Im A Christian Again

[Vigile]

BTW, your repeated portrayal of male as the sinless Christ and female as representing sinful bride humanity is offensive. I remind myself that this kind of thing comes from a really hurt and damaged place, about propagators' personal problems. I do have compassion. I reckon centuries of men shackled 'til death--or else!!--to women who were bad matches for them was a big contributor to personal misery of the males who, as those with power to develop philosophical texts, used their social position to write, glorify and institutionalize a book that uses the female gender so badly in theological metaphor. That's wrong.

That's a damn good point too.

 

So, we should not consider that law, given by God, as a pagan influenced law, but instead as the illustration of the sexist prejudice from a patriarchal society... yeah, soooo much better. *NOT*.

 

Yeah, that's some profound insight there Phanta. Not just of the metaphor, but the underlying reasons.

[Vigile]

Surely she is overwhelmed. I always find it of interest, though, to see what, then, a visitor chooses from the mass of input to focus his or her attention on.

 

Phanta

 

 

Yeah, no doubt she is overwhelmed, but still, if she really does have the holy spirit on her side, then it means she should be overwhelming us with her wisdom and knowledge. It should be her that has the unfair advantage.

 

True.

 

I guess I still feel a bit sorry for her though. She is offended by our language and sometimes aggressive responses. From our perspective there is nothing inherently wrong with this approach and in fact we are compelled to be intellectually honest, even in the acknowledgment that words are just words and that which is truly offensive are things like xian judgment. From her perspective, she's struggling in a den of sinners and as she herself said, she struggles with confidence outside her faith.

[Dibllsmek]

I'm going to say this without all the bad words and negativity of some other posts.

 

The brain is a fabulous thing. It generates thousands of thought, processes information, and many other things all in less than the blink of an eye. Ever since we developed that brain man has been looking for a way to explain what we cannot. It generates excuses of things we are fearful of.

There we're sun gods because the sun was dangerous and could blind you, we try to appeal to this god in fear, then we found out the sun helps grow crops, now we try to appeal to this god in fear of losing food. Modern science has almost totally demolished the idea that the sun is a deity.

Now think, what has been man's ultimate enemy, its bane of existence, death. It's only natural that we would come up with a way to sedate our fear. This is how we create some place we go when we die, a perfect place, such a perfect place would need a creator. The idea of the Abrahamic God takes care of all our fears. Nothing "good" must be the work of an opposite force, an anti-creator.

The voices you "hear" (I'm thinking feelings, not actually voices in your head) are your conscience. The conscience is how you process information. It is built up over childhood. If I was taught murdering was good, my conscience would tell me murdering is the right action.

I did not get this from another website, its my thoughts, and mine alone.

 

I may not be right. I except no ultimate impossibilities. I except all possibilities as having equal merit based on my own thought out beliefs.

I only just turned 15, I am only just starting the 10th grade. Many adults have discredited my ideas because I am a "naive child" I ask you to not do that. I left Christianity because I looked at it from many perspectives, the most outstanding, were of course, Christian and Atheist.

If Christianity is what makes you happy, follow it. I think we (may) have only one life, live it how you see fit. It's no one else's business unless it directly effects them, like try to reconvert them.

 

So please, I ask you to look at it from many different views, wipe all your thoughts about christianity, atheism, etc. Look at them from their view, a christian view, and an atheist view. You will learn a lot in the process.

[Vigile]

So please, I ask you to look at it from many different views, wipe all your thoughts about christianity, atheism, etc. Look at them from their view, a christian view, and an atheist view. You will learn a lot in the process.

 

I'd be impressed with anyone who came up with such a profound viewpoint. I'm dumbfounded that a 15 yo did.

[OnceConvinced]

Yeah, some good thinking there.

[Rev R]

So please, I ask you to look at it from many different views, wipe all your thoughts about christianity, atheism, etc. Look at them from their view, a christian view, and an atheist view. You will learn a lot in the process.

 

I kinda like this Dib. I'll be back to get further into it.

[Phanta]

Right out of the same chapter your are quoting:

 

Num 5:6 Speak unto the children of Israel, When a man or woman shall commit any sin that men commit, to do a trespass against the LORD, and that person be guilty;

 

 

Num 5:7 Then they shall confess their sin which they have done: and he shall recompense his trespass with the principal thereof, and add unto it the fifth [part] thereof, and give [it] unto [him] against whom he hath trespassed.

