created him.
If anyone should have the higher responsibility over the family it should be the mother who bore the children, she has much more of an innate intuition on caring for her children than the man does. The ideal family is an equal partnership, with both parties sharing equal responsibility.
Show me any country being run by 2 presidents or 2 prime ministers olr an organisation run by 2 directors at the same time. I cantell you none! Not even in the animal kingdom can a tribe be run by 2 alpha males or alpha females. Can you name me a family that is run by 2 fathers? The reason is because it is not practical.
Of course God is moral, just name me anywhere in the bible in which God himself committed rapes, adultery, fornication, homosexuality, pedophilia, lying, stealing, bearing false witness? None! Only humans are capable of that. Therefore only humans are immoral, God is not immoral.
The higher responsibility should be the male because the responsibility of protecting, farming the land, hunting, building houses, maintenance etc. in the olden days lies with the male. What good if someone can care for the children but cannot ensure their safety and livelihood or provide food and shelter for them? Agree that the ideal family has equal partnership with sharing equal responsibility but that does not mean there cannot be a head be it a male or a female who will ensure that everyone is treated fairly and there is no abuse of power. Equal partnership doesn't necessary means sharing of same roles in the care of the family but each doing their own duties to achieve that goal just like an organisation with each department responsible for their own roles and responsibilities in achieving the organisation's objectives. Head of the family means he is responsible for the overall well-being of the family and the woman can take over the role if the man is incapable. It doesn't matter which gender is more capable of running the family, problems such as rebellion, crimes, anti-social behaviors will emerge if the head of the family be it the man or the woman doesn't treat family members with love and fairly and abuse the power. Isn't these one of the main causes of problem families?
May God Bless our family. :pray:
Hi John,
I think the world would be a better place if the Bible had directed people to treat each other equally, instead of putting one gender over the other. The sad thing is that the Bible exacerbates the domineering, and aggressive qualities many men already have by decreeing that the man should rule over the woman. Males and females are equal and should be treated as such in all areas of life. Human rights belong equally to women as well as men.
For one moment, let us assume that the bible never existed. Do you think the world would be a better place without it? A simple yes or no will suffice.
No, it's because the biblegod is moral and immoral all in one character!
Perhaps you could list a few of His immoral acts.
So, John do you always treat women with sarcasm? I notice in your answers to Richard you refrain from using the sarcasm and put-downs you always use with me. Is it because I'm a woman and you think you are superior to me? Just wondering...
I mean't no offense and apologize to you Rose if my comments appear sarcastic. The point with "Rose Knows" is nothing more than a statement you would agree with. The words "I would say" simply acknowledge that your position is based on your reasoning, even if it contradicts the reasoning of another. The "Superhero" comment presents a familiar analogy contrasting the superior ability one has over another, in this case, your own personal infallible moral code that you adhere to without fault each moment you exist.
Have a nice day,
Rose
Did you really mean that, or were you being sarcastic?
John
duxrow
05-23-2012, 07:18 AM
For one moment, let us assume that the bible never existed. Do you think the world would be a better place without it? A simple yes or no will suffice.
:Date_Setting:
No, especially when they didn't get it all at once, but 'piece-meal', if you please, so the story would go world-wide by word of mouth and have lots of misguided understandings. Then, when the OT Hebrews actually saw the iron float and walls come down, etc., it would be clear to them that God was real and not just a figment of their imagination. Now in the NT we aren't privileged to SEE those things, because Faith comes by hearing and hearing... ha. :rolleyes:
For one moment, let us assume that the bible never existed. Do you think the world would be a better place without it? A simple yes or no will suffice.
Hi John, :yo:
That is a question that is impossible to answer with a simple yes, or no because there are far to many variables involved.
Perhaps you could list a few of His immoral acts.
In the verses below Yahweh commands the Hebrews to murder every man, woman, and child, then steal their land, houses full of good things, wells, vineyards, and olive trees. On top of murder, and stealing Yahweh explicitly tells the Hebrews to show NO MERCY to the inhabitants of the land (so much for loving your neighbor). Need I list more?
