Evidence for God from Science

melanie wrote:Yea, that kind of thinking is just foreign to the way I'm wired.
Sure ladies have your say, but do it over there with the other women. I don't think it's wise to use scripture written in a time that reflected the culture in a way today that excuses outdated, Misogynist ideals.
I know it's not intentional and it's hard to re learn what has been taught since childhood but with much love.... Get with the program crochet

The 'program' I'm with is in the Bible. So you're suggesting that present-day culture is that much improved from back then?

Titus 2:3 "Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers .......but to teach what is right -- Then they can train the younger women in love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God."

vs 2 "Teach the older men to be temperate, worthy of respect, self-controlled, and sound in faith, in love and in endurance. "

Just Maybe what's happening is that Society finds Biblical ethics / morality Boring. God's guidelines are Laughed at -- mocked / Ignored. That's why there are so many broken homes, pregnant teens, alcoholism, drug abuse, physical abusiveness in the home. The jails, prisons are full and over-flowing -- have been for years.

So just Maybe Society needs to get Back to Bible. Re-discover how we Should be living / emotionally, physically healthy lives.

Personally speaking I don't find morality boring nor outdated in the slightest. In fact i think having a strong moral standing is of upmost importance. I instill it in my children, like a Trojan.
The single most important definition of who we are as individuals I believe boils down to honesty, integrity and character.
Not in lip service but in actual tangible everyday actions. Not through any desire to attain 'Good works' but rather because the way in which we treat others is or rather should be the very definition of our faith.
I fail to correlate how a belief surrounding a women's place in Religious hierarchy is turned around to somehow be a talking point for morality.
In actual fact it only highlights the warped misogynist idea that a female who is submissive to her husband, speaks and/or preaches within a framework of a 'biblical' ideal, which is dictated by the very men that interpret scripture to mean exactly as they see fit, all the while there are extensive debates and disussions within Christianity regarding some extremely poignant extremes across scripture from OSAS, to the multitude of creation interpretations, across the spectrum regarding every differing biblical examples from the flood, to slaves, to gifts of the spirit and so on and so forth.
But yet within this framework there remains a belief that women should be subject to their husbands; housewives and busy bees in the home.
I am a housewife and very proud to be so. I run my children to and fro and am very busy. I love to cook and I take pride in being pretty good at it, dishing up healthy and hearty meals.
But I am subject to no one but my Father. My husband is my equal in every sense of the word. He is not my superior. Nor does he pretend to be so.
He is my husband, but more importantly my partner.
My equal.

A real error lies in the presumption that because that was when Jesus lived, then therefore the precipice of living and spirituality was therefore cemented. Without growth or without a continuation of both spirituality and Christianity, I think is a very one dimensional and a somewhat self serving attitude.

Women can be whatever the Good Lord calls them to be. Far be it from anyone to call the morality card if it differs from a very narrow minded mindset.

the Book presents "male" and "female" as allegories for spiritual principles, that apply to anyone who will see them, imo. And we know that as above, so below, so there is a natural order that descends from the spiritual, too.

I agree.
In the manner of things spiritual, I believe there is a natural progression. Which is reflected both above and here. Where we are all judged on the content of our character.
Kindness, genoristy, patience, faith, love, forgiveness and charity.
That principle, is longstanding.
Don't be a di*k.
Or a pretentious twat.

melanie wrote:Personally speaking I don't find morality boring nor outdated in the slightest. In fact i think having a strong moral standing is of upmost importance. I instill it in my children, like a Trojan.
The single most important definition of who we are as individuals I believe boils down to honesty, integrity and character.
Not in lip service but in actual tangible everyday actions. Not through any desire to attain 'Good works' but rather because the way in which we treat others is or rather should be the very definition of our faith.
I fail to correlate how a belief surrounding a women's place in Religious hierarchy is turned around to somehow be a talking point for morality.
In actual fact it only highlights the warped misogynist idea that a female who is submissive to her husband, speaks and/or preaches within a framework of a 'biblical' ideal, which is dictated by the very men that interpret scripture to mean exactly as they see fit, all the while there are extensive debates and disussions within Christianity regarding some extremely poignant extremes across scripture from OSAS, to the multitude of creation interpretations, across the spectrum regarding every differing biblical examples from the flood, to slaves, to gifts of the spirit and so on and so forth.
But yet within this framework there remains a belief that women should be subject to their husbands; housewives and busy bees in the home.
I am a housewife and very proud to be so. I run my children to and fro and am very busy. I love to cook and I take pride in being pretty good at it, dishing up healthy and hearty meals.
But I am subject to no one but my Father. My husband is my equal in every sense of the word. He is not my superior. Nor does he pretend to be so.
He is my husband, but more importantly my partner.
My equal.

A real error lies in the presumption that because that was when Jesus lived, then therefore the precipice of living and spirituality was therefore cemented. Without growth or without a continuation of both spirituality and Christianity, I think is a very one dimensional and a somewhat self serving attitude.

Women can be whatever the Good Lord calls them to be. Far be it from anyone to call the morality card if it differs from a very narrow minded mindset.

The topic has been women in the role of priests / the leadership from behind the pulpit preaching / elders / bishops -- There are Biblical guidelines for That role -- 1 Timothy 3:1- the end of the chapter -- deacons are included and their wives. The 1st thing listed is being blameless , the husband of one wife. vs 11 says that 'likewise, their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things."
"...the husband of one wife' = a man.

That passage would be indicating that the 'Good Lord' has not called women to be preaching from a pulpit.

