Is gullibility a virtue in Christianity?

Audie said:

My question is how one goes about extending love
to every bacteria-germ. Sounds kind of ridiculous
and awful diffuse.

My doubet-major BS degree included biology, I am
not insensitive to the nature of life.

I am awed by it, but "love" in this connection does
not compute for me.

Click to expand...

I see the problem. I was referencing the word love as used by Jesus and in particular love thy enemy. Clearly this is not romantic love, not the love of a mother to their children, and not love of family and friends. In this case the word refers extending an understanding or compassion to those may dislike or want to do harm to you. The reason for this is to break the cycle of hate and violence. Compassion and understanding can be powerful ways to break this cycle. That is how I understand this use of the term love - to stop the hate. There is no reason we cannot extend this to all life even those we may find less lovable.

sojourner said:

This failed to address my post with the exception of this small piece:

Why should it not be morally right that a woman be head of household, if married? Women are equal to men in all ways. Oh! Unless you’re being held hostage to some moral standard prevalent in the Bible, but certainly not applicable today.

Click to expand...

In what way did it fail to address your post?

Please read carefully...

I said:

I know some don't like to read the scriptures, but I encourage you to read both those I quoted, and those I didn't, because they all deny what you claim... Unless you prefer I quote them for you. I can do that if you want. No problem. Just let me know.

Click to expand...

I also said:

I don't deny something without having a reference to support what I am denying, so perhaps you should put up a quote, rather than just make statements with no support, because then I don't know where you got it from, or if it's just your view.

Click to expand...

To make clear...
You said (red)...
Well, your post asked about the Bible. According to biblical precedent (which came from the cultures that produced it),
women could not own property, Wrong. Scriptural support, please. I also addressed this with scripture.
they could not become religious scholars, Wrong. Scriptural support, please. I also addressed this with scripture. What a religious scholar to you anyway?
they were not allowed to study Torah, Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Scriptural support, please. I also addressed this with scripture. Here is another - Deuteronomy 6:4-7
they were not allowed to be the head of family, A woman can be the head of her family as long as there is no father, or husband in her household.*
they could not worship in the Temple proper. Wrong. Oh boy. Is this for real? Scriptural support, please. Explain proper please.
Women’s righteousness came through their husbands — not by their own merits. What? Dead Wrong. Scriptural support, please.
If a woman could not get pregnant, there was something spiritually wrong with her — it was never the man’s fault for being impotent. Wrong. Definitely need scriptural support, please.
Additionally, in that culture, women embodied shame, men embodied honor. And that sentiment is found in several places in the Bible, such as (and I know you’ll disagree with me, but here it is anyway, because it’s the truth) the injunction in Leviticus against homosexual acts. Notice, for example, that the OT never speaks out against lesbianism, because women are already inherently shameful. Dead Wrong. Say what?. Also, please note that the Bible is both the Hebrew scriptures (What people refer to as OT) and Greek scriptures (What people refer to as NT), so no cherry picking. I provided scripture that denies this.
Only male acts are spoken out against. Dead Wrong. There are hundreds of scriptures that deny this.
As for your Genesis reference, please note that the woman was taken out of man. That assumes an inherent subordination. Wrong again. I addressed this... twice.

Now we are here again, please show me that one moral stance that does not appear in at least the OT Bible - yes, that's what we started with - the Bible. No cheating please, and is recognized in most civilized societies.

*A woman reasonably cannot be equal to a man in everything.
It would be ridiculous to expect that she could drive the car at the same time her husband is driving.
It would be ridiculous to expect that she could share the male bathroom with her husband.
It would be ridiculous to expect that she could share the presidency with her husband.
Equally doesn't mean being in the driver's seat at the same time.

Pride, and immodesty are not virtues, and are thus immoral.
Humility, and modesty are virtues, and thus morally right.

A humble person recognizes that to have order, there usually is an arrangement in place. Even though a woman equally works to protect the family, the husband takes the lead in protecting the family, while the wife supports him, and the children do not try to be parents, but recognize the authority of their parents.

So if women today are crying out for equality in regard to not having an orderly household, by claiming rights for control, and to be an authority figure, that right there is a sad reality of the low morals in this world today - pride and immodesty.