Deut.6:1 Now these are the commandments, the statutes, and the judgments, which the LORD your God commanded to teach you, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go to possess it:... 10) And it shall be, when the LORD thy God shall have brought thee into the land which he sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give thee great and goodly cities, which thou buildedst not, And houses full of all good things, which thou filledst not, and wells digged, which thou diggedst not, vineyards and olive trees, which thou plantedst not; when thou shalt have eaten and be full;
Deut.7:1-2 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:
I mean't no offense and apologize to you Rose if my comments appear sarcastic. The point with "Rose Knows" is nothing more than a statement you would agree with. The words "I would say" simply acknowledge that your position is based on your reasoning, even if it contradicts the reasoning of another. The "Superhero" comment presents a familiar analogy contrasting the superior ability one has over another, in this case, your own personal infallible moral code that you adhere to without fault each moment you exist.
Did you really mean that, or were you being sarcastic?
John
Thank you for the apology, but just to let you know Richard also noticed your sarcasm, so it wasn't just me.
No, I wasn't being sarcastic!
Hope you have a nice day, :D
Rose
Good day to you Richard! I don't know how you find time to deal with all of these controversial issues. Could it be the new iMac? I know, you are hooked on it so no need for an explanation.
If sexism is not wrong, then there's nothing wrong with it.
If sexism is wrong, then that's what's wrong with it.
What you are suggesting is that the Bible is in error by stating that the order of responsibility in the home begins with the husband.
Why should there be only one head of a house? Two heads are better than one. And if they can't agree, then there is probably a reason they cannot agree, and so they should talk about it until they come to an agreement. Why should the man have the last word? There's no reason to think that half the population is always right merely because they are male!
You ask me why there should only be one head of the house. After reviewing the words of He who ordained the order, He doesn't offer me a specific reason, only to obey and be responsible. I assume He will hold me accountable for the treatment of my wife (and others) and the impact that my decisions have on her life (and others). I see no problem with this. In fact, wouldn't it be a little relief to think that someone could take full responsibility for some of our actions.
We are not talking about "human expectations." We are talking about morality. I cannot believe that the God of the Bible is the true God because he acts in ways that are immoral. I have no choice in this matter. I simply cannot believe that God would command his people to become merciless genocidal maniacs.
On the contrary, it is your human expectations that are binding your image of God to a standard of morality that he expects from you.
I have enough of a handle on holiness to know that neither Hitler nor anyone who acts like him is holy.
Since neither you nor I can reconcile the actions of a Holy God with some of the events contained in His Word, we are left with one of two possibilities, either the God of the Bible is a figment of man's imagination, or, we do not fully understand the mystery. Personally... I just don't know. On the surface, it is ugly, but perhaps underneath, there is a future beauty that shall be revealed. It is a matter of hope & trust.
You missed my point. If we cannot judge God, then we cannot judge that God is good. We could only parrot the words "God is good" but they would have no real content. If we say that God is good no matter what he does, then the word "good" has no meaning.
Sometimes I do miss your point Richard, but not here. Consider adding the word "purpose" as in "good purpose". It makes all the difference. For we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.
There is a flaw in your logic. You begin with the presupposition that the Bible is the Word of God. If you began with the presupposition that the Koran was the Word of God you would say that anything in the Koran that "doesn't add up" would only mean that "our math is still incomplete." Therefore, you would be trapped in a false religion with no way out.
And of course, your logic is flawless. You begin with the presupposition that the Word of God is errant because it contains accounts that defy your human logic and since the Word does not conform to your thinking, you render it invalid.
I very much appreciate your kind words.
All the very best to you my friend,
Richard
And as always to you too Richard.
John
[QUOTE]In the verses below Yahweh commands the Hebrews to murder every man, woman, and child, then steal their land, houses full of good things, wells, vineyards, and olive trees. On top of murder, and stealing Yahweh explicitly tells the Hebrews to show NO MERCY to the inhabitants of the land (so much for loving your neighbor). Need I list more?