Crochet: That passage would be indicating that the 'Good Lord' has not called women to be preaching from a pulpit.

So you're questioning why there were no chick disciples or apostles? It's an interesting question. What REALLY bugs me about this and similar issues is people want to view it through the modern lens of the gender wars and equality issues.

how can it be otherwise? "as above, so below" tells us that "your desire shall be for your husband" is an entirely personal reflection, in the spiritual, that will also manifest in the physical, imo.

we seek peace, but there will be war. we seek stasis, but we are here to change. we seek our best life now, but we are here to find eternal life.

this is a dump, for someone, i don't really get it

Matthew genealogy
Quote:
and Jacob the father of Joseph, the father of Adam, the father of Mary,
and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah
Column 91
http://religion.wikia.com/wiki/At-a-gla ... _Bible/101

I'm curious how this claim originated. Women are not included in genealogies since tribal affiliations are exclusively masculine.

Besides the begetting of the person was always from male "seed" (sperm) which the female lacked

The female merely nurtured the developing offspring provided that she was "fertile" and not "barren."

Also Mary is no mentioned in either Matthew's or Luke's genealogies.

It stems purely from an attempt within mainstream Christianity to make up forty-two generations because according to the purely physical minded understanding of the passage there cannot be counted forty-two generations, (while the passage clearly states that there are indeed forty-two generations). It is amazingly profound that mainstream Christianity cannot even make it past the first chapter of the first book in the N/T without a contradiction in their theology.

The scribes of old had a rather peculiar way of keeping track of generations. For example the genealogy in the fifth chapter of Genesis is incomplete, another in the first nine chapters of 1Chronicles is incomplete and so is Ezra 7:1-5.

That kind of record-keeping makes no sense whatsoever to the academic mind, but when encountering ancient cultures, it's best not to jump to conclusions.

BTW: I have no clue why you insist upon putting the blame on "mainstream Christianity" when both the old and new testaments of the Bible were written by Jews. But it's certain you will make no progress in your attempt to discredit the Bible by jousting windmills.

Was I indeed discrediting "the Bible"? Where did I say anything about discrediting the scripture? There are exactly forty-two generations in the first chapter of Matthew the way it stands right now, (as I read it).

Matt 1:16 and Yaakob [39] produced Yoseph [40], the andra-gaber-Maryah, of whom was produced Yeshua [41], who is λεγομενος-laying-forth-speaking Meshiah [42].

Testimony is Spirit.

QUESTION Even so, what is your reference?

For the assertion, "Testimony is Spirit", these are the two most emphatic statements:

John 6:62-63
62 What then if you should behold the Son of Man ascending up to where he was before?
63 It is the Spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are Spirit, and they are Life.

John 12:47-48
47 And if anyone hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but that the world might be delivered.
48 He that rejects me, and receives not my words, has one that judges him: the Logos-Word that I have spoken, that one shall judge him in the last day.

So then, by the Testimony of Yeshua himself, the Trinitarian "God-Man" human sacrifice dogma just went out the window and into the ditch. And this is also why they cannot count forty-two generations in the Matthew genealogy; for their own Trinitarian blinders will not allow them to see it, (and thus it is indeed an issue deeply rooted theology, that is to say, bias, theological bias, which corrupts their own readings and renderings of all texts).

so, this is several, 3 i think, people, who all have some truth, interspersed and finishing with daqq, wherein i am not entirely grasping his point, but he is currently my Right Pastor, so, any comments appreciated.

Philip wrote:

Crochet: That passage would be indicating that the 'Good Lord' has not called women to be preaching from a pulpit.

So you're questioning why there were no chick disciples or apostles? It's an interesting question. What REALLY bugs me about this and similar issues is people want to view it through the modern lens of the gender wars and equality issues.

I'm not questioning it -- simply sharing with Meloni.

The subject of women being disciples or apostles -- We are All to be disciples / followers of Jesus Christ. Apostles are different story. Apostles and the gift of apostleship. I think that there Are men who qualify as having the gift Of. But it's not called that. I've looked it up and Still not sure what's being referred to. Maybe it's referring to men who go to the mission field and start churches from small Bible study groups.

I So agree -- feminists / that women Should be allowed to do the men's jobs. And some women Can. Some jobs that have Always been for men -- some women Can do those jobs -- but what about the mind-set of the women. Women Need to let the men Be men.

This image speaks in (multiple) tongues (at once)
//religion.wikia.com/wiki/File:My_Wife_and_My_Mother-In-Law_(Hill).svg
//religion.wikia.com/wiki/At-a-glance/The_Bible/201

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... 7064&t=KJV

see also "Flood," for "Ark" refs

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... 7064&t=KJV

bbyrd009 wrote:
This image speaks in (multiple) tongues (at once)
//religion.wikia.com/wiki/File:My_Wife_and_My_Mother-In-Law_(Hill).svg
//religion.wikia.com/wiki/At-a-glance/The_Bible/201

A person can see either a very old woman or a very Young woman. Both are there.

bbyrd009 wrote:https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... 7064&t=KJV

see also "Flood," for "Ark" refs

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... 7064&t=KJV

You point Is?!

crochet1949 wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... 7064&t=KJV

see also "Flood," for "Ark" refs

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... 7064&t=KJV

You point Is?!

"Nests" i guess, there. i was reading "Flood" from here,
http://religion.wikia.com/wiki/At-a-gla ... _Bible/201

where "Qanim" is related to Ark. And the woman is in that section, so i stuck that here too

You are not making any sense.