The fall of man; Free will

[waitasec]

　
Adam, when Eve offered him the fruit, was faced with a mind numbing, heart wrenching dilemma.
Should he eat, knowing that death would ensue, or should he separate from his wife and distance himself from her fate.
He chose to suffer death with her rather than live without her.
Fact is (scripturally) Adam's rule over Eve was a result of the decision he made - to stay with her no matter what the cost.
That decision was made, imo, because he loved her more than life itself.

as i said before, this is a very nice way of looking at it
but how was adam to KNOW what was the good thing to do or the evil thing to do...?
nice try...but NO:cigar:

how was adam to know love is good?

 

[jonman122]

as i said before, this is a very nice way of looking at it
but how was adam to KNOW what was the good thing to do or the evil thing to do...?
nice try...but NO:cigar:

how was adam to know love is good?

that, and the passage saying that adam ate the fruit is 1 sentence long and all it says is "Adam ate some fruit too" so i don't see how dmg possibly extrapolated on that and threw in bits about "heart wrenching dilemna"

 

[waitasec]

that, and the passage saying that adam ate the fruit is 1 sentence long and all it says is "Adam ate some fruit too" so i don't see how dmg possibly extrapolated on that and threw in bits about "heart wrenching dilemna"

he's trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, (whatever that saying is :sarcastic)
this is hard for some people
it was hard for me too...
it took me years to overcome this mind set...i wish there were forums like these back then

 

[dmgdnooc]

i'm glad to hear that...
　
the prodigal son is not a good metaphor for the fall of man...
because this has to do with choice; freedom of will
　
gen 3:16
　
read the OT, there is plenty to choose from and you know it...
in dt. if a woman is raped by a man and she is not pledged the rapist's punishment is 50 pieces of silver to the girls FATHER and he then has to marry her BUT if she is pledged to another man he is to die
her WORTH has to do if she is married/or pledged to a man...if she is OWNED
　
that's a good one, i like that actually, very romantic
HOWEVER, ultimately she is to be ruled by man...
i thought the consequence was death, not to be subjected to man
　
hosea 2;19 speaks of the hope of her love to be returned
in short, hosea was an idiot

The 'prodigal son' includes the metaphor of God as a father.
I did not bring it up in relation to the 'fall of man' but as an example of the 'father' aspect of God in the Bible.
Do you recognise that it is a scriptural example of God as the Father?
　
There are 2 sides to be considered (more really, but let's deal with these) in Adam's rule over Eve from Gen 3.16.
Adam's motivation, which I take to be love, and you appear to accept.
And Eve's admission that she was deceived.
The Bible carries forth both ideas as it develops its themes.
In short, scripturally, women are more likely to be deceived by religious fakery than men.
This is one of the the reasons Paul cites for a husband's rule over his wife.
2Cor 11.3 ' I fear, lest ... as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ' That Eve's was deception centred on spiritual matters.
1Tim 2.14 'the woman being deceived was in the transgression' which he cites as a reason for her submission.
　
Susceptibility to be deceived is not a tendency exclusive to women.
However the Bible portrays women, generally, as being more susceptible than men, generally; and it does so because Eve was deceived in Genesis 3.
　
The law of rape has even less to do with the 'fall of man' than the parable of the 'prodigal son'.
I understand that law to reflect the scriptural principle that intercourse, whether it be in love, casual, forced or for any other reason, forms a bond between the 2 parties to that act of intercourse.
Ideally, both halves of a marriage are virgins when they first meet in bed.
The bond there formed is meant to be for life and not to be complicated or diminished by other liasons.
I suppose that the law, as it stood, prevented many rapes, because of its life long and ongoing consequences for the rapist.
And if the marriage grew into a love match there would be healing for the raped.
　
A Hebrew man would stop and think, one would hope, before forcing himself onto a Hebrew woman.
No months long investigations, no question of consent/nonconsent, no slick attorney focusing his attention on the girl in a trial that might stretch for years; the Hebrew rapist had to deal with the girls father, direct and in the rapist's face and with revenge in his heart.
It may be that the modern day justice system would do better to apply its consequences for rape as a life long scenario.
Modern psychology has only begun to catch a glimpse of the life long effect it has on the raped.
　
So, did the second half of Hosea 1.2 answer your question?
　