Didn't Europeans took away Red Indian lands and wells and farms and trees? Sid they shown mercy to the Red Indian natives of the land? Did they did it under the command of God? Obviously no. It was their own motives and perhaps greed to steal the lands from the Red Indian natives. Were the Red Indians more evil than the European colonists?
Deut.6:1 Now these [I]are the commandments, the statutes, and the judgments, which the LORD your God commanded to teach you, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go to possess it:... 10) And it shall be, when the LORD thy God shall have brought thee into the land which he sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give thee great and goodly cities, which thou buildedst not, And houses full of all good things, which thou filledst not, and wells digged, which thou diggedst not, vineyards and olive trees, which thou plantedst not; when thou shalt have eaten and be full;
Same as what the Europeans did to the natives of North, South and Central America, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa etc. Did God command them to do it? or is it due to human desires for the lands?
Deut.7:1-2 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:
Those people were evil and need to be destroyed, same as what the Allies did to the Nazis and the Japanese. If the Allies didn't do it and won WW2, what do you think will happen to the world right now? We will all be talking German and greeting each other with "Heil Hitler" with outstretched arm. And there will be no other race in this world except the Germanic race.
Same as what we did to insect pests....kill them all, including their youngs and eggs or do we save these dangerous pests out of mercy?
God Bless us.:pray:
Good day to you Richard! I don't know how you find time to deal with all of these controversial issues. Could it be the new iMac? I know, you are hooked on it so no need for an explanation.
What you are suggesting is that the Bible is in error by stating that the order of responsibility in the home begins with the husband.
You ask me why there should only be one head of the house. After reviewing the words of He who ordained the order, He doesn't offer me a specific reason, only to obey and be responsible. I assume He will hold me accountable for the treatment of my wife (and others) and the impact that my decisions have on her life (and others). I see no problem with this. In fact, wouldn't it be a little relief to think that someone could take full responsibility for some of our actions.
On the contrary, it is your human expectations that are binding your image of God to a standard of morality that he expects from you.
Since neither you nor I can reconcile the actions of a Holy God with some of the events contained in His Word, we are left with one of two possibilities, either the God of the Bible is a figment of man's imagination, or, we do not fully understand the mystery. Personally... I just don't know. On the surface, it is ugly, but perhaps underneath, there is a future beauty that shall be revealed. It is a matter of hope & trust.
Sometimes I do miss your point Richard, but not here. Consider adding the word "purpose" as in "good purpose". It makes all the difference. For we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.
And of course, your logic is flawless. You begin with the presupposition that the Word of God is errant because it contains accounts that defy your human logic and since the Word does not conform to your thinking, you render it invalid.
And as always to you too Richard.
John
I certainly agree with you John, one day all of us men and women will be held accountable for how we treat our family. The head of the family will of course be held more accountable with the responsibility of running the family with love and fairness without abuse of power entrusted. We and everything under the earth is owned by God as this is His creation, His properties. As such, nothing is considered as property of man or owned by man. We are just tenants with the responsibilities entrusted to us to maintain the properties under our responsibility well. We will be held accountable for our responsibility and actions at the end. That's what the parable of the talents and several others are all about:
Matt. 25:14-30.
For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered to them his goods. And to one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several abilities; and straightway took his journey. Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents. And likewise he that had received two, he also gained another two. But he that had received one went and dug in the earth, and hid his Lord's money. After a long time the Lord of those servants comes, and reckons with them. And so he that had received the five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, you delivered to me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more. His Lord said to him, Well done, you good and faithful servant - you have been faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over many things: enter you into the joy of your Lord. He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, you delivered to me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them. His Lord said to him, Well done, good and faithful servant: you have been faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over many things: enter you into the joy of your Lord. Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew you that you are a hard man, reaping where you have not sown, and gathering where you have not scattered seed: and I was afraid, and went and hid your talent in the earth: lo, there you have what is yours. His Lord answered and said to him, You wicked and lazy servant, you know that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not scattered seed: you ought therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury. Take therefore the talent from him, and give it to him which has ten talents. For to every one that has shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that has not shall be taken away even that which he has. And cast you the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Therefore is the Kingdom of Heaven like a certain King, who would take account of his servants. And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought to him, which owed him ten thousand talents. But for as much as he had not to pay, his Lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made. The servant therefore fell down and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me and I will pay you all. Then the Lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him and forgave him the debt. But the same: servant went out, and found one of his fellow-servants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that you owe. And his fellow-servant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying. Have patience with me, and I will pay you all. And he would not; but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt. So when his fellow-servants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told to their Lord all that was done. Then his Lord, after that he had called him, said to him, O you wicked servant, I forgave you all that debt, because you pleaded with me: should not you also have had compassion on your fellow-servant, even as I had pity on you? And his Lord was angry, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due to him. So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also to you, if you from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.