 

That's neat. I'd agree with that as a fair guideline for reconciling a wrong done.

 

Because I am an unbeliever, the bit that follows about if no close relative be available to repay, then it goes to the priest, I would do differently. As an unbeliever, I would say give it to the community to share. But, I can see how, for a believer in God, giving to the priest would function emotionally, for the transgressor, in clearing a wrong.

 

There is surely good stuff alongside the sexist writings.

 

Phanta

[Phanta]

Surely she is overwhelmed. I always find it of interest, though, to see what, then, a visitor chooses from the mass of input to focus his or her attention on.

 

Phanta

 

 

Yeah, no doubt she is overwhelmed, but still, if she really does have the holy spirit on her side, then it means she should be overwhelming us with her wisdom and knowledge. It should be her that has the unfair advantage.

 

True.

 

I guess I still feel a bit sorry for her though. She is offended by our language and sometimes aggressive responses. From our perspective there is nothing inherently wrong with this approach and in fact we are compelled to be intellectually honest, even in the acknowledgment that words are just words and that which is truly offensive are things like xian judgment. From her perspective, she's struggling in a den of sinners and as she herself said, she struggles with confidence outside her faith.

 

Thanks for writing this. I am trying to let my compassion lead me more.

 

Heck, I'm not keen on the language or the sexist, condescending, fear-mongering religious system.

 

Phanta

[Phanta]

Who cares about the interpretation.....again, you are using it as a tool, even in this post, as a means of separation. That is the point I am trying to make. We use transient truths like "the woman came first and the man took that away too" to essentially separate ourselves into some security. That is the wrong that you might underline.

 

I'm going to need some education and clarification --> What is transient about what I wrote and, for contrast, what is an example of a non-transient truth.

 

Let me see if I can get your view: You feel like I am separating from you because I am focusing on the metaphor being inherently sexist. You want me to not be upset by it, because that causes separation. Comparing men to perfection and women to sin does not necessarily mean anyone is sexist or trying to put anyone down. Is that your view?

 

Phanta

[Guest end3]

Who cares about the interpretation.....again, you are using it as a tool, even in this post, as a means of separation. That is the point I am trying to make. We use transient truths like "the woman came first and the man took that away too" to essentially separate ourselves into some security. That is the wrong that you might underline.

 

I'm going to need some education and clarification --> What is transient about what I wrote and, for contrast, what is an example of a non-transient truth.

 

Let me see if I can get your view: You feel like I am separating from you because I am focusing on the metaphor being inherently sexist. You want me to not be upset by it, because that causes separation. Comparing men to perfection and women to sin does not necessarily mean anyone is sexist or trying to put anyone down. Is that your view?

 

As I was attempting to describe, the first Adam and Eve would have been one in a sense as we had discussed, Eve was from Adam....Eve essentially being Adam....so it makes sense to me that if one was guilty of sin, then they were both guilty......backed up by Numbers 5:6. Had Satan not interrupted the unity, would this sinless oneness exist? Yes, I think.

 

Again, as it describes Christ as the second Adam, his "mate/bride" would be him as well. As I was saying, the components for the creation of the bride were from Christ's side as well. The blood was the life and the water was the Spirit for the entity that is the second Eve in my opinion.....both would be One and sinless.....and I think that it is what it is trying to describe the people we become through this particular mechanism that is Christianity.

 

So when you say that the writings are sexist, I am of the opinion that you are missing the intent of the relationship between man and woman as God has defined. And that frustrates me because you seem to adopt other views mostly for acceptance into the anti-Christian group.

 

Then, if you take the Truth that love never fails, perfect grace, and the golden rule as described and lived by Christ, these other truths that are transient in nature....perhaps even evolving slowly over 100's of years, are STILL transient and separate us from the unity that you and I so much desire.

[Shyone]

So when you say that the writings are sexist, I am of the opinion that you are missing the intent of the relationship between man and woman as God has defined.

 

And I am of the opinion that you are cherry picking.

[Guest end3]

So when you say that the writings are sexist, I am of the opinion that you are missing the intent of the relationship between man and woman as God has defined.

 

And I am of the opinion that you are cherry picking.

 

And this is coming from Mr. Reductionist? So