Reply With Quote
They all seem pretty direct tbh
"Women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be submissive, as the law also says." If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)
"Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her as a covering." (1 Corinthians 11:13-15)
"But if ... evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones..." (Deuteronomy 22:20,21)
"One of illegitimate birth shall not enter the congregation of the Lord." (Deuteronomy 23:2)
"If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to , into the fire that shall never be quenched." (Mark 9:43)
"Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel. " (1 Peter 2:18)
Thanks and God bless
They all seem pretty direct tbh
Well we haven't had one of these in a long time.
Praise the Lord son
That verse from Deuteronomy is pretty much the basis for the fable of the immaculate conception.
Bas s were frowned upon in those days and why admit youre a bas when you can just make people believe it was god that knocked mom up.
Jesus would have had to grow up in a very hostile environment being born without a father in jewish culture 2000 years ago.
Not to mention Mary would have been stoned son.....anyone with a brain knows Joseph was his father. God bless
Religion is stupid
Amen brother.
What's wrong with this one?
Women always were the second
And it should stay that way
Stupid thread from Amarelooms=all is right with the world.
I'm a Muslim.
another crappy 'religion' thread in the club full of the usual cliche responses and 'arguments'. how original.
translation:
those parts dont count!
All ancient, mainstream religions deny women equality with men, which of course Mr. God supports 100% and Mr. Christ confirmed every time He opened His mouth.
i hope you're better at your day job than you are at trying to ascertain one's views on religion.translation:
those parts dont count!
my post was a commentary on how poorly equipped many of the posters on this site are when it comes to 'discussions' of philosophy, religion or politics. to which you demonstrated that point quite refulgently.
enlighten us oh wise one
if you're looking for enlightenment go back to the 1700's. it's a bit ahead of most of the content in these parts.
Last edited by rjv; 10-12-2010 at 01:49 PM.
Get off your high horse dummy and go read your bible
If you are going to bash a teaching, at least know what it is.
lol at you....no way to rationalize it dummy. Blind sheep just ignore the parts that don't work and keep spewing the other bull parts. If there is a God I pray he punishes the morons who blindly follow and never question anything....
To be fair, ploto, immaculate conception has different meanings, depending on the branch of Christianity. Some sects believe it refers exclusively to the conception of Christ, others the conception of Mary, so that she was born without sin and therefore able to be the vessel to bear Christ.
As for what is wrong with the verse on women, well, har dee har har. It goes against the scriptures which explicitly put women on the same plane as men, and scriptures which note that both women and men are created in the image of god, that creation was incomplete without women and ignores the historical data about the place women occupied in the early church. Paul was a misogynist; that's no secret.
Actually Locke is an example of how unenlightened the 1700's were.
His premise of the state of nature is so unbelievably stupid and his biblical literalism is not an an example of free, lucid thought.
Two Treatise on Government is laughable. It was just widely accepted because thought control and antiroyalist sentiments were all the rage 3 centuries ago.
Oh and Bertrand Russell says you 1732.
Last edited by FuzzyLumpkins; 10-12-2010 at 07:50 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