May God Bless us with His properties. :pray:
Hi John, :yo:
That is a question that is impossible to answer with a simple yes, or no because there are far to many variables involved.
Why Rose, you are not copping out on me are you? Let me rephrase the question, "Has any other book made a more significant contribution to the betterment of society that the Bible?".
And now, on to the hard part of your response...
In the verses below Yahweh commands the Hebrews to murder every man, woman, and child, then steal their land, houses full of good things, wells, vineyards, and olive trees. On top of murder, and stealing Yahweh explicitly tells the Hebrews to show NO MERCY to the inhabitants of the land (so much for loving your neighbor). Need I list more?
Deut.6:1 Now these are the commandments, the statutes, and the judgments, which the LORD your God commanded to teach you, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go to possess it:... 10) And it shall be, when the LORD thy God shall have brought thee into the land which he sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give thee great and goodly cities, which thou buildedst not, And houses full of all good things, which thou filledst not, and wells digged, which thou diggedst not, vineyards and olive trees, which thou plantedst not; when thou shalt have eaten and be full;
Deut.7:1-2 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:
Before the flood, it appears that the Spirit of God abandoned man to man's corrupted nature. The result was catastrophic. Man became totally degenerate, so much so, that he no longer had any space in his thinking for good, his thoughts were evil continually and he filled the earth with violence. So here's the question... if the Genesis 6 account is true, what has changed in man?
The point of that question is to illustrate, that, without the intervention of God, the results would be identical. Perhaps there is a limit to the quantity of exposure to heathen culture that will eventually contaminate those exposed. In other words, except God exterminate the cause, it would spread once more, thereby contaminating the entire population all over again.
Now keep in mind, that God called out, unto Himself, a people. It really could have been any people, it just suited Him to make it Abraham's seed. So now God has this group of humans which He has bound Himself to, in an effort to keep them as pure as possible because He has a plan. Now, the plan depends on survival of the human race and the survival of the human race depends on God sticking with these stiff necked humans who are naturally attracted to self destructive behavior. In order for the plan to succeed, God must, at all costs, keep this group intact, and that means removing the never ending train of deadly obstacles in the path of this chosen group until the fullness of time. Once that point is reached, a new plan takes effect, and we know what that is now.
If this process was the case, and God's purpose was to extend the human race to that appointed time, and by doing so He provides the everlasting solution to the problem of man's sin, what would be immoral about that?
Seeing beyond this world is an essential factor in determining what constitutes a good and holy purpose. Inadequate information leaves margin for error in the same way limited vision misses the details of the big picture. To make sense of the tragic history of man, it is necessary to look beyond the here and now. Wouldn't you agree?
Thank you for the apology, but just to let you know Richard also noticed your sarcasm, so it wasn't just me.
It may not come across in my posts, but I really do respect you both. I admit to being a little sarcastic at times, but what fun would it be to not poke a little back and forth. In fact, why not all of us just get along and avoid the anger, frustration, prejudice, pride, boasting and demeaning comments (even though the old nature is tempted to at times eh)? Easy now, just a little poke before I close.
No, I wasn't being sarcastic!
Hope you have a nice day, :D
Rose
One last thing Rose, together, you and Richard are making a contribution to the thinking skills of many who visit this site. I see no harm in challenging biblical presuppositions. There may be a danger in calling out God to a duel in the sun, but even so, if His Grace is good enough for me, I'm certain that it is sufficient for you.
