Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
294
   |
Posted - 2015.06.26 21:09:00 -
[1] - Quote
Maken Tosch wrote:PLAYSTTION wrote:
1. I haven't read much in that part and would need to look into it.
2. That was a historical recount not a "Go kill your neibours kids, pet, and wife".
3. Again I'm not familiar with that area.
4. You know that was a test of faith right? He didn't actually kill him?
5. Sigh, is this such a bad thing? I'm pretty sure it says husbands submit to your wives also. It is an equal relationship.
6. Slave meant worker or employee. And you should always respect and obey the people above you even if they are cruel. And with nowadays version of slavery you should do the same. If I was a black slave 200 years ago I would be angry at my master but I would try my best to obey and respect him. I would pray for his heart to change.
I may have misspoken or put something untrue here but this is what my limited knowledge can explain to you.
God bless!
Oh here we go. I'll bite the troll bait. 1. It all boils down to sexism. Some men just don't like the idea of women being in control. Period. 2. The bible is not a history book. Never was. Never will. 3. If you think about it, a god does some magic, no one complains. Someone else does magic, everyone complains? Double standards at work here. 4. If Jehovah is an all knowing creator god, he wouldn't need to test anyone because he would already know the results before the test even started. There is no point in this test. If anything this just tells me that Jehovah didn't know the guy well enough and had to test him. Therefore, Jehovah is not all knowing and thus never all powerful. 5. Nah. It's just more sexism. Read the bible some more. 6. Nah. Slaves weren't even paid back then. Although to be fair if I recall correctly, back when the Roman Empire was still pagan, slavery use to be seen as a means of gaining freedom. You work for a master for a set time and then you earn your freedom. In other words, they were indentured servants. Those are completely different from slaves. Keep in mind the Southern States use to use this part of the bible before the American Civil War as an excuse for owning slaves. Those slaves were never set free and were never paid until after the war. I will let you off for now as you were kind enough to claim to not understand everything. I suggest you read the bible from front to back and see for yourself how F-ed up it is. PS: In case anyone asks, I'm not atheist. I'm Gnostic (not to be confused with Agnostic).
Ugh...I'm going to start out by saying, secular government is secular, and while I hate the redefinition of words (in this case Marriage) and will resist the redefinition of the term in vernacular...since it has a legal definition as well, that definition must be extended to all persons. (In other-words, I support the spirit of Marriage and "Gay" Marriage being treated the same, but would rather them both be labeled as Civil Unions to avoid redefining a word...since I like words with more static definitions because it avoids problems that will be encountered later in this post)
That being said...I feel I need to provide context to the passages to which you responded to the responses to:
(Bear in mind, that these are intended to be informative to the best of my knowledge, not inflammatory or Offensive, and I apologize if they come off as inflammatory or offensive, it was not the original intent, and as tone can be difficult to convey over the internet I want to get this stated before it is read)
1. Have you considered the cultural context in which it was written (Ephesus Somewhere between 62-66AD)? If you read Galatians 3:28 and Ephesians 5:21 (Which was years after the letter to Timothy was sent) it seems to paint a different light, therefore we can surmise that it was more of an instruction for that particular church at that particular time. Another thing worth noting is that the word translated as "Authority" had so many meanings at the time (and many more, some of which didn't come into usage until 300 AD) that some scholars disagree on what the passage actually says.
2. Point...the purpose isn't to inform of specifics of events, lots of The Bible is written in a narrative/lyrical form (as was the custom in the cultures that wrote it), making much of it difficult to distinguish fact from embellishment...although I must admit, that is a very effective way of doing warfare...raze everything to the ground, leave no survivors to seek revenge.
3 Ok...I'm a little rusty on my Hebrew, so maybe someone who is more familiar with the language can help out here, but if I'm remembering correctly, it would refer to one who used "magic" to bring harm to someone (the term magic could range from a number of things including stage magic, supernatural abilities, medicines, or poisons)
4 ...I don't have the time or text-space to adequately respond to your response on this one...but here's one possible explanation without nearly enough space dedicated to it. Imagine a being could see all possible outcomes to all possible situations at all times...this being would be all-knowing would they not? They know every possible way events can turn out, as well as how events will turn out, and knows that what will turn out will turn out...but by the nature of an entity that exists outside of the universe, Jehovah would be difficult to understand/explain...but I lack the time and qualifications
5 Like the verse immediately before the one you're talking about...or the entire section/chapter? Also see Galatians 3:28
6. Ignoring the historical context in which passages where written is the very reason they where and are being exploited...passages from any number of documents that people believe in can be taken out of context and used to exploit others, they are powerful tools and like most tools can be used as weapons
I encourage people to go and look these up for themselves, to fact check me, since I've been known to be wrong
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal
|