 

[dmgdnooc]

as i said before, this is a very nice way of looking at it
but how was adam to KNOW what was the good thing to do or the evil thing to do...?
nice try...but NO:cigar:

how was adam to know love is good?

Adam knew because God had told him.
God had pronounced things to be 'good' only after the creation of Eve.
　
Adam had experience of being alive and alone,
He also had experienced the exhultation of receiving Eve as his wife.
He knew that he should cleave unto her and that they were one flesh.
　
Adam knew that he was not to eat of the tree.
He knew that eating would result in death (in the day that he ate thereof).
　
I suppose that he chose to die with her, rather than be parted by death from her, because of love.
I suppose that the thought of being alone again, of being only half of a whole again, was more than he could bear.
That he did not want to live without her and did not trust that God could or would remedy the problem.
　
Again, what do you offer as an alternative explanation?
　

 

[jonman122]

Adam knew because God had told him.
God had pronounced things to be 'good' only after the creation of Eve.
　
Adam had experience of being alive and alone,
He also had experienced the exhultation of receiving Eve as his wife.
He knew that he should cleave unto her and that they were one flesh.
　
Adam knew that he was not to eat of the tree.
He knew that eating would result in death (in the day that he ate thereof).
　
I suppose that he chose to die with her, rather than be parted by death from her, because of love.
I suppose that the thought of being alone again, of being only half of a whole again, was more than he could bear.
That he did not want to live without her and did not trust that God could or would remedy the problem.
　
Again, what do you offer as an alternative explanation?
　

eve got tricked by a snake in to eating from the tree. Adam, having no idea what the difference was between good and evil, ate some fruit when she gave it to him. Thus, they both got kicked out of eden. very simple, just like it says in the bible. it's a fairy tale.

 

[Thief]

eve got tricked by a snake in to eating from the tree. Adam, having no idea what the difference was between good and evil, ate some fruit when she gave it to him. Thus, they both got kicked out of eden. very simple, just like it says in the bible. it's a fairy tale.

So let's say it's a fairy tale.

With a moral issue contained.....
do you still get to say ...'nay'?

You might deny the characters...but do you deny the principle?

 

[waitasec]

The 'prodigal son' includes the metaphor of God as a father.
I did not bring it up in relation to the 'fall of man' but as an example of the 'father' aspect of God in the Bible.
Do you recognise that it is a scriptural example of God as the Father?

the prodigal son....this fantastical tale says father knows best...but do they really?
i get what you are saying...but there is nothing new to the reality that a parent will always keep the door open

the god in your bible doesn't...

　
There are 2 sides to be considered (more really, but let's deal with these) in Adam's rule over Eve from Gen 3.16.
Adam's motivation, which I take to be love, and you appear to accept.
And Eve's admission that she was deceived.
The Bible carries forth both ideas as it develops its themes.
In short, scripturally, women are more likely to be deceived by religious fakery than men.
This is one of the the reasons Paul cites for a husband's rule over his wife.
2Cor 11.3 ' I fear, lest ... as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ' That Eve's was deception centred on spiritual matters.
1Tim 2.14 'the woman being deceived was in the transgression' which he cites as a reason for her submission.
　
Susceptibility to be deceived is not a tendency exclusive to women.
However the Bible portrays women, generally, as being more susceptible than men, generally; and it does so because Eve was deceived in Genesis 3.

"In short, scripturally, women are more likely to be deceived by religious fakery than men"

SCRIPTURALLY!!! are you serious..? what do you mean by scripturally?
isn't scripture supposedly revealing the meaning of life and the history of humanity
you're pussyfooting around the fact that the bible does in fact state women are inferior to men.
the bible portrays women as STUPID... Do you believe women are stupid? OR do you believe women are equal?
with your experience, do you believe women are more vulnerable
weaker, easily manipulated...?