His Best to you!
John
[QUOTE=Richard Amiel McGough;44248]Good morning John, :yo:
I'm glad you shared your "2 cents" with us.
There's a lot more to be said. The passage you cite establishes the man over the woman and equates that relation to the submissive role that men should have under God:
Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 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. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. 25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
Nothing sexist. Submit does not mean subservient. It means the head will be held responsible if he ill-treated and did not love his wife when his wife has entrusted and respected him under his care and responsibility.
Therefore, the man is set up as "God" over the woman. This is, by definition, sexist, and this teaching is repeated many times in Scripture:
1 Corinthians 11:3 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.
And Paul explicitly states that women should not teach or "usurp authority over men: -[INDENT]1 Timothy 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
Paul here is linking back to the story in Genesis where the woman is blamed for all the sin in the world. His reference to the woman being "saved in childbearing" connects directly with the curse put upon Eve. So it is impossible to "explain away" these sexist teachings. They are inextricably entwined with the fundamental Biblical teachings about the nature of God and HIS relation to man in both the Old and New Testaments.
What talking you? No one can be saved in childbearing except by believing God through faith through loving God with all your heart soul and might and loving your neighbor as yourself. Adam also suffered the curse not just Eve. Therefore the curse is put on both Adam and Eve which is why Paul said, "Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they(both of them) continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety". "Saved in childbearing" seems to mean that if Eve and Adam and their offsprings grew with righteous characters. This is well commented in a commentary:
Robinson, Lexicon. Rosenmuller regards the words rendered "child-bearing" (τεκνογονία teknogonia), as synonymous with education, and supposes that the meaning is, that a woman, by the proper training of her children, can obtain salvation as well as her husband, and that her appropriate duty is not public teaching, but the training of her family. Wetstein supposes that it means "she shall be saved from the arts of impostors, and from the luxury and vice of the age, if, instead of wandering about, she remains at home, cultivates modesty, is subject to her husband, and engages carefully in the training of her children."
It is one thing for God himself to execute people. I've never focused on that as a moral problem though there are some issues with it. The real problem is with God impersonating a brutal Bronze age tribal war god who goes about commanding his people to commit genocide and to show no mercy when invading their land to steal their belongings. Personally, I do not find the idea that those events may not have happened to be a satisfying solution. If we go that route, then why believe anything in the Bible?
There is nothing wrong with destroying evil people under the commandment of God. Is it wrong for the Allied soldiers to kill the Nazis in WW2 under order from their Allied commanders?
If the Bible is written by men as claimed by you and Rose, then might as well say why believed in men and their knowledge since they are also written by fallible men? What we think as immoral is human perception. Show me any passage in the Bible in which God Himself is Immoral. There is none only humans will do abominable and immoral things such as rapes, homosexuality, lies, steal etc.
Should people lose faith in God of the Bible because of his immoral commands? I think the answer is obvious. Christians go about saying how we could have no morality at all if not for the Christian God but then in the same breath say that infanticide, genocide, and slavery are not immoral because God commanded or instituted such things. You can watch a Christian doing that the debate with Hector Avalos posted on this forum. When Christians say that it is impossible to judge God as evil they don't realize that they are also saying it is impossible to judge God as good. If "whatever the Bible says about God" is defined as "good" then the word "good" has no meaning. But we all know that the word "good" has meaning. That's the problem - the things said of God in the Bible contradict what we mean when we say "good." So insisting that God is good despite what the Bible says about him destroys the meaning of that word.
Same as I ask, Should people lose faith in men since men are immoral? The reason is obvious. So are men good? Seeing that men can do all sorts of immoral and abominable things destroy the meaning of that word "good".
No, it's not unreasonable. But if God "sets his own standards" then we cannot say that he is "good" or the word "good" will have lost all meaning.
Same with men who may not even know for sure what is good and what is bad.
