Bible Questions?

As an evolutionist, he should realize how important a woman's nurturing roles were, otherwise we would not be here today discussing how being a housewife is demeaning.

 

Your bible seems to dissagree, but thats ok I don't blame you for simply ignoring the passages tha youcannot appologize for.

 

Put on guard? You have no questions that could put me on "guard". In fact most of you questions are old and threadbare, if fact you've gotten to the point where you've started asking the same answered questions over again.

Rudenoodle you have long ago left off asking simple bible questions and yet I still answer them, because even though you ask in an attempt to ridicule God and the Bible there may be some who unlike you would actually like to know the answers.

As for proclaiming you're insulting my God, I just was pointing out that you are wasting your time and energy trying to insult God.

 

Actually I'd say that those are in joint effort. It may be "old fashioned" but it works pretty well for me and my family. I look after my daughter at home and my husband goes out to work. It's fine by me. It lightens the load of having a family. Also, seeing my daughter all the time really helps us bond as I've got to see all her firsts so far, which I'd have missed out on if we'd got a babysitter in. I don't think it's demeaning for me to stay at home looking after my miracle of a daughter, in fact it's the best decision I could have ever made. I cherish every minute I spend with her.

 

Only you disagree, God and the Bible do not demean women but as I pointed out you do.

As for the "passages" you mentioned both honeyfugle and myself have discussed them, which is hardly ignoring them but what more did you have it mind?

 

Yup, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this. Your baby needs you there to bond with you because who better to bond to then their mother in those critical years?

Modern society makes people feel ashamed of this and I really don't like it.

 

What does the Bible say about stay at home dads?

 

It's true, and it's not right that it should be something to be ashamed of. That's partly feminists at fault there, but times are changing from even 20 years ago. Back then, women thought they had something to prove and be a working mum, but these days more women are going back to traditional roles of staying at home with their kids, because there's a difference. We as women now have the choice to work, and have the choice to do everything men can do, and this time we're making the choice to stay at home, rather than it be forced on us. And actually, most of us quite like it this way.
I would rather wait until my youngest child starts nursery at 3 to start working than to give up this precious time I've got now. I wouldn't even think about having someone else look after my daughter at least until she's old enough for nursery. What, and miss out on seeing her take her first step, her first words? Absolutely never.

 

Absolutely agreed :cheers2:

 

And as for if a women chooses to be with another man or women for that matter?

You do realize while you cast aside the less tasteful passages of your bible for years they were looked at as the word of god, countless tortures and murderers of women(and men) had to occur before eventually the church realized that if it were to have any relevance in this world at all it would need to make apologies for the barbarism it had sent into the word for years.

If you were to live in the time when the clerics and pulpit men had there say in things, you would no doubt be cast out if not outrightly murdered for attempting to alter there texts or to take them out of there original context.

Again I can't blame you for making half hearted edits to the preaching of this book. In this day and age it is a necessity.

As for questions you have supposedly answered they are nil, your reasoning in almost every query can be summed up as thus, "the bible says it's true" to which a response would occur and your retort to it would go along the lines of "Because god said so."

The entire basis of Christianity is immoral, and revolves around the sickening practice of scapegoating your short comings on a long dead preacher who supposedly took it upon himself(without anyones say in the matter) to say he can pay for everyones sins.

The sickening practice of vicarious redemption, letting all things become permitted by piling your sins on someone else as opposed for taking responsibility for them yourself.

Where is the morality in that?

 

Even Satan can use scripture to benefit himself, doesn't mean God supports those actions.

 

I see the cat's finally shown it's claws....

 

Rudenoodle, you are very passionate about this subject because you feel that this belief system is somehow dangerous to the world. What moral grounds do you use to support why someone is right and wrong? I am trying to get at that everyone has a guiding principal and understanding of right and wrong... where do you think this comes from and why do you believe God degrees with you on many of the points that you have raised over the months of posting in this thread?

OWB and many others have been trying to show to you that your reasonings aren't true but you ignore them then say that we ignore the things that you say. I don't get it, man.

Do you believe that we are making it up as we go along?

You asked the question about why believe some parts are literal and some are not and it has been pointed out that it is because of various reasons like the one UKR pointed out and the other about similes. Then you go into how it can be dangerous if people aren't literate, but then we have shown to you that they were not illiterate. Why not continue to go into this and move on once your contention was shown to be untrue? You can say the same about us but can you really when we shown you why certain parts can be understood as literal and others as metaphors?

This is a long process of elimination.

 

Everyone makes their own choices and pays for the consequences of them, if any.

Come off it, you and I both know better, I have tossed nothing aside. I personally have spent a great deal of time talking about and explaining many of those very passages you talk of.

As you say, there was a time I would have been tortured and burned at the stake, for what I've been saying and I fully expect that I will in the future be murdered by you or your kind for what I believe. The very tenor of your posts seems to indicate that you would probably push to the front to cast the first stone.

Anyway the clerics and pulpit men, mostly killed those that like me had the audacity to stand up to them and tell them that they were the ones altering the text and taking them out of context and that they shouldn't be using the Bible as a pretext for murder and torture.

I feel no need to edit the Bible to make it palatable to you or anyone else and I'm not halfhearted about that.

I would ask you to show one case where I've used that line of reasoning but I know that you would find some excuse not to, as you have done in the past.

Also you forget where you are, you are in Sanctuary, where only Christians are to be talking to each other and so, "the bible says it's true" and "Because God said so" is perfectly valid reasoning here.

Once again you show that you have not bothered to read anything any one has posted but continue to rant about things that have many times been explained to you.

Once again this has all been explained to you. Nowhere in the Bible is there any thing resembling what you describe, the "vicarious redemption, letting all things become permitted by piling your sins on someone else as opposed for taking responsibility for them yourself".

Morality? Since when are you concerned with morality?

 

I think this is gonna get ugly. Time for the popcorn!

 

I can only guess what lies behind that picture.

 

oops

 

What was Jesus talking about when he said no one puts new wine in old wine skins?

 

i've been explained that like three times and i still dont get it...