If you want to run with that one, go right ahead. It doesn't change the deplorable morals evident in this world.
However, this is evidently a feminist right that lies with a minority of women pursuing selfish pride.

nPeace said:

You mentioned all found in the Bible, and all barely alive with the few God fearing people found in societies today, and none promoted by this world that you rightly described as a mess, because of this very reason - lacking morals.
Where sacrifice fits in there is odd though, because sacrificing isn't virtuous in all cases, and then there is wisdom, which isn't true wisdom, depending on the angle we are looking at it from.

Click to expand...

The morals/values I mentioned are found in most human societies both those who believe in the bible and those who do not. They are values not given by god but understood by people and to be common to humans to be important. Unfortunately too many of us forget how important these values are to live by. Sacrifice (not the ritualistic form) is what people do for the good of family or others in the society. We need to make sacrifices for the good of our world and extend our family to include our non-human relatives.

Wild Fox said:

The morals/values I mentioned are found in most human societies both those who believe in the bible and those who do not. They are values not given by god but understood by people and to be common to humans to be important. Unfortunately too many of us forget how important these values are to live by. Sacrifice (not the ritualistic form) is what people do for the good of family or others in the society. We need to make sacrifices for the good of our world and extend our family to include our non-human relatives.

Click to expand...

You mean the sacrifices for one nation of humanity over another nation of humanity. I understand.
You still can't seem to give me one example

not given by god but understood by people and to be common to humans to be important.

Click to expand...

Only one. That's all I ask.

nPeace said:

You mean the sacrifices for one nation of humanity over another nation of humanity. I understand.
You still can't seem to give me one example
Only one. That's all I ask.

Click to expand...

No I mean the sacrifices of an individual for the benefit of others. This is seen in Mother for their children both in humans and animals. Sacrifice of time and resources. There are lots of examples.

Wild Fox said:

I see the problem. I was referencing the word love as used by Jesus and in particular love thy enemy. Clearly this is not romantic love, not the love of a mother to their children, and not love of family and friends. In this case the word refers extending an understanding or compassion to those may dislike or want to do harm to you. The reason for this is to break the cycle of hate and violence. Compassion and understanding can be powerful ways to break this cycle. That is how I understand this use of the term love - to stop the hate. There is no reason we cannot extend this to all life even those we may find less lovable.

Click to expand...

I like the idea of "break the cycle". I could have done
fine without the violence visited on me.

If the man had been loving and compassionate,
then it would not have happened.

I've no criticism of your idealism.

As for respect all life, I do try to, but
I still brush my teeth.

I am vegetarian, on the idea that the
way to be kind to animals it by not
eating them. I rescue indoor spiders,
and put them outside.

I am far from a Christian, but if I were,
I might see the garden of eden story
as a prophecy, not history.

nPeace said:

In what way did it fail to address your post?

Please read carefully...



To make clear...
You said (red)...
Well, your post asked about the Bible. According to biblical precedent (which came from the cultures that produced it),
women could not own property, Wrong. Scriptural support, please. I also addressed this with scripture.
they could not become religious scholars, Wrong. Scriptural support, please. I also addressed this with scripture. What a religious scholar to you anyway?
they were not allowed to study Torah, Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Scriptural support, please. I also addressed this with scripture. Here is another - Deuteronomy 6:4-7
they were not allowed to be the head of family, A woman can be the head of her family as long as there is no father, or husband in her household.*
they could not worship in the Temple proper. Wrong. Oh boy. Is this for real? Scriptural support, please. Explain proper please.
Women’s righteousness came through their husbands — not by their own merits. What? Dead Wrong. Scriptural support, please.
If a woman could not get pregnant, there was something spiritually wrong with her — it was never the man’s fault for being impotent. Wrong. Definitely need scriptural support, please.
Additionally, in that culture, women embodied shame, men embodied honor. And that sentiment is found in several places in the Bible, such as (and I know you’ll disagree with me, but here it is anyway, because it’s the truth) the injunction in Leviticus against homosexual acts. Notice, for example, that the OT never speaks out against lesbianism, because women are already inherently shameful. Dead Wrong. Say what?. Also, please note that the Bible is both the Hebrew scriptures (What people refer to as OT) and Greek scriptures (What people refer to as NT), so no cherry picking. I provided scripture that denies this.
Only male acts are spoken out against. Dead Wrong. There are hundreds of scriptures that deny this.
As for your Genesis reference, please note that the woman was taken out of man. That assumes an inherent subordination. Wrong again. I addressed this... twice.

Now we are here again, please show me that one moral stance that does not appear in at least the OT Bible - yes, that's what we started with - the Bible. No cheating please, and is recognized in most civilized societies.