There is nothing foolish in judging what a BOOK written by fallible humans says about God. If you reject what the Koran says about Allah, are you judging God? The problem is that you begin with the presumption that the Bible is accurate in all it says about God. I see no reason to make that presupposition, especially since it directly contradicts our most basic moral sensibilities. There can only be one Creator God. All Gods they prayed to is indirectly praying to the Creator God. We are not supposed to judge others, let God do the judgement.
That's exactly what I used to say! The Bible contains everything the believer needs to believe, and everything the unbeliever needs to unbelieve. It was my attempt to deal with the many problems in the Bible. I thought that the Bible Wheel gave sufficient evidence for the presupposition that the Bible is "God's Word." But given the problems with what the Bible actually states, I don't feel that implication can stand. So now I'm mystified by how a design like the Bible Wheel could have gotten in the Bible, but that mystery is not sufficient to trump all the problems I see just as clearly in the book. I don't know what the solution will be, but I am quite sure that it won't involve going back to traditional Christianity since that view is entirely untenable as far as I can tell.
If you did not believe in the Bible and Christianity in the first place, will your Biblewheel and its mystery be discovered? And now you are against them...How ungrateful!
May God forgive us and our ungratefulness:pray:
Why Rose, you are not copping out on me are you? Let me rephrase the question, "Has any other book made a more significant contribution to the betterment of society that the Bible?".
Hi John, :yo:
The Bible has most definitely made a significant impact on society, but I'm not sure if one weighs the good and the bad caused by it's words if there would be any betterment. I'm thinking that because the Bible is held to be the word of God by many people, and it promotes a patriarchal ideology that is decreed to be God's order, women are forever condemned to be unequal with men. The Bible promotes male hegemony with men explicitly being God's representatives on earth and that can never be changed, consequently women have had a secondary status because of it.
Before the flood, it appears that the Spirit of God abandoned man to man's corrupted nature. The result was catastrophic. Man became totally degenerate, so much so, that he no longer had any space in his thinking for good, his thoughts were evil continually and he filled the earth with violence. So here's the question... if the Genesis 6 account is true, what has changed in man?
The point of that question is to illustrate, that, without the intervention of God, the results would be identical. Perhaps there is a limit to the quantity of exposure to heathen culture that will eventually contaminate those exposed. In other words, except God exterminate the cause, it would spread once more, thereby contaminating the entire population all over again.
Now keep in mind, that God called out, unto Himself, a people. It really could have been any people, it just suited Him to make it Abraham's seed. So now God has this group of humans which He has bound Himself to, in an effort to keep them as pure as possible because He has a plan. Now, the plan depends on survival of the human race and the survival of the human race depends on God sticking with these stiff necked humans who are naturally attracted to self destructive behavior. In order for the plan to succeed, God must, at all costs, keep this group intact, and that means removing the never ending train of deadly obstacles in the path of this chosen group until the fullness of time. Once that point is reached, a new plan takes effect, and we know what that is now.
If this process was the case, and God's purpose was to extend the human race to that appointed time, and by doing so He provides the everlasting solution to the problem of man's sin, what would be immoral about that?
Seeing beyond this world is an essential factor in determining what constitutes a good and holy purpose. Inadequate information leaves margin for error in the same way limited vision misses the details of the big picture. To make sense of the tragic history of man, it is necessary to look beyond the here and now. Wouldn't you agree?
According to the Bible, Yahweh is unable to solve the problem of sin that he created in the first place. First he wipes out life on the entire planet except for righteous Noah and his family and then the next thing you know sin is thriving all over the planet again. This narrative of killing sinners to try and wipe out sin happens over, and over again throughout the entire Bible, even after the sacrifice of Jesus. Then to make matters worse Yahweh gives commandments that say killing, and stealing is wrong, but turns around and commands that the Hebrews kill and steal...sounds pretty immoral to me.
Since no human can see beyond this world, and all we have to go on is what someone wrote down in the Bible, then no human can ever know what is good and holy to God. What we do read in the Bible is contradictory and inconsistent, so all we are left with is human guesswork. I think the only solution is to leave the primitive thinking of the Bible behind and use our ever rising level of consciousness to make sure we don't repeat mans tragic history again. Any mindset that traps a person into a particular way of thinking that leaves no room for growth cannot be good for the evolution of mankind. The Bible locks peoples minds into one way of thinking closing off all other possibilities, which leaves women in a position of second class citizens as long as human life exists.
