Women

[Trent Wray]

It's in one of the Apocryphal works. The Council of Nicea was not impressed by the Jesus fart jokes.

The Flatus according to John.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

I don't know - can you make the couch unclean just by sitting on it? But cheezburgers - yum!

Maybe he has issues.

And he who is sitting on the vessel on which he sitteth who hath the issue, doth wash his garments, and hath bathed with water, and been unclean till the evening. Leviticus 15:6

 

[Dancing David]

I don't know - can you make the couch unclean just by sitting on it? But cheezburgers - yum!

I am not afraid of the 'moon flow', I do wash regularly. I think I might be unclean because I ate ham during passover.

And technically the cheeseburger is not 'seethed in the milk of the mother' but close enough.

 

[Lucian]

I am not afraid of the 'moon flow', I do wash regularly. I think I might be unclean because I ate ham during passover.

And technically the cheeseburger is not 'seethed in the milk of the mother' but close enough.

You know it's not actually the moon that flows, right?

 

[Trent Wray]

You know it's not actually the moon that flows, right?

You're looney

 

[Lucian]

You're looney

Yes, I worship at St. Loony-up-the-Cream-Bun-and-Jam. What's your point?

 

[Trent Wray]

Yes, I worship at St. Loony-up-the-Cream-Bum-and-Jam. What's your point?

For you to say that the moon doesn't flow is a stream of lunacy and you know it

 

[Elizabeth I]

And technically the cheeseburger is not 'seethed in the milk of the mother' but close enough.

Just ate a cheeseburger, and I was right - yum!

 

[Beerina]

It's interesting that, biologically, men are really "male females". We have nipples because the basic human body plan has nipples. That means female.

Also, it's brutally clear from evolution that males of species evolved from hermaphroditic species. Somewhere along the line, someone failed to be impregnable, but still managed to pass along their genes, of course, with the partner doing the heavy lifting. Whether the "dandy-ification" of the male started before this physical inability to bear children, or after, I have no idea.


And yes, human males, like those of almost all other species, are the dandies, with their manes (AKA beard + hair) and, yes, their beer bellies. Oh, and their wars for dominance.

 

[David Henson]

Female individual.

For example, "ish et re'ehu" = "one another".

Ish means man. Could you give a scripture where "ish et re'ehu" is used? Ishshah literally means female man, man with a womb.

According to what source?

Matthew 22:30.

Or Yahweh, as intentionally misspelled by the Masorets?

Explain this, please? The name was replaced with the generic term lord, not mispelled intentionally.

Right... from a humanistic and atheistic viewpoint. But what if the practices are said to be dictated by eternal and omniscient God word by word? Or did you just confess that the limitations of human understanding and moral thinking define and limit the religion that we are discussing?

The religion we are discussing? Religion has nothing to do with it.

Would you clarify, what else in this religion is defined and limited by the contemporary human thinking and understanding of each era? And what in this religion is divinely free from any such limitations?

I don't know why you keep referring to a discussion on what the Bible says about women as "religion." It has nothing to do with religion. I am talking about what Jehovah God, through his inspired writers, dictated to his people in the Bible. How religion has interpreted that in the abuse of women is another subject altogether.

 

[David Henson]

I went to some trouble to provide scriptural references and everything.......I really hope David eventually comes by to let me know how god regulated laws for women's protection, when he was generally the one ordering up all that raping.

Clever . . . I will respond this morning.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I don't know why you keep referring to a discussion on what the Bible says about women as "religion." It has nothing to do with religion. I am talking about what Jehovah God, through his inspired writers, dictated to his people in the Bible. How religion has interpreted that in the abuse of women is another subject altogether.

Except that females are not derived from males. In fact, males are a modification of the female form. Or would you like to explain why men have nipples.

 

[David Henson]

What is the point? You refuse to enter into any kind of meaningful discussion,you've demonstrated that on other threads.

Meaningful discussion?! What, from you?! Read my sig.

 

[Morrigan]

I think his point is that the bible isn't as anti-woman as it is often portrayed. It's true that by the standards of the time and place, the bible was practically a radical feminist bleeding-heart liberal commie thing

No, it really wasn't. The Egyptians and the Celts gave more power to women than the Bible ever did.

 

[David Henson]

I've concluded that David has what he claims is a thorough understanding of his bible and a few "god experiences" under his belt. These threads are his way of

1) discussing what he enjoys, the bible, with people he hopes to find intelligent conversations with and maybe --- god forbid --- the semblance of a friend
2) for those who want him to actually prove his fantasy/god --- he takes out his frustration with his odd deprecating tactic of "you suck but I suck more so I'm better" to cover over his disappointment that all he has to back up his fantasy and life spent focussing on this is a book and a few experiences

Interesting. Not entirely accurate, but at least interesting.

