|
|
Post by FishBait on Feb 22, 2004 20:43:20 GMT -5
Found this on a friend's xanga site and thought you guys might appreciate it...
An engineering professor is treating her husband, a loan officer, to dinner for finally giving in to her pleas to shave off the scraggly beard he grew on vacation. His favorite restaurant is a casual place where they both feel comfortable in slacks and cotton/polyester-blend golf shirts. But, as always, she wears the gold and pearl pendant he gave her the day her divorce decree was final. They're laughing over their menus because they know he always ends up diving into a giant plate of ribs but she won't be talked into anything more fattening than shrimp.
Quiz: How many biblical prohibitions are they violating? Well, wives are supposed to be 'submissive' to their husbands (I Peter 3:1). And all women are forbidden to teach men (I Timothy 2:12), wear gold or pearls (I Timothy 2:9) or dress in clothing that 'pertains to a man' (Deuteronomy 22:5). Shellfish and pork are definitely out (Leviticus 11:7, 10) as are usury (Deuteronomy 23:19), shaving (Leviticus 19:27) and clothes of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19). And since the Bible rarely recognizes divorce, they're committing adultery, which carries the rather harsh penalty of death by stoning (Deuteronomy 22:22).
So why are they having such a good time? Probably because they wouldn't think of worrying about rules that seem absurd, anachronistic or - at best - unrealistic. Yet this same modern-day couple could easily be among the millions of Americans who never hesitate to lean on the Bible to justify their own anti-gay attitudes. ~Deb Price, And Say Hi To Joyce
|
|
Magonus
Proliferator of Blasphemy
Posts: 34
|
Post by Magonus on Feb 24, 2004 12:01:04 GMT -5
I Timothy 2:9 - Read in context (love how people pull out single verses) it means that women shouldn't put stock in such things, not that they should outright not wear them.
I Timothy 2:12 - At the time, women were not very educated. Hence they had "no right" (for lack of a better term) to think themselves smarter than their husbands and try to make decisions for them.
I Peter 3:1 - Pretty much the same as I Timothy 2:12
As for the Leviticus and Deuteronomy references, it mentions in the New Testament several times that the laws of old need not be kept, for Jesus has come to fulfill those laws and give to men a new set of laws to keep in their hearts (paraphrase, I can't find the exact passage).
-Magonus
|
|
|
|
Post by profdunebastard on Feb 24, 2004 12:10:43 GMT -5
If the laws of the Ot need not be kept, then why is it included with the new. why are people encouraged to read it, why do people use it to justify hatred against homosexuals?
Maybe it is because when the gospels were being compiled and people wanted to convert pagans, things like circumciscion, food laws, and other jewish rules weren't appealing to heathens so a spin was put on the NT so that one could bypass being a jew but still being a christer,which helped swell the ranks of Christianity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Valvilis on Feb 24, 2004 13:23:21 GMT -5
Yep, I love when people quote the bible out of context.
Matthew 5:17-19 reads:
17 `Do not suppose that I came to throw down the law or the prophets -- I did not come to throw down, but to fulfill;
18 for, verily I say to you, till that the heaven and the earth may pass away, one iota or one tittle may not pass away from the law, till that all may come to pass.
19 `Whoever therefore may loose one of these commands -- the least -- and may teach men so, least he shall be called in the reign of the heavens, but whoever may do and may teach [them], he shall be called great in the reign of the heavens.
And then Jesus goes on to specifically mention murder, adultry, lying, an eye for an eye, and loving your neighbors. Are you seriously suggesting that it was Jesus' intent to render all of these laws void? Not only did he clearly state otherwise, but the examples given could not make the situation any clearer. Apologists have tried relentlessly to make your argument and religious scholars have consistantly ruined them time and time again. Jesus never made the claim you seem so eager to have release you from responsibility.
|
|
Magonus
Proliferator of Blasphemy
Posts: 34
|
Post by Magonus on Feb 24, 2004 15:13:12 GMT -5
Not that all of these laws would be made void, but that some of them need not be kept. There were many that He did not make mention of in the New Testament (ie eating pork, shellfish, laws concerning slavery, cutting of beards).