"scripturally" means fictitiously.

　
The law of rape has even less to do with the 'fall of man' than the parable of the 'prodigal son'.
I understand that law to reflect the scriptural principle that intercourse, whether it be in love, casual, forced or for any other reason, forms a bond between the 2 parties to that act of intercourse.
Ideally, both halves of a marriage are virgins when they first meet in bed.
The bond there formed is meant to be for life and not to be complicated or diminished by other liasons.
I suppose that the law, as it stood, prevented many rapes, because of its life long and ongoing consequences for the rapist.
And if the marriage grew into a love match there would be healing for the raped.
　
A Hebrew man would stop and think, one would hope, before forcing himself onto a Hebrew woman.
No months long investigations, no question of consent/nonconsent, no slick attorney focusing his attention on the girl in a trial that might stretch for years; the Hebrew rapist had to deal with the girls father, direct and in the rapist's face and with revenge in his heart.
It may be that the modern day justice system would do better to apply its consequences for rape as a life long scenario.
Modern psychology has only begun to catch a glimpse of the life long effect it has on the raped.

are you saying in the modern world the rapist should marry the victim, cause that is what the bible says...
did you realize in your rebuttal you did not consider the victims rights?
she was raped and now she is to be condemned by living and serving her rapist for the rest of HER life. is that a marriage based on mutual love?
50 pieces of silver to her father...that alone says women were considered to be property they were to be owned..
straight out of the bosses mouth gen 3:16

　
So, did the second half of Hosea 1.2 answer your question?
　

only an idiot would KNOWINGLY marry someone who is not the marrying kind...


"free free set them free...you can't control an independent heart
can't tear the one you love apart"
- sting

Hosea 1: 2 When the LORD began to speak through Hosea, the LORD said to him, "Go, take to yourself an adulterous wife and children of unfaithfulness, because the land is guilty of the vilest adultery in departing from the LORD." 3 So he married Gomer daughter of Diblaim, and she conceived and bore him a son.

 

[waitasec]

Adam knew because God had told him.
God had pronounced things to be 'good' only after the creation of Eve.
　
Adam had experience of being alive and alone,
He also had experienced the exhultation of receiving Eve as his wife.
He knew that he should cleave unto her and that they were one flesh.
　
Adam knew that he was not to eat of the tree.
He knew that eating would result in death (in the day that he ate thereof).
　
I suppose that he chose to die with her, rather than be parted by death from her, because of love.
I suppose that the thought of being alone again, of being only half of a whole again, was more than he could bear.
That he did not want to live without her and did not trust that God could or would remedy the problem.
　
Again, what do you offer as an alternative explanation?
　

i agree with you,because if you are going to look at adam, he has to have human qualities...that is why i don't buy into this tree of knowledge and eternal life and talking serpents...it's a bedtime story....

men ARE compassionate and loving and wonderful creatures just like women

nothing more nothing less

 

[waitasec]

So let's say it's a fairy tale.

With a moral issue contained.....
do you still get to say ...'nay'?

You might deny the characters...but do you deny the principle?

ahhhh, now were getting somewhere
if you are insinuating that morality can only come from god
i couldn't disagree with you more

do unto others remember...?
that is our morality

 

[dmgdnooc]

the prodigal son....this fantastical tale says father knows best...but do they really?
i get what you are saying...but there is nothing new to the reality that a parent will always keep the door open

the god in your bible doesn't...

"In short, scripturally, women are more likely to be deceived by religious fakery than men"

SCRIPTURALLY!!! are you serious..? what do you mean by scripturally?
isn't scripture supposedly revealing the meaning of life and the history of humanity
you're pussyfooting around the fact that the bible does in fact state women are inferior to men.
the bible portrays women as STUPID... Do you believe women are stupid? OR do you believe women are equal?
with your experience, do you believe women are more vulnerable
weaker, easily manipulated...?