*A woman reasonably cannot be equal to a man in everything.
It would be ridiculous to expect that she could drive the car at the same time her husband is driving.
It would be ridiculous to expect that she could share the male bathroom with her husband.
It would be ridiculous to expect that she could share the presidency with her husband.
Equally doesn't mean being in the driver's seat at the same time.

Pride, and immodesty are not virtues, and are thus immoral.
Humility, and modesty are virtues, and thus morally right.

A humble person recognizes that to have order, there usually is an arrangement in place. Even though a woman equally works to protect the family, the husband takes the lead in protecting the family, while the wife supports him, and the children do not try to be parents, but recognize the authority of their parents.

So if women today are crying out for equality in regard to not having an orderly household, by claiming rights for control, and to be an authority figure, that right there is a sad reality of the low morals in this world today - pride and immodesty.

If you want to run with that one, go right ahead. It doesn't change the deplorable morals evident in this world.
However, this is evidently a feminist right that lies with a minority of women pursuing selfish pride.

Click to expand...

Repeating “wrongwrongwrongwrong” doesn’t constitute an argument. Apparently you believe that the Bible is the only authority for ancient, Judaic cultural norms. If so, we’re not going to get very far. My assertions come from graduate biblical studies, and have been culled from various textbooks and lectures on the subject.

Your example of equality are predicated upon two people occupying the same space at the same time, but that’s not really equality, is it? So your argument here is a straw man. Your misogynistic and patriarchal statements following belie your own stance on gender equality — and one which I find immoral and ridiculous. Women fighting for equal right to authority is neither “deplorable” nor “selfish.” What IS deplorable is the view that there is some divinely-ordained “social order” based in male supremacy.

I invite you to take a different stance based on Jesus’ teachings, rather than the outmoded models of OT patriarchy.

sojourner said:

Repeating “wrongwrongwrongwrong” doesn’t constitute an argument. Apparently you believe that the Bible is the only authority for ancient, Judaic cultural norms. If so, we’re not going to get very far. My assertions come from graduate biblical studies, and have been culled from various textbooks and lectures on the subject.

Your example of equality are predicated upon two people occupying the same space at the same time, but that’s not really equality, is it? So your argument here is a straw man. Your misogynistic and patriarchal statements following belie your own stance on gender equality — and one which I find immoral and ridiculous. Women fighting for equal right to authority is neither “deplorable” nor “selfish.” What IS deplorable is the view that there is some divinely-ordained “social order” based in male supremacy.

I invite you to take a different stance based on Jesus’ teachings, rather than the outmoded models of OT patriarchy.

Click to expand...

Well, you are the one who responded to this...

Please name one high moral standard that is not held as a virtue in the Bible

Click to expand...

I did not use one example regarding headship. I used three.
I also showed that a woman has equal status in the household despite not being head.
I also said that if you wanted to take that as your one argument then go ahead, and I showed why it is not a high moral standard.

You have not even attempted to show how it is a high moral standard, so if you like, you have the floor.
If you said to me, that your bathtub is of superb quality, and challenge me to find one that's better, and I brought an antique rust "bucket", and said, "this is better." Can I get away with just saying that is is, or would I not have to show how it is better?

I never said, find whatever you want to call a moral standard, I said, 'Please name one high moral standard...'.
What makes that a high moral standard, and where is it universally considered such.
I know how popular that term "straw man" has become, but some words, I think, are misused and abused... a lot.

It's your toss.
...and yes, the Bible always wins. It meets all challenges and clobbers them. Why? Because it's the word of God, so whoever stands behind it, is solid.

That's reason enough some people find it deplorable.
Who doesn't condemn righteousness in favor of vice? Look at the world. Good is bad, and bad is good.

Wild Fox said:

No I mean the sacrifices of an individual for the benefit of others. This is seen in Mother for their children both in humans and animals. Sacrifice of time and resources. There are lots of examples.

Click to expand...

Of course, that's a good one - of great value.

Scores of those in the Bible.
(Matthew 10:8) . . .You received free, give free.
(John 15:13) . . .No one has love greater than this, that someone should surrender his life in behalf of his friends.
(John 10:11) I am the fine shepherd; the fine shepherd surrenders his life in behalf of the sheep.
(Romans 5:7, 8) For hardly would anyone die for a righteous man; though perhaps for a good man someone may dare to die. 8 But God recommends his own love to us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
(1 Corinthians 16:14) . . .Let everything you do be done with love.
(Ephesians 5:1, 2) Therefore, become imitators of God, as beloved children, 2 and go on walking in love, just as the Christ also loved us and gave himself for us as an offering and a sacrifice, a sweet fragrance to God.
(1 John 3:16) By this we have come to know love, because that one surrendered his life for us, and we are under obligation to surrender our lives for our brothers.

