kallend 2,106 #101 January 22, 2007 QuoteQuoteHeck most in the USA are running around saying the Earth is 10k years old, and certainly don't buy into evolution. This quasi-statistic of yours intrigued me, so I looked it up. Different surveys put the Yanks who don't believe in evolution at somewhere between the 1/3 to 50% range – a bit higher than I anticipated. Ah, but since I detected a whiff smugness in you post, you silly Brit, I also looked up how many Brits (silly or otherwise) don't believe evolution. Turns out it's...well, here's the quote and link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/print/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2006/01_january/26/horizon.shtml Quote Horizon survey: Britons unconvinced about theory of evolution bbc.co.uk 26.01.2006 A survey for the Horizon science strand on BBC TWO suggests that over half the population of Great Britain do not believe in the evolution theory. Furthermore, more than 40% of those surveyed believe that alternative theories to evolution - such as creationism and intelligent design - should be taught in school science classes. I daresay that more than half of the adults of any country don't have a clue about molecular biology, quantum physics, physical chemistry, or differential equations either.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #102 January 22, 2007 There is no evidence that homosexuality is any more prevalent today than in the past. However: One thing that modern society has: A large variety of different fabrics. Sometimes woven together in the same garment, ie cotton/polyester. People of modern times have more fabrics, synthetic and natural, than ever before, and are therefor FAR more likely to wear fabric blends. That is a blatant violation of Deuteronomy 22:11 "Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woolen and linen together." we're screwed. GOD HATES FABRIC-BLENDS!!! I think I'll start a new cult. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #103 January 22, 2007 Just had another thought: Our army is wearing BDUs which are typically a 50/50 cotton/nylon blend. Looks like that Westboro "Baptist Church" cult has it all wrong. Maybe next time they show up somewhere we could start a "GOD HATES FABRIC-BLENDS" counter-protest. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #104 January 22, 2007 Lets not forget that Lobster or shrimp dinner.. DUDE you are so screwed... uh.. and remember those PORK ribs you had that tasted soooo good( that must be SATAN making them taste that way) If these religieous fanatics are going to apply ONE biblical LAW.. then let them try to apply ALL of the ones found there in the Holy Book of Controlling the masses. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #105 January 22, 2007 QuoteThere is no evidence that homosexuality is any more prevalent today than in the past. However: One thing that modern society has: A large variety of different fabrics. Sometimes woven together in the same garment, ie cotton/polyester. People of modern times have more fabrics, synthetic and natural, than ever before, and are therefor FAR more likely to wear fabric blends. That is a blatant violation of Deuteronomy 22:11 "Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woolen and linen together." we're screwed. GOD HATES FABRIC-BLENDS!!! I think I'll start a new cult. But pure polyester leisure suits are OK? Even God can't have taste THAT bad.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #106 January 22, 2007 QuoteBut pure polyester leisure suits are OK? Even God can't have taste THAT bad. Please, pretty please, tell me you are being sarcastic. Those suits are Awesome, with a capital A!"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #107 January 22, 2007 QuoteQuoteBut pure polyester leisure suits are OK? Even God can't have taste THAT bad. Please, pretty please, tell me you are being sarcastic. Those suits are Awesome, with a capital A! Not only will you burn in Hell, you'll have to wear a polyester leisure suit for all eternity.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #108 January 22, 2007 well, actually the Apostle Paul specifically got rid of the dietary restrictions. But not the fabric blend thing. I think we need to start a cult. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #109 January 22, 2007 QuoteThat's not how the church interpreted it in the 1600's. What have the misinterpretations of the Catholic Church in the 1600's or even now got to do with the truth of what the Bible actually says? Quote1 Timothy 2:11-14 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 1 Corinthians 11:3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Man’s responsibility is to be the head and spiritual leader in the home and church. It does NOT imply that man is superior to woman. It is based on God’s purpose in creation. It is also based on the disastrous consequences when men and women do not follow their God given roles in the covenant relationship of marriage as defined by God. Adam and Eve were obviously neglecting their respective responsibilities and were not working together for God’s glory during their massive transgression. They were thinking of themselves. Abuse of one’s particular station only can occur when that husband or wife does not understand the type of relationship God had in mind for them and the depth of responsibility to each other that it entails. God’s model for marriage: QuoteSubmitting yourselves one to another in fear of God. Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body. Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, AND gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So aught men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loves his wife loves himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourishes and cherishes it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let every one of your in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband. Ephesians 5:21-33 (emphasis added) There is harmony in marriage if this covenant relationship is observed. Neither is superior or inferior. They are equal as the South is to the North Pole. The uniqueness of each brings completeness to the union. Adam in Genesis said, this is now bone of my bones (strength) and flesh of my flesh (weakness). One compliments the other. There is fulfillment and balance. There should be solidarity in the union because both husband and wife are one flesh making up a whole. The problems that have always existed in marriage stem from the selfishness of one or both. QuoteThe only real argument against the Bible is an unholy life. When a man argues against the Word of God, follow him home, and see if you cannot discover the reason of his enmity to the Word of the Lord. It lies in some sort of sin. --Charles Spurgeon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #110 January 22, 2007 Gee how freaking convienient for the PATRIARCHAL society of the Old Testament.... that was trying to overcome many surrounding Matriarchal cultures...Goddess worship was rampant amoung them. Those societies in most part had been peacefull for thousands of years. Peaceful is NOT something that can be used to describe for ANY Patriarchal society since then. It was also a way for those men to ASSURE who their line of succesion was from. God forbid ANY MAN should have to raise any genes other than his own. Perhaps the Levite priestly caste wanted something in their Bible to control all those heathens who had formally worshiped the Goddess in surrounding societies. As I have said before.. Perhaps the word of GOD as written by 3000 year old sheepherders has been perveted to justify the subjugation of other races and certainly women.. because Christ certainly did not teach that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,072 #111 January 22, 2007 > It does NOT imply that man is superior to woman. The passage says man is superior explicitly. It doesn't imply it. Woman is inferior to man due to her role in causing Adam so miuch trouble. Again, you can disagree; that's fine. I agree with your take on it. But you are disagreeing with something that the Bible states explicitly. It's not an allegory, or a parable. It's a statement of who is above whom in a relationship, and about who is permitted to speak and who is not. From The Presbyterian, 1919: ---------------------------------------- It is important to observe, now, that the pivot on which the injunction of these verses turns is not the prohibition of speaking so much as the command of silence. That is the main injunction. The prohibition of speech is introduced only to explain the meaning more fully. What Paul says is in brief: "Let the women keep silent in the churches." That surely is direct and specific enough for all needs. He then adds explanatorily: "For it is not permitted to them to speak." "It is not permitted" is an appeal to a general law, valid apart from Paul's personal command, and looks back to the opening phrase — "as in all the churches of the saints." He is only requiring the Corinthian women to conform to the general law of the churches. And that is the meaning of the almost bitter words that he adds in verse 36, in which — reproaching them for the innovation of permitting women to speak in the churches — he reminds them that they are not the authors of the Gospel, nor are they its sole possessors: let them keep to the law that binds the whole body of churches and not be seeking some newfangled way of their own. The intermediate verses only make it plain that precisely what the apostle is doing is forbidding women to speak at all in the church. His injunction of silence he pushes so far that he forbids them even to ask questions; and adds with special reference to that, but through that to the general matter, the crisp declaration that "it is indecent" — for that is the meaning of the word — "for a woman to speak in church." It would be impossible for the apostle to speak more directly or more emphatically than he has done here. He requires women to be silent at the church meetings; for that is what "in the churches" means, there were no church buildings then. And he has not left us in doubt as to the nature of these church meetings. He had just described them in verses 26ff. They were of the general character of our prayer meetings. Note the words "let him be silent in the church" in verse 30, and compare them with "let them be silent in the churches" in verse 34. The prohibition of women speaking covers thus all public church meetings — it is the publicity, not the formality of it, which is the point. And he tells us repeatedly that this is the universal law of the church. He does more than that. He tells us that it is the commandment of the Lord, and emphasizes the word "Lord" (verse 37). ----------------------------------------------------- Now, our morality has evolved a bit, and now we think it's OK for women to speak in church, despite a very clearly worded proscription in the Bible. Given that, I have a feeling that someday homosexuality (which does NOT have such an explicitly worded prohibition) will be accepted as well. Morality has evolved and will continue to do so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #112 January 22, 2007 QuoteAs I have said before.. Perhaps the word of GOD as written by 3000 year old sheepherders has been perveted to justify the subjugation of other races and certainly women.. because Christ certainly did not teach that. I agree that the Word of God has been perverted by many in the past for their selfish gain. Their lawlessness, however, does not diminish the Law. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #113 January 22, 2007 Quote as written by 3000 year old sheepherders has Strangely enough, they had lousy diets and didn't exercise enough. Other than that, good clean living and clean air seemed to do the trick. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #114 January 22, 2007 QuotePerhaps the word of GOD as written by 3000 year old sheepherders Luke wasn't a sheepherder. Anyway, anyone who's actually taken the time to read the Bible couldn't say that its authors were ignorant or uneducated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #115 January 22, 2007 QuoteQuote as written by 3000 year old sheepherders has Strangely enough, they had lousy diets and didn't exercise enough. Other than that, good clean living and clean air seemed to do the trick. Or was is something special, something special with the sheep, ... "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #116 January 22, 2007 QuoteQuote as written by 3000 year old sheepherders has Strangely enough, they had lousy diets and didn't exercise enough. Other than that, good clean living and clean air seemed to do the trick. You missed a crucial component. While good clean living and clean air likely played a part, I don't think such longevity would be possible without sheep. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #117 January 22, 2007 You guys are just LOOKING for reasons to play up farm animals, aren't you? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #118 January 22, 2007 Do you realize how many fences there are in today's world that sheep need help getting through?? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #119 January 22, 2007 QuoteWhat have the misinterpretations of the Catholic Church in the 1600's or even now got to do with the truth of what the Bible actually says? THEIR interpretation = a MISinterpretation. YOUR interpretation = The Truth. How convenient. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #120 January 22, 2007 Didn't the whole apocalypse thingy happen like a few hundred times already? Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #121 January 22, 2007 QuoteTHEIR interpretation = a MISinterpretation. YOUR interpretation = The Truth. How convenient. It's not what it means to you. It's not what it means to me. It's about what it means. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #122 January 22, 2007 QuoteQuoteTHEIR interpretation = a MISinterpretation. YOUR interpretation = The Truth. How convenient. It's not what it means to you. It's not what it means to me. It's about what it means. ...which is all a matter of interpretation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,072 #123 January 23, 2007 >It's not what it means to you. >It's not what it means to me. >It's about what it means. No, it's really not. It's about what it means TO YOU. Brilliant theologians centuries ago came to very different conclusions than you do about the meaning of the Bible. Since they disagree with you, are they wrong? Do you know more about christianity than, say, several popes? Were the various popes wrong too? I would argue that it really doesn't matter. The details don't matter, nor does it matter whether you agree with my, or Kris's, or Urban II's interpretation of the Bible. What matters is what you take from it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #124 January 23, 2007 QuoteQuoteTHEIR interpretation = a MISinterpretation. YOUR interpretation = The Truth. How convenient. It's not what it means to you. It's not what it means to me. It's about what it means. Someone needs to watch "The Life of Brian".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #125 January 23, 2007 QuoteNo, it's really not. It's about what it means TO YOU. Brilliant theologians centuries ago came to very different conclusions than you do about the meaning of the Bible. Since they disagree with you, are they wrong? Do you know more about christianity than, say, several popes? Were the various popes wrong too? I would argue that it really doesn't matter. The details don't matter, nor does it matter whether you agree with my, or Kris's, or Urban II's interpretation of the Bible. What matters is what you take from it. Much of Catholic tradition is not Biblical at all. It's just Catholic tradition. But that's another topic. Good hermeneutics is necessary in order to properly undertand scripture. Critical analysis verses the subjective "what does it mean to me?" or "what can I change it to work for me?" By your analogy, textual criticism, historicity, proper translation, context doesn't matter. It's all what it means to me. If I'm ok with that, then whatever makes me happy. Is that responsible? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