"scripturally" means fictitiously.

are you saying in the modern world the rapist should marry the victim, cause that is what the bible says...
did you realize in your rebuttal you did not consider the victims rights?
she was raped and now she is to be condemned by living and serving her rapist for the rest of HER life. is that a marriage based on mutual love?
50 pieces of silver to her father...that alone says women were considered to be property they were to be owned..
straight out of the bosses mouth gen 3:16

only an idiot would KNOWINGLY marry someone who is not the marrying kind...

"free free set them free...you can't control an independent heart
can't tear the one you love apart"
- sting

Hosea 1: 2 When the LORD began to speak through Hosea, the LORD said to him, "Go, take to yourself an adulterous wife and children of unfaithfulness, because the land is guilty of the vilest adultery in departing from the LORD." 3 So he married Gomer daughter of Diblaim, and she conceived and bore him a son.

You get what I'm saying .... somehow I think not because you don't appear to even get what you have said.
　
You said that the God of the Bible turns His back on His children because they sin against Him.
I pointed to the parable of the 'prodigal son' which refutes your assertion entirely.
You then accused me of going off topic.
I replied that you brought the matter up and reaffirmed that the parable is a scriptural depiction of God's attitude towards His children.
And you reply that the parable is a 'fantastical tale' and 'nothing new'.
Well, fact is that it must be new to you because it in no way fits your characterisation.
And fact is, being a scriptural depiction of the relationship, it is (in the context) God's depiction of His own attitude.
It doesn't in any way suit your argument so you wipe it aside, as you wipe aside anything contrary to your own preconceptions.
　
Yes, scripturally, women are more likely to be deceived by religious fakery than men.
It is Paul's view which he firmly bases on Moses.
　
'The fact that women are more religious than men is one of the most consistent findings in the sociology of religion.'
Collett and Lizardo U of Notre Dame

'A consistent finding in studies of religion is that on a wide range of measures females tend to be more religious than males'
De Vaus La Trobe U and McAllister ADF Academy
　
'Within the psychology of religion two main groups of theories have been advanced to account for gender differences in religiousity. The first group of theories concentrates on social or contextual influences ..... The second group of theories concentrates on personal or individual psychological charachteristics which differentiate between men and women.'
Francis U of Wales and Wilcox Nth England Institute for Christian Education
　
I accept a third theory, Paul's and Moses' theory, to explain the fact that they revealed long before it was confirmed by modern studies in the psychology and sociology of religion.
　
If you ask why a law is included in the scriptures then, lets face it, a scriptural answer is the only one that can be made.
If you asked why a law was in your country's legal code would you fly off the handle at receiving a legal argument based on you country's constitution?
Scripturally does not mean ficticiously. In this instance, it includes the meaning 'as confirmed by modern research'.
　
The bible does not portray women as STUPID. Only a stupid person could get that from the scriptures or a person with a religious chip on their shoulder the size of Ayer's Rock.
The Bible, more often than not, portrays women as finer, nobler creatures than men. As persons that a man should feel honoured and priviledged to be associated with.
It is a great shame on the men with whom you have been associated that they have not conveyed this to you. Perhaps if you were within a Christian community the point would not need to be made by me.
And for the record I think that men and women are equal.
But women and men are not the same, in some respects women are superior to men in others inferior; if values must be applied.
Must I say again that a bonded pair, male and female, each with particular and complimentary strengths and weakenesses, is the scriptural depiction of a human being.
　
The modern world and the scriptural world cannot be mixed on the subject of sexuality.
The fundamental assumptions of each world are far estranged one from another.
The idea of 2 virgins in one marriage bed, both of whose avowed intentions are life-long monogamous fidelity, is a quaint anachronism in the modern view.
Moderns, without a change of mind, cannot even enter into the concepts of sexuality in the scriptures in a meaningful way.
All moderns appear to see is an attack on their own multi-partnered and casual sexual values that have been shaped by a lifetime of media hype and advertising campaigns.
Sex in this world is ubiquitously represented as fun to be shared around, good for selling cars, or chocolates, or cigarettes, or whatever, the sexual concepts filling modern heads are foreign to the Bible and shouldn't be shoe-horned into it.
　
The victim's father represents her rights in the scripture and does a better job of it than any DA.
As I understand it, marriage for love, and only love, is a modern fiction of the western world that has acquired authority from romantic novels and Hollywood glitz.
Much of the world still holds to arranged marriages (India, Asia, Africa, the Middle East); those marriages are more likely to last and be truly loving relationships at year 10 than their western counterparts. Which is a sad comment on the western ideal.
I would be content to allow the victim's father to negotiate her best interests with the offender.
If he says die so be it, if he says marry so be it; I assume that he has his daughter's best interest at heart and would consult with her; and the circumstances in each case would be different.
But applying that to modern times would be a gross error of judgement.
　
Why is it that you insist on applying scriptural law to modern situations?
In most cases the different cultural, sociological and psychological circumstances make such applications ridiculous.
As ridiculous as applying Aboriginal Traditional law, or Medieval English law, or Tsarist Russian law, to the operations of the Tokyo Stock Exchange.
Can't you see that you are paddling a barbed-wire canoe when you do this?
　