It's a virtue that is displayed by those who sought to imitate their heavenly father, and the greatest man to walk the earth - God's son, Jesus Christ.

nPeace said:

I did not use one example regarding headship. I used three

Click to expand...

You used three poor examples that do not meet the criterion of your argument.

nPeace said:

I also showed that a woman has equal status in the household despite not being head

Click to expand...

In fact, women CAN be — and ARE — head of household. This is where your argument fails, in assuming that women are, somehow, subservient to men.

nPeace said:

I also said that if you wanted to take that as your one argument then go ahead, and I showed why it is not a high moral standard.

Click to expand...

No. You didn’t. What you did do was to present us with a nauseatingly patriarchal viewpoint that is no longer in vogue.

nPeace said:

I never said, find whatever you want to call a moral standard, I said, 'Please name one high moral standard

Click to expand...

“Equity for women” was my answer, and, considering how women were treated, both in the Bible and throughout history, it IS a high moral standard. You failed to refute that.

nPeace said:

and yes, the Bible always wins.

Click to expand...

No it doesn’t. The Bible has been shown to be wrong on more than one scientific and historical point.

nPeace said:

It meets all challenges and clobbers them. Why? Because it's the word of God, so whoever stands behind it, is solid

Click to expand...

See above. The earth is not a disc and the sky is not a rigid dome upon which the sun and moon are fixed. There is nothing in the archaeological record to indicate a mass invasion of Hebrews into Canaan. The resources of Israel could not have possibly supported an army as large as David’s.

The Bible is a work to be highly-esteemed, but it is what it is; it is neither mythic nor magical.

sojourner said:

You used three poor examples that do not meet the criterion of your argument.

Click to expand...

If they are so poor, then you should be able to show that they are poor.
You said a woman should be equal to a man in everything, including being head of the home.
Therefore, to be head of her household with a husband around, means that she has authority over her husband, since there cannot be two heads of a household. A head is a head, unless you meant to say something else.
My examples - all three of them, showed up the unreasonableness of your argument, hence why I pointed out that it would only amount to a pursuit of pride - not virtuous.
Unless you can show how this is not the case, your words are like the wind of the big bad wolf against the house of the third little pig.

sojourner said:

In fact, women CAN be — and ARE — head of household. This is where your argument fails, in assuming that women are, somehow, subservient to men.

Click to expand...

If you mean single women, those unmarried, that is no different to what I said.

sojourner said:

No. You didn’t. What you did do was to present us with a nauseatingly patriarchal viewpoint that is no longer in vogue.

Click to expand...

Wrong. You are the one presenting an argument, with no backing whatsoever. I don't know how you can feel comfortable spewing words without any backing, as though everything you say is true... because you said it.

sojourner said:

“Equity for women” was my answer, and, considering how women were treated, both in the Bible and throughout history, it IS a high moral standard. You failed to refute that.

Click to expand...

I'm tired now.
You didn't even quote one scripture to support your claims, and not even a shred of evidence from even one source, and declare yourself as having presented a valid argument.

sojourner said:

No it doesn’t. The Bible has been shown to be wrong on more than one scientific and historical point.

See above. The earth is not a disc and the sky is not a rigid dome upon which the sun and moon are fixed. There is nothing in the archaeological record to indicate a mass invasion of Hebrews into Canaan. The resources of Israel could not have possibly supported an army as large as David’s.

The Bible is a work to be highly-esteemed, but it is what it is; it is neither mythic nor magical.

Click to expand...

Which reminds me. I remember the last time I challenged you to back up something you said about the Bible, and you said something about not having access to your library at the time, and to give you a reminder.
I reminded you, and heard nothing from you at all.

I wonder what would happen here and now.

The earth is not a disc and the sky is not a rigid dome upon which the sun and moon are fixed.

Click to expand...

So what? What does that have to do with the Bible and science? Surely you didn't read that in the Bible, did you, or do you get your information from youtube?

There is nothing in the archaeological record to indicate a mass invasion of Hebrews into Canaan.

Click to expand...

So what? Why must the archaeological record show everything in the Bible? Does the archaeological record contain everything in history, outside the Bible?

The resources of Israel could not have possibly supported an army as large as David’s.