 

[Trent Wray]

I don't know why you keep referring to a discussion on what the Bible says about women as "religion." It has nothing to do with religion. I am talking about what Jehovah God, through his inspired writers, dictated to his people in the Bible. How religion has interpreted that in the abuse of women is another subject altogether.

This sums up the frustrative (sp) disconnect in discussing these things with you David. Religion and our own subjective interpretation of scripture is what a non-believer and most believers have to go on when discussing Jehovah God. It is what they use to assume the Bible is true. You are assuming Jehovah God is true to subjectively describe your interpretation of religion and scripture.

Interesting. Not entirely accurate, but at least interesting.

Thank you. I'm glad you're responding to my posts and that you're still in town, esp after the nonsensical attacks on you the other day that were despicable, but enlightening as to your person. So that having been said ... when will you be willing to discuss Jehovah God "freely"? That is what I'm waiting to dissect your brain about

 

[David Henson]

Why is that?

Because morality is a societal issue. It is dictated by the society you live in and the time you live in. The society of ancient Israel under the Mosaic law had their morality which was at least attempted to have been dictated by Jehovah their God. It didn't apply outside of ancient Israel and then was terminated by Jehovah due to their faithlessness and rebellious practices.

The Christian morality applies only to Christians.

If, in the society you live in and the time you live in, morality is influenced by one of those two that is only an indication that those two have influenced your morality.

So what is the issue? That women have been mistreated due to the morality of your time and place? There are many examples in both the Mosaic law as well as Christian writings that women should be respected and treated fairly. You society's abuse and misinterpretation of the Mosaic law and Christian scripture is your society's problem, not a Biblical issue as such.

 

[I Ratant]

Because morality is a societal issue. It is dictated by the society you live in and the time you live in. The society of ancient Israel under the Mosaic law had their morality which was at least attempted to have been dictated by Jehovah their God. ...

.
The nasty minded old men that enforce the law use the pretense of speaking for jehovah as their authorization for their brutalities.
It's a common thing with religions.
Crazy men hear voices, and sadly, many of these monsters are in positions of power where they can and will kill to follow the noises in their heads.

 

[David Henson]

Not according to
Matthew 5:17-19

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Better get a new couch then.

Zee

But the law was fulfilled.

Why, then, the Law? It was added to make transgressions manifest, until the seed should arrive to whom the promise had been made; and it was transmitted through angels by the hand of a mediator. Now there is no mediator where only one person is concerned, but God is only one. Is the Law, therefore, against the promises of God? May that never happen! For if a law had been given that was able to give life, righteousness would actually have been by means of law. But the Scripture delivered up all things together to the custody of sin, that the promise resulting from faith toward Jesus Christ might be given to those exercising faith.

However, before the faith arrived, we were being guarded under law, being delivered up together into custody, looking to the faith that was destined to be revealed. Consequently the Law has become our tutor leading to Christ, that we might be declared righteous due to faith. But now that the faith has arrived, we are no longer under a tutor. Galatians 3:19 - 25

For Christ is the end of the Law, so that everyone exercising faith may have righteousness. Romans 10:4

 

[Foster Zygote]

Because morality is a societal issue. It is dictated by the society you live in and the time you live in. The society of ancient Israel under the Mosaic law had their morality which was at least attempted to have been dictated by Jehovah their God. It didn't apply outside of ancient Israel and then was terminated by Jehovah due to their faithlessness and rebellious practices.

The Christian morality applies only to Christians.

If, in the society you live in and the time you live in, morality is influenced by one of those two that is only an indication that those two have influenced your morality.

So what is the issue? That women have been mistreated due to the morality of your time and place? There are many examples in both the Mosaic law as well as Christian writings that women should be respected and treated fairly. You society's abuse and misinterpretation of the Mosaic law and Christian scripture is your society's problem, not a Biblical issue as such.

According to the laws you reference, women were treated as property. They were treated as inferior to men even if there were laws governing their treatment. Are you saying that we can't judge Thomas Jefferson's ownership of slaves because he took good care of them?

There are other issues of morality raised in the Tanakh as well. The book of Joshua describes wholesale genocide. We are told that the Hebrews slaughtered women and children in their god's name. Is it inappropriate for us to judge this negatively because it arose from a different culture, a culture that justified the killing of whole families? So we can't judge the Khmer Rouge because they they thought they were doing something glorious?