It may not come across in my posts, but I really do respect you both. I admit to being a little sarcastic at times, but what fun would it be to not poke a little back and forth. In fact, why not all of us just get along and avoid the anger, frustration, prejudice, pride, boasting and demeaning comments (even though the old nature is tempted to at times eh)? Easy now, just a little poke before I close.
One last thing Rose, together, you and Richard are making a contribution to the thinking skills of many who visit this site. I see no harm in challenging biblical presuppositions. There may be a danger in calling out God to a duel in the sun, but even so, if His Grace is good enough for me, I'm certain that it is sufficient for you.
His Best to you!
John
I'm glad to see you're up for the challenge :thumb:
All the best to you too,
Rose
[QUOTE=Rose;44507]Hi John, :yo:
The Bible has most definitely made a significant impact on society, but I'm not sure if one weighs the good and the bad caused by it's words if there would be any betterment. I'm thinking that because the Bible is held to be the word of God by many people, and it promotes a patriarchal ideology that is decreed to be God's order, women are forever condemned to be unequal with men. The Bible promotes male hegemony with men explicitly being God's representatives on earth and that can never be changed, consequently women have had a secondary status because of it.
What's wrong with patriarchal ideology? What's wrong with male hegemony? Whether is it patriarchal or matriarchal it doesn't matter as long as they can run the society well, fairly and with no abuse of power. History has shown us that countries run by female head of state fare no better than countries run by male head of state. Googled whether matriarchy is better than patriarchy will shows that the majority says that matriarchy is no better than patriarchy:
http://www.google.com.sg/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=is+patriarchal+system+better+than+matriarchal&gbv=2&oq=is+patriarchal+system+better+than+matriarchal&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=hp.3...3982.39205.0.40459.45.22.0.23.1.0.75.6 26.11.11.0...0.0.hGESukIHWvI
According to the Bible, Yahweh is unable to solve the problem of sin that he created in the first place. First he wipes out life on the entire planet except for righteous Noah and his family and then the next thing you know sin is thriving all over the planet again. This narrative of killing sinners to try and wipe out sin happens over, and over again throughout the entire Bible, even after the sacrifice of Jesus. Then to make matters worse Yahweh gives commandments that say killing, and stealing is wrong, but turns around and commands that the Hebrews kill and steal...sounds pretty immoral to me.
Same as I would say that we humans cannot solve the problem of germs and pests, kill them and they will come back again soon. What we are doing is thus not to kill the germs and pests entirely as it is impossible but to reduce it's numbers significantly so that there is less troubles from these germs and pests.Same as what Yahweh was doing. At the same time he wanted humans to grow so that he can "harvest" large numbers of righteous souls whilst discarding unrighteous souls. Its like waiting for the pests to grow to a certain large numbers before wiping them off whilst saving the "good" remnant pests.
Since no human can see beyond this world, and all we have to go on is what someone wrote down in the Bible, then no human can ever know what is good and holy to God. What we do read in the Bible is contradictory and inconsistent, so all we are left with is human guesswork. I think the only solution is to leave the primitive thinking of the Bible behind and use our ever rising level of consciousness to make sure we don't repeat mans tragic history again. Any mindset that traps a person into a particular way of thinking that leaves no room for growth cannot be good for the evolution of mankind. The Bible locks peoples minds into one way of thinking closing off all other possibilities, which leaves women in a position of second class citizens as long as human life exists.
One of the purpose why the Bible seems contrary and confusing is that Yahweh wants us to study the Bible diligently, leaving no stones unturned to find out the truth. It's like what's the point of giving us a complete physics book with all the facts and questions and answers answered, will people be motivated to do research to further the advancement of physics? The solution to understand God is to further our study with fervent biblical research rather than give up and becomes atheists. Have constant faith that God is doing for good of his own people, one day everything will be known and answered. The godly and righteous have nothing to fear.
God Blessings to all.:pray:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.