Click to expand...

Says who?
Here is another opportunity to back up what you say.

nPeace said:

If they are so poor, then you should be able to show that they are poor.

Click to expand...

I did. Your examples were ridiculous examples of people being in the same physical place at the same time. That’s not equality. Equality is women having the same access to employment, goods, services, jobs, civic rights and authority as men.

nPeace said:

You said a woman should be equal to a man in everything, including being head of the home.
Therefore, to be head of her household with a husband around, means that she has authority over her husband, since there cannot be two heads of a household. A head is a head, unless you meant to say something else

Click to expand...

Under the Law, women are able to be in authority, just as a man is. However, I’m not at all convinced that “Head of Household” should pertain to anything other than income tax classifications. Neither husband nor wife should have authority “over” their spouse. It should be an equal partnership, and in most cases these days, it is. In that instance, women have become equal to men.

nPeace said:

Unless you can show how this is not the case, your words are like the wind of the big bad wolf against the house of the third little pig.

Click to expand...

See above.

nPeace said:

If you mean single women, those unmarried, that is no different to what I said

Click to expand...

Again, see above.

nPeace said:

Wrong. You are the one presenting an argument, with no backing whatsoever

Click to expand...

I’m saying that women were not equal to men in biblical examples. I’m further saying that society has moved to a moral position of gender equality that is not extant in the Bible.

nPeace said:

I don't know how you can feel comfortable spewing words without any backing, as though everything you say is true... because you said it.

Click to expand...

You’re projecting.

nPeace said:

You didn't even quote one scripture to support your claims, and not even a shred of evidence from even one source, and declare yourself as having presented a valid argument

Click to expand...

I don’t plan on quoting scripture; I don’t need to quote scripture. Anyone who’s familiar with the Bible knows it’s there. Why waste time?

nPeace said:

So what? What does that have to do with the Bible and science? Surely you didn't read that in the Bible, did you, or do you get your information from youtube

Click to expand...

right there in Genesis. The Hebrew word translated as “sky” is raqiya. That word literally translates, “Hammered out bowl.” A bowl is dome-shaped. If one places a bowl over the earth’s surface, the earth would necessarily be disc-shaped for the bowl to cover it. Anything “hammered out” is hard, or rigid. That’s what the author of the creation myth says the sky is and, by extension, the earth. It’s there, all right.

nPeace said:

So what? Why must the archaeological record show everything in the Bible? Does the archaeological record contain everything in history, outside the Bible?

Click to expand...

. Because that’s how science and evidence works. And yes. Everything known to have happened on that large a scale will be present in the archaeological record.

nPeace said:

Says who?
Here is another opportunity to back up what you say.

Click to expand...

Says every historical anthropologist ever.

loverofhumanity said:

It’s an enormous asset to be able to distinguish truth from falsehood and requires an unbiased and open mind and heart.

Only little reflection is needed to see the power of God behind these Great Beings Who were opposed, tortured, imprisoned, crucified and Their followers beheaded yet Their Cause conquered the minds and hearts of billions all over the world thousands of years after Their death,

The true resurrection is that They live on in the hearts and lives of men even today and Their teaching of love, goodwill and charity to all are eternal.

Click to expand...

Actually, what is needed is good evidence for the existence of a god. What someone died for is no indication of truth. If that is so, then most every faith is true, including Jim Jones and David Koresh.

sojourner said:

I did. Your examples were ridiculous examples of people being in the same physical place at the same time. That’s not equality. Equality is women having the same access to employment, goods, services, jobs, civic rights and authority as men.

Click to expand...

Please give me an example of "authority as men".

sojourner said:

Under the Law, women are able to be in authority, just as a man is. However, I’m not at all convinced that “Head of Household” should pertain to anything other than income tax classifications. Neither husband nor wife should have authority “over” their spouse. It should be an equal partnership, and in most cases these days, it is. In that instance, women have become equal to men.

Click to expand...

Please explain how a woman can be head of a household, and not "have authority “over” their spouse".

sojourner said:

I’m saying that women were not equal to men in biblical examples. I’m further saying that society has moved to a moral position of gender equality that is not extant in the Bible.

Click to expand...

Please explain gender equality, and show how these verses - Genesis 2:18; Luke 8:1-3; Acts 1:14; 2:17, 18; 18:26; Acts 4:32, 34, 35; Acts 10:34, 35; Acts 17:26 - do not support gender equality, and are not in harmony with the following declarations :-
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” - Declaration of Independence, adopted by the United States in 1776.