 

[Thief]

ahhhh, now were getting somewhere
if you are insinuating that morality can only come from god
i couldn't disagree with you more

do unto others remember...?
that is our morality

No...we're not getting anywhere.

At some point, one man...only one...became as we are.
Somebody had to be first.

You might rebuttal and object all that you want to....and you do...at length.
But the concept of a first person cannot be removed.

And the story of Adam and Eve won't go away...no matter how lengthy this thread.

The story might be 'stepped on' by the telling and retelling....
by translation and interpretation....
but the interaction of God and Man is a story unyielding.

Somebody had to be first...his name is Adam.
My reading of Genesis displays evolution....Day Six.
My reading of Genesis displays an experiment....after Day Seven.
Eve is a clone.
Adam married his twin sister.

As for the 'fall'....Man did not fall from heaven.
He may have stumbled in the Garden.....
But the acquisition of knowledge is not a step down.....never a step down.

 

[waitasec]

You get what I'm saying .... somehow I think not because you don't appear to even get what you have said.
　
You said that the God of the Bible turns His back on His children because they sin against Him.
I pointed to the parable of the 'prodigal son' which refutes your assertion entirely.
You then accused me of going off topic.
I replied that you brought the matter up and reaffirmed that the parable is a scriptural depiction of God's attitude towards His children.
And you reply that the parable is a 'fantastical tale' and 'nothing new'.
Well, fact is that it must be new to you because it in no way fits your characterisation.
And fact is, being a scriptural depiction of the relationship, it is (in the context) God's depiction of His own attitude.
It doesn't in any way suit your argument so you wipe it aside, as you wipe aside anything contrary to your own preconceptions.
　
Yes, scripturally, women are more likely to be deceived by religious fakery than men.
It is Paul's view which he firmly bases on Moses.
　
'The fact that women are more religious than men is one of the most consistent findings in the sociology of religion.'
Collett and Lizardo U of Notre Dame

