Love in the New Testament... (homosexual, evolution, gnostic, bible)

[zombieharlot]

Originally Posted by Buttons*

what other kind is there?

Well, I assume you're asking me to find somewhere in the Bible where it actually says that sometimes, "man," refers to mankind. It doesn't say anything as concretely as that. It's more grammatical proof, which people tend to think is very shoddy for whatever reason. When the Bible says, "man," as a term to refer to a general group of people, it seems to be talking about mankind as it would gramatically be incorrect otherwise as man is a singular term. When the Bible actually says, "men," I believe it's only referring to males.

[Buttons*]

Originally Posted by zombieharlot

Well, I assume you're asking me to find somewhere in the Bible where it actually says that sometimes, "man," refers to mankind. It doesn't say anything as concretely as that. It's more grammatical proof, which people tend to think is very shoddy for whatever reason. When the Bible says, "man," as a term to refer to a general group of people, it seems to be talking about mankind as it would gramatically be incorrect otherwise as man is a singular term. When the Bible actually says, "men," I believe it's only referring to males.

I think it's all about context, naturally. According to Jewish custom, though, it's not as if women were equal to men. In either case if "man" did mean to say "mankind" ... then it's still all about the men, isnt it? In Jewish theology, women aren't much better off in terms of being considered as people and not property. At least, that's what I read in the good book. If we're going by tradition to determine the terminology, anyway.

So yeah, I think that women were only important for makin babies.... so why would it matter if they could love? How would they be included in "mankind?"

[zombieharlot]

Originally Posted by Buttons*

According to Jewish custom, though, it's not as if women were equal to men.

Do you have proof?

In Jewish theology, women aren't much better off in terms of being considered as people and not property. At least, that's what I read in the good book.

And where do you specifically read that?

[Buttons*]

Originally Posted by zombieharlot

Do you have proof?

read history

And where do you specifically read that?

Any time God allows a "chosen" man of his to have more than one wife and conqubines. I take it to mean they're possessions

[angellous_evangellous]

Interesting reponses.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

Well, my dear Angellous, the reason for it is quite simple: Women are incapable of true love. You see, women do not really love -- they merely desire or lust or wish to possess. Men, on the other hand, can truly love. That's why homosexual relationships between men are superior to heterosexual relationships between men and women. It is also why marriage between a man and a woman should be outlawed and marriage between a man and a man legalized. The proof is the Bible itself.

Precisely. I think that's exactly the point of view that the Bible was written from... that women are so inferior that sex between males is idealized. The Bible doesn't quite take it this far, but that's what the Greek philosophers did who created and sustained the tradition of the inferiority of women that the NT obviously espouses.

I think that the church as the "bride of Christ" in Ephesians 5 is further evidence of this. It highlights the inferiority of Christ using the inferiority of women as an example.

[Buttons*]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

Precisely. I think that's exactly the point of view that the Bible was written from... that women are so inferior that sex between males is idealized. The Bible doesn't quite take it this far, but that's what the Greek philosophers did who created and sustained the tradition of the inferiority of women that the NT obviously espouses.

I think that the church as the "bride of Christ" in Ephesians 5 is further evidence of this. It highlights the inferiority of Christ using the inferiority of women as an example.

Do you think the NT has more of a Greek feel than a Jewish one? I know about the greek Philosophers who slept together because they believed that knowledge could be passed through intimacy. (It kind of makes sense, I've been attracted to people I learn from...) But after what Yeshua did, I think it's almost ignorant to say that he enforced "guy love"

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Buttons*

Do you think the NT has more of a Greek feel than a Jewish one? I know about the greek Philosophers who slept together because they believed that knowledge could be passed through intimacy. (It kind of makes sense, I've been attracted to people I learn from...) But after what Yeshua did, I think it's almost ignorant to say that he enforced "guy love"

It's a mix. In my studies, I emphasize more the Greek aspects.