“All men are born free and equal in rights.” - Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, adopted by France’s National Assembly in 1789.

“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” - Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948.

The Bible even addresses national equality - something that will never be accomplished, with the efforts of man.

sojourner said:

I don’t plan on quoting scripture; I don’t need to quote scripture. Anyone who’s familiar with the Bible knows it’s there. Why waste time?

Click to expand...

You must be insinuating that I am not familiar with the Bible, although I mentioned many scriptures that deny your claim.
Anyone can pick out a few scriptures, and claim it supports their view, They can also misunderstand, or misinterpret those texts. So being familiar with the Bible, I acknowledge that you have done exactly that - pick out scriptures which you think supports your view, and ignore the ones that deny your view. That's unreasonable.

Here is a typical example, right here.

sojourner said:

right there in Genesis. The Hebrew word translated as “sky” is raqiya. That word literally translates, “Hammered out bowl.” A bowl is dome-shaped. If one places a bowl over the earth’s surface, the earth would necessarily be disc-shaped for the bowl to cover it. Anything “hammered out” is hard, or rigid. That’s what the author of the creation myth says the sky is and, by extension, the earth. It’s there, all right.

Click to expand...

Strong's Hebrew: 7549. רָקִ֫יעַ (raqia) -- an extended surface, expanse
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
firmament
From raqa'; properly, an expanse, i.e. The firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky -- firmament.
see HEBREW raqa'

Strong's Hebrew: 7554. רָקַע (raqa) -- to beat, stamp, beat out, spread out
Strong's Concordance
raqa: to beat, stamp, beat out, spread out
Original Word: רָקַע
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: raqa
Phonetic Spelling: (raw-kah')
Short Definition: spread
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
a prim. root
Definition
to beat, stamp, beat out, spread out
NASB Translation
beaten (1), hammered (2), plates (1), spread (3), spreading (1), stamp (1), stamped (2).

verb beat, stamp, beat out, spread out

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
beat, make broad, spread abroad forth, over, out, into plates, stamp, stretch
A primitive root; to pound the earth (as a sign of passion); by analogy to expand (by hammering); by implication, to overlay (with thin sheets of metal) -- beat, make broad, spread abroad (forth, over, out, into plates), stamp, stretch.

I like how God rolled up his sleeves and beat out the sky with a hammer.
BTW, do you know if the hammer was made of Gold, Silver, or Bronze, and if he put the sky through a furnace?


Feel free to keep nitpicking - Pick whatever word, or verse you like, and proclaim you are right.

sojourner said:

. Because that’s how science and evidence works. And yes. Everything known to have happened on that large a scale will be present in the archaeological record.

Says every historical anthropologist ever.

Click to expand...

"Everything known to have happened ..." is quite different from "Everything that has happened..."
When you know everything, give me a call.

nPeace said:

Please give me an example of "authority as men".


Please explain how a woman can be head of a household, and not "have authority “over” their spouse".


Please explain gender equality, and show how these verses - Genesis 2:18; Luke 8:1-3; Acts 1:14; 2:17, 18; 18:26; Acts 4:32, 34, 35; Acts 10:34, 35; Acts 17:26 - do not support gender equality, and are not in harmony with the following declarations :-
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” - Declaration of Independence, adopted by the United States in 1776.

“All men are born free and equal in rights.” - Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, adopted by France’s National Assembly in 1789.

“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” - Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948.

The Bible even addresses national equality - something that will never be accomplished, with the efforts of man.


You must be insinuating that I am not familiar with the Bible, although I mentioned many scriptures that deny your claim.
Anyone can pick out a few scriptures, and claim it supports their view, They can also misunderstand, or misinterpret those texts. So being familiar with the Bible, I acknowledge that you have done exactly that - pick out scriptures which you think supports your view, and ignore the ones that deny your view. That's unreasonable.

Here is a typical example, right here.

Strong's Hebrew: 7549. רָקִ֫יעַ (raqia) -- an extended surface, expanse
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
firmament
From raqa'; properly, an expanse, i.e. The firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky -- firmament.
see HEBREW raqa'

Strong's Hebrew: 7554. רָקַע (raqa) -- to beat, stamp, beat out, spread out
Strong's Concordance
raqa: to beat, stamp, beat out, spread out
Original Word: רָקַע
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: raqa
Phonetic Spelling: (raw-kah')
Short Definition: spread
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
a prim. root
Definition
to beat, stamp, beat out, spread out
NASB Translation
beaten (1), hammered (2), plates (1), spread (3), spreading (1), stamp (1), stamped (2).

verb beat, stamp, beat out, spread out

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
beat, make broad, spread abroad forth, over, out, into plates, stamp, stretch
A primitive root; to pound the earth (as a sign of passion); by analogy to expand (by hammering); by implication, to overlay (with thin sheets of metal) -- beat, make broad, spread abroad (forth, over, out, into plates), stamp, stretch.