'A consistent finding in studies of religion is that on a wide range of measures females tend to be more religious than males'
De Vaus La Trobe U and McAllister ADF Academy
　
'Within the psychology of religion two main groups of theories have been advanced to account for gender differences in religiousity. The first group of theories concentrates on social or contextual influences ..... The second group of theories concentrates on personal or individual psychological charachteristics which differentiate between men and women.'
Francis U of Wales and Wilcox Nth England Institute for Christian Education
　
I accept a third theory, Paul's and Moses' theory, to explain the fact that they revealed long before it was confirmed by modern studies in the psychology and sociology of religion.
　
If you ask why a law is included in the scriptures then, lets face it, a scriptural answer is the only one that can be made.
If you asked why a law was in your country's legal code would you fly off the handle at receiving a legal argument based on you country's constitution?
Scripturally does not mean ficticiously. In this instance, it includes the meaning 'as confirmed by modern research'.
　
The bible does not portray women as STUPID. Only a stupid person could get that from the scriptures or a person with a religious chip on their shoulder the size of Ayer's Rock.
The Bible, more often than not, portrays women as finer, nobler creatures than men. As persons that a man should feel honoured and priviledged to be associated with.
It is a great shame on the men with whom you have been associated that they have not conveyed this to you. Perhaps if you were within a Christian community the point would not need to be made by me.
And for the record I think that men and women are equal.
But women and men are not the same, in some respects women are superior to men in others inferior; if values must be applied.
Must I say again that a bonded pair, male and female, each with particular and complimentary strengths and weakenesses, is the scriptural depiction of a human being.
　
The modern world and the scriptural world cannot be mixed on the subject of sexuality.
The fundamental assumptions of each world are far estranged one from another.
The idea of 2 virgins in one marriage bed, both of whose avowed intentions are life-long monogamous fidelity, is a quaint anachronism in the modern view.
Moderns, without a change of mind, cannot even enter into the concepts of sexuality in the scriptures in a meaningful way.
All moderns appear to see is an attack on their own multi-partnered and casual sexual values that have been shaped by a lifetime of media hype and advertising campaigns.
Sex in this world is ubiquitously represented as fun to be shared around, good for selling cars, or chocolates, or cigarettes, or whatever, the sexual concepts filling modern heads are foreign to the Bible and shouldn't be shoe-horned into it.
　
The victim's father represents her rights in the scripture and does a better job of it than any DA.
As I understand it, marriage for love, and only love, is a modern fiction of the western world that has acquired authority from romantic novels and Hollywood glitz.
Much of the world still holds to arranged marriages (India, Asia, Africa, the Middle East); those marriages are more likely to last and be truly loving relationships at year 10 than their western counterparts. Which is a sad comment on the western ideal.
I would be content to allow the victim's father to negotiate her best interests with the offender.
If he says die so be it, if he says marry so be it; I assume that he has his daughter's best interest at heart and would consult with her; and the circumstances in each case would be different.
But applying that to modern times would be a gross error of judgement.
　
Why is it that you insist on applying scriptural law to modern situations?
In most cases the different cultural, sociological and psychological circumstances make such applications ridiculous.
As ridiculous as applying Aboriginal Traditional law, or Medieval English law, or Tsarist Russian law, to the operations of the Tokyo Stock Exchange.
Can't you see that you are paddling a barbed-wire canoe when you do this?
　

in short, you agree with the bible women are inferior to men
because it says so "scripturally"

we are done

 

[waitasec]

No...we're not getting anywhere.

At some point, one man...only one...became as we are.
Somebody had to be first.

You might rebuttal and object all that you want to....and you do...at length.
But the concept of a first person cannot be removed.

And the story of Adam and Eve won't go away...no matter how lengthy this thread.

The story might be 'stepped on' by the telling and retelling....
by translation and interpretation....
but the interaction of God and Man is a story unyielding.

Somebody had to be first...his name is Adam.
My reading of Genesis displays evolution....Day Six.
My reading of Genesis displays an experiment....after Day Seven.
Eve is a clone.
Adam married his twin sister.

As for the 'fall'....Man did not fall from heaven.
He may have stumbled in the Garden.....
But the acquisition of knowledge is not a step down.....never a step down.

go ahead and use the bible to justify your prejudices
cherry pick all that you want
it's your life remember

 

[waitasec]

Why is it that you insist on applying scriptural law to modern situations?
　

because i don't cherry pick the bible like you seem to do

believers claim the bible applies for everyone anytime
WRONG

 

[dmgdnooc]

in short, you agree with the bible women are inferior to men
because it says so "scripturally"

we are done

I believe that, scripturally, women are more likely to be deceived by religious fakery than men.
　
If I beleive that because the scripture says so, it should be no concern to you.
You should believe it also, because the most recent research into the psychology and sociology of religion confirms the Bible's pronouncement.
　
And again, for the record, I think men and women are equal.

 

[idea]

But the concept of a first person cannot be removed.

chicken or the egg? What if there wasn't a first person? What if there was no beginning? I believe that our Spirits are as old as God's...

 

[idea]

I believe that, scripturally, women are more likely to be deceived by religious fakery than men.
　

Are you a Christian? There are more active Christian women than men... so it looks like more men have been decieved...

OUPblog » Blog Archive » Why Are More Women Active in the Christian Church Than Men?
http://www.churchformen.com/allmen.php

You’re not just imagining it: Christianity is short on men. Here are the facts:
The typical U.S. Congregation draws an adult crowd that’s 61% female, 39% male. This gender gap shows up in all age categories. [1]

• On any given Sunday there are 13 million more adult women than men in America’s churches. [2]

• This Sunday almost 25 percent of married, churchgoing women will worship without their husbands. [3]

• Midweek activities often draw 70 to 80 percent female participants. [4]

• The majority of church employees are women (except for ordained clergy, who are overwhelmingly male). [5]

• Over 70 percent of the boys who are being raised in church will abandon it during their teens and twenties. Many of these boys will never return. [6]

• More than 90 percent of American men believe in God, and five out of six call themselves Christians. But only two out of six attend church on a given Sunday. The average man accepts the reality of Jesus Christ, but fails to see any value in going to church. [7]

• Churches overseas report gender gaps of up to 9 women for every adult man in attendance. [8]
• Christian universities are becoming convents. The typical Christian college in the U.S. enrolls almost 2 women for every 1 man. [9]
• Fewer than 10% of U.S. churches are able to establish or maintain a vibrant men’s ministry. [10]

looks like men are the weak ones.

(New Testament | Matthew23:11)
11 the greatest among you shall be your servant.

women are the greatest

 

[dmgdnooc]

because i don't cherry pick the bible like you seem to do

believers claim the bible applies for everyone anytime
WRONG

I have not been 'cherry picking'.
I endeavour to consider the whole of the Bible's position and address not just the words but their context and the import and implications that they convey.
　
You, however, have done a fair bit of 'cherry picking' in this conversation and I have had to repeatedly pick you up for dropping words and ideas out of the passages that you have quoted.
And when I have done so, you have reverted to ridicule or simply repeated the same assertion with, or without, another butchered verse.
　
And it is you who have tried to apply everything in the Bible to everyone at everytime.
The strength of your argument, that the Bible is worthless, rests on your claim of an inerrant and universally applicable text.
It is your claim, not mine.
　
I am a believer, but not a believer in your unfounded assertions.

 

[dmgdnooc]

Are you a Christian? There are more active Christian women than men... so it looks like more men have been decieved...

OUPblog » Blog Archive » Why Are More Women Active in the Christian Church Than Men?
Church for Men – Where are all the men?



looks like men are the weak ones.

(New Testament | Matthew23:11)
11 the greatest among you shall be your servant.

women are the greatest

I am a Christian.
It is Paul's idea, not mine, and I tend to accept the things that Paul says, most especially when I can see it as a Bible principle.
　
From waitasec's pov all Christians are deceived. Most of those Christians are women.
Therefore Paul was, unaccountably, right on this one point.
　
From my pov the call is to 'come out of her, my people' and so many of those who stayed are women. Paul is still confirmed, but I accept his reasons as to the 'why' they stayed.
　
Pls don't misunderstand my profound respect for the many women who serve Christ faithfully (only they, and Christ, know who they are).
Nor misunderstand the high regard I have for all women (I have more female friends than male) or the value I place on their insights, perceptions and reasoning.
　
Thanks for the stats, waitasec should be convinced now that men are the strong ones when it comes to religiousity.