Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Craychek · 10-11-2009, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by renassault

I guess in your wisdom of discernment you forgot to realize that what you quoted are not actually PAUL's words but someone ELSE's misinterpretations of marriage.

ummmm.... her post DID include PAUL's words... that's what the article she linked to used as justification for the fact that there is no marital rape. :banghead:

Several parts of pauls epistiles specifically target women and demean them, making it very clear that they are lesser than men, such as the passages that forbids them to teach and forbids them to speak during services. :constern02:

In the old testament this is further noted in a whole host of passages including several that speficy punishments for women who break these "laws."

Would I go so far as to say it's a violent men's club? probably not, the violent part, but it is definitely geared toward giving men the power and subjegating women.

On a more humorous note. Upon further reading of that passage from paul, it says that the wifes body is no longer her's but her husbands, and it ALSO says right after that that the husband's body is no longer his and that it is his wifes... soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo, if his wife wants to get some 5 times a day, he has no choice but do it... not that most men would mind though :devil1:

DCHindley · 10-12-2009, 05:33 AM

Wouldn't that deplete the man's "essence?"*

DCH

*General Jack D. Ripper: "A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works ... Well, I ... first became aware of it ... during the physical act of love. ... Yes, ... a profound sense of fatigue ... a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily ... I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of essence. ... I do not avoid women ... But ... I do deny them my essence."
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: "Hmm."

Dr Strangelove, 1964, a most scholarly work

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craychek

Quote:

Originally Posted by renassault

I guess in your wisdom of discernment you forgot to realize that what you quoted are not actually PAUL's words but someone ELSE's misinterpretations of marriage.

ummmm.... On a more humorous note. Upon further reading of that passage from paul, it says that the wifes body is no longer her's but her husbands, and it ALSO says right after that that the husband's body is no longer his and that it is his wifes... soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo, if his wife wants to get some 5 times a day, he has no choice but do it... not that most men would mind though :devil1:

Joan of Bark · 10-12-2009, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by renassault

Umm..verses 16:9-20 are not authentic..it won't go to any credibility.

Glad to see you confirm something atheists have known for a long time ... that Jesus was only preaching to His fellow Jews. His message was not meant for gentiles.

skepticdude · 10-15-2009, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by gdeering

Just when you thought things could not get any weirder. Take a look:
via: Bible for the Right.

I didn't see any links from this "report" -- more a jeer -- to the sources of their information; only links to other sites which were also jeering. This isn't reportage.

Even from the material supposedly quoted (without attribution or indication of authorship) I can see that the objective is to resist corruption, not introduce it; and some bits of that material look as if someone has decided to troll what is said to be a wiki.

If we propose to discuss someone, and still more attack them, let's do it honestly and for views they hold, rather than ones attributed to them by their enemies.

Ok, you are sure the Judaizers in Paul's day were wrong, but the only way you know what they believed is for views attributed to them by their enemies (Paul and the author of Acts).

Roger Pearse · 10-16-2009, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skepticdude

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I didn't see any links from this "report" -- more a jeer -- to the sources of their information; only links to other sites which were also jeering. This isn't reportage.

Even from the material supposedly quoted (without attribution or indication of authorship) I can see that the objective is to resist corruption, not introduce it; and some bits of that material look as if someone has decided to troll what is said to be a wiki.

If we propose to discuss someone, and still more attack them, let's do it honestly and for views they hold, rather than ones attributed to them by their enemies.

Ok, you are sure the Judaizers in Paul's day were wrong, but the only way you know what they believed is for views attributed to them by their enemies (Paul and the author of Acts).

??

Toto · 11-04-2009, 10:34 AM

Update: this news story reports on reactions of actual text critics and translators

Quote:

Asked who he believes is responsible for politicizing the Holy Scriptures, Schlafly is quick to respond: "Professors are behind these liberal translations. Most translations are done by professors at very liberal institutions. These are people who voted for Obama by an 80 or 90 percent majority. We all know what professors are like at schools these days."

The Bible has undergone more than 450 English translations since the seventh century. According to Patterson [Steve Patterson, a professor of New Testament at Eden Theological Seminary in Webster Groves], translators employed by mainstream groups such as the American Bible Society come from "across the ideological spectrum" and engage in a rigorous review process. It can take years to reword a single phrase.

"They tend to be very conservative," Patterson says. "Mr. Schlafly might scoff and say they're liberal intellectuals, but you have to meet people who do text criticism to understand what I'm saying. They're not marching in the streets. They're purists. It's not that they don't make decisions that you or I would disagree with. But it's not because they're ideologically biased in the way Mr. Schlafly is."

Fenris_Wulf · 11-05-2009, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WilliamFearless

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Will-less, I see in your name ... "I am fear." Hmmm, interesting cryptogram.

What the heck is that supposed to mean? :huh:

Will fear "I Am" less?:devil1:

You don't fear YHWY?

Toto · 11-19-2009, 06:06 PM

From Bibleinterp.com

How Stupid Is The Conservative Bible Project? part 2

Dani · 12-03-2009, 05:32 AM

The story of a new online project "to create a Bible suitable for contemporary conservative sensibilities..."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091203/...ervative_bible

The Bronze Age book gets another make-over. And people accept it's still the inerrant word of God?

DancesWithCoffeeCups · 12-03-2009, 05:45 AM

Merging into already existing thread in BC&H.

12-03-2009, 05:32 AM	#39
Dani Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Spring Green, WI USA Posts: 247	Blessed are the conservative in Bible translation The story of a new online project "to create a Bible suitable for contemporary conservative sensibilities..." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091203/...ervative_bible The Bronze Age book gets another make-over. And people accept it's still the inerrant word of God?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-19-2009, 06:06 PM	#38
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	From Bibleinterp.com How Stupid Is The Conservative Bible Project? part 2

12-03-2009, 05:45 AM	#40
DancesWithCoffeeCups Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Pacific Northwest Posts: 8,077	Merging into already existing thread in BC&H.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.