I like how God rolled up his sleeves and beat out the sky with a hammer.
BTW, do you know if the hammer was made of Gold, Silver, or Bronze, and if he put the sky through a furnace?

Chaka Khan had a hit song. It went... "I feel for you....

Feel free to keep nitpicking - Pick whatever word, or verse you like, and proclaim you are right.

"Everything known to have happened ..." is quite different from "Everything that has happened..."
When you know everything, give me a call.

Click to expand...

Well, reading this post is 30 seconds of my life I’ll never get back. But I’ll take it as your concession of the argument.

sojourner said:

Well, reading this post is 30 seconds of my life I’ll never get back. But I’ll take it as your concession of the argument.

Click to expand...

What's your purpose for being on these forums, if 30 seconds is too much to read a response to your claims?
@sojourner have I offended you? I apologize if I did.
Take care.

Hubert Farnsworth said:

In John 20:29, Jesus supposedly states "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

In other words, this is a verse praising gullibility as a virtue. It is, according to Christianity, apparently virtuous to believe extraordinary claims that are unsupported. Why is this the case? I find it very strange, especially considering the fact that many Christians are just as skeptical as anyone else about everything, except the claims of their religion.

For instance, if I told you that there was, say, a plane crash in your neighborhood, most of you probably wouldn't believe me, at least not without first checking the evidence and *seeing* for yourself. Yet, when a less believable claim is made about a guy who, 2000 years ago, supposedly died and became alive again three days later, with the only evidence to support this claim being the contradictory reports of documents written by anonymous authors decades or more after the alleged events took place, these same Christians who are skeptical about everything else will believe that these events took place. Do you see the inconsistency? Why do so many Christians believe that gullibility is a virtue when it comes to believing the claims of their religion, yet remain skeptical about much more believable claims? Also, why should gullibility be a virtue at all? Gullibility, or "faith" in the absence of evidence is useless, and helps no one. If anything, it should be considered a "vice" and not a virtue.

Click to expand...

thing is, should you find out after you leave this world that you were wrong then you would be the gullible one, correct?

nPeace said:

Please give me an example of "authority as men".

Click to expand...

From one source: “...although wives were included among a man’s possessions, they were not reckoned as property. In Exodus 20:17 the commandment against coveting includes the wife as part of the household, along with slave, ox, and donkey ... nonetheless, the Bible was written and compiled by males who had no special interest in women’s roles. They focused principally on the male aspects of life ... in which women were not directly involved or to which they contributed only minimally. In addition, Israel’s laws were addressed only to men. The domain of a woman’s activities was the household, where she exercised authority in her role as mother.” (King, Stager; Life In Biblical Israel, 2001, Westminster John Knox press, Louisville; p. 49) (emphases mine)

“ ... However, the legal system of the patriarchal society placed women at a distinct disadvantage. Before marriage, a woman was subject to her father; in his absence, to an older brother; and after marriage, to her husband. The laws of inheritance worked to her detriment, too ... only males could inherit property ...”
Ibid. p. 50

“The famous description of the ‘ideal wife’ in Proverbs (31:10-29) concerns the variety of women’s roles in the household, especially their economic role. It is clear, however, that this litany applies only to elite, noble women.” Ibid. p. 51 (emphases mine)

“By definition, a widow ... was outside the normal social structure of the community and could therefore be easily victimized and quickly reduced to destitution.” Ibid. p. 53

“ ... a wealth of later documentation, suggest that women married young, while still in their teens, sometimes early teens, in fact; men waited until well into their twenties or even early thirties before marrying.” Ibid. p. 37

If these examples don’t paint a picture of biblical inequality, I don’t know what does. This was the culture of the biblical writers.

nPeace said:

Please explain how a woman can be head of a household, and not "have authority “over” their spouse".

Click to expand...