-Magonus
|
|
|
|
Post by profdunebastard on Feb 24, 2004 15:38:43 GMT -5
How convenient that laws he didn't make mention of require less a change of lifestyle for wavering pagans on the brink of conversion than ones he did. How convenient that the argument is open enough to never have a full answer, that different sectd of judeo-crhristiandom can have so many different interpretations. How convenient that Jesus isn't around to clarify for us....unless of course we pray and take the interpretation on faith alone. How convenient that faith is incredibly hard to verify, test, and standardize then. Thank God for the miracle of that convenience.
|
|
|
|
Post by FishBait on Feb 25, 2004 12:25:03 GMT -5
I Timothy 2:9 - Read in context (love how people pull out single verses) it means that women shouldn't put stock in such things, not that they should outright not wear them. I Timothy 2:12 - At the time, women were not very educated. Hence they had "no right" (for lack of a better term) to think themselves smarter than their husbands and try to make decisions for them. I Peter 3:1 - Pretty much the same as I Timothy 2:12 As for the Leviticus and Deuteronomy references, it mentions in the New Testament several times that the laws of old need not be kept, for Jesus has come to fulfill those laws and give to men a new set of laws to keep in their hearts (paraphrase, I can't find the exact passage). -Magonus I hope you're not trying to justify that the bible says women should be submissive to their man, their is no justification to that, you can say they weren't educated, but then the problem comes as why weren't they allowed to be educated, the fact that the bible explicitly states things like women shouldn't teach and should be submissive to their husbands is like flat out saying it agrees that women are inferior and shouldn't be taught or treated as equals, and furthermore whether or not women have the education or not is no reason to be submissive to their husbands, that passage used to be used as a reason for women to stay with husbands that beat them, that utterly disgusts me and i hope you wouldn't say in that situation that if the man went to college and the woman didn't he had every right to beat her because he had a better education |
|
|
|
Post by Valvilis on Feb 25, 2004 18:21:50 GMT -5
Yeah, let's be all surprised that our resident Christian troll is a bigot. Who could have possibly seen that coming? Didn't he start here on an anti-gay trip, or was that our other misogynist, racist, wasp-loving homophobe? I kind of miss Sparky...
|
|
Magonus
Proliferator of Blasphemy
Posts: 34
|
Post by Magonus on Feb 27, 2004 11:09:23 GMT -5
One thing, some of the laws were explicitely struck down (what food was and wasn't allowed to be eaten, off the top of my head). Also, God originally wasn't going to give the Jews a list of laws, instead telling them to follow the laws of their hearts (conscience). But they begged Him and He finally gave them the laws they asked for (as well as a king, which they wanted). That, and many of the laws were structured for the type of society the Jews would be living in at that time, hundreds of years before the birth of Jesus. By that time, they were under Roman law, anyways. Understanding this, it makes more sense for Jesus to not demand strict obedience to Leviticus and Deuteronomy, but to rather teach people to follow their conscience, which doesn't contain loopholes (not one hundred percent sure, but quite possibly a reason the ancient Jews wanted written laws).
As for the accusations (which you still seem to love, oh so much, val), yes I am against homo-sexuality. Racist? Gonna have to call you there. I've been accused of it before for being against affirmative action, but that's because I'm against racism. And a mysogonist? Honestly now. While I'm against giving them the right to murder their own children, I'm all for women's rights otherwise. I must confess, I'm not sure what WASP stands for though.
-Magonus
|
|
|
|
Post by Valvilis on Feb 27, 2004 15:16:57 GMT -5
Maggie, none of that was about you. We had another troll once, actually a little worse than you, or at least, he was more honest about who he was.
"or was that our other misogynist, racist, wasp-loving homophobe? I kind of miss Sparky..."
To be fair, I can see how one might take that as sarcasm of sorts, but I was serious.
That being said, I have no doubt though that youare indeed a racist and misogynist. Sheer genius: "I'm against affirmative action because I'm against racism." I think we would all love to hear you justify that one. Anti abortion rigts and anti affirative action, you sound like a real feminist there, big guy. Besides, something tells me you buy into all the anti-women crap in the bible as well, at least the NT stuff.
If you're going to troll our board and offer nothing of worth, at least be honest about who you are. You come here to argue for the numero-uno biggoted religion and then try to play yourself off as a ACLU poster child full of understanding and compassion. Seriously, you know better, we certainly know better, who are you trying to impress?
|
|