Asked an answered. It’s simply a tax designation.

nPeace said:

You must be insinuating that I am not familiar with the Bible, although I mentioned many scriptures that deny your claim.
Anyone can pick out a few scriptures, and claim it supports their view, They can also misunderstand, or misinterpret those texts. So being familiar with the Bible, I acknowledge that you have done exactly that - pick out scriptures which you think supports your view, and ignore the ones that deny your view. That's unreasonable.

Here is a typical example, right here.

Click to expand...

nPeace said:

Strong's Hebrew: 7549. רָקִ֫יעַ (raqia) -- an extended surface, expanse
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
firmament
From raqa'; properly, an expanse, i.e. The firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky -- firmament.
see HEBREW raqa'

Strong's Hebrew: 7554. רָקַע (raqa) -- to beat, stamp, beat out, spread out
Strong's Concordance
raqa: to beat, stamp, beat out, spread out
Original Word: רָקַע
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: raqa
Phonetic Spelling: (raw-kah')
Short Definition: spread
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
a prim. root
Definition
to beat, stamp, beat out, spread out
NASB Translation
beaten (1), hammered (2), plates (1), spread (3), spreading (1), stamp (1), stamped (2).

verb beat, stamp, beat out, spread out

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
beat, make broad, spread abroad forth, over, out, into plates, stamp, stretch
A primitive root; to pound the earth (as a sign of passion); by analogy to expand (by hammering); by implication, to overlay (with thin sheets of metal) -- beat, make broad, spread abroad (forth, over, out, into plates), stamp, stretch.

I like how God rolled up his sleeves and beat out the sky with a hammer.
BTW, do you know if the hammer was made of Gold, Silver, or Bronze, and if he put the sky through a furnace?

Chaka Khan had a hit song. It went... "I feel for you....

Feel free to keep nitpicking - Pick whatever word, or verse you like, and proclaim you are right

Click to expand...

We have to look a little deeper than Strong’s.

“In the conception of the firmament as a solid substance (cf. Job 26:11) there is a distinct reminiscence of the Babylonian myth, according to which the sun-god Marduk split the slain chaos monster in two and used on half of the carcass as a firmament, the other half as the earth ... Seas embraces fore than the waters upon the face of the earth; it includes also the (supposed) subterranean waters upon which the earth was believed to rest (cf. Ps. 24:2), to which P refers in 7:11 and the circumferential ocean (cf. Ps. 139:9), upon which the pillars of the firmament (cf. Job 26:11) stood.” (Simpson; The Interpreter’s Bible; 1952, Abington Press, ; Nashville, pp. 472,473) (emphasis mine)

“The Israelites shared much of the world view of ancient Mesopotamia. Much of the material contained in the primeval epics in Genesis is borrowed from other ancient Near Easten cultures.” (Matthews, Moyer; The Old Testament: Text And Context; 1997, Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., Peabody, MA, p. 44)

“The Genesis accounts of the creation utilize some of this Mesopotamian material as well as other epics composed in ancient Egypt.” (Ibid. p. 47)

See this site: https://www.theopedia.com/raqiya

nPeace said:

"Everything known to have happened ..." is quite different from "Everything that has happened..."
When you know everything, give me a call

Click to expand...

This simply doesn’t address the issue. The Hebrews coming into the Promised Land and carving out a separate culture for themselves is “known.” The size of David’s army is “known.” Neither is corroborated by the archaeological record. The Bible is WRONG on all these counts.

And so are you.

nPeace said:

What's your purpose for being on these forums, if 30 seconds is too much to read a response to your claims?
@sojourner have I offended you? I apologize if I did.
Take care.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I find your sarcastic remarks offensive and adolescent. Please see my post above.

nPeace said:

Feel free to keep nitpicking - Pick whatever word, or verse you like, and proclaim you are right

Click to expand...

Thanks; I shall.

“Firmament, God’s division between cosmic waters on the second day of creation (Gen. 1:6-8), forming they sky. One must here imagine a flat earth and a domed expanse of heavens holding back celestial waters from terrestrial. The Hebrew term raqia’ suggests a thin sheet of beaten metal (cf. Exod. 39:3; Num. 17:3; Jer. 10:9; also Job 37:18) ... The Hebrew universe. The ancient Hebrews imagined the world as flat and round, covered by the great solid dome of the firmament which was held up by mountain pillars (Job 26:11; 37:18) ... The sun, moon and stars move across or were fixed in the firmament (Gen. 1:14; Ps. 19:4,6).” (Achtemeier: Harper Collins Bible Dictionary, Harper-Collins, New York, 1996; pp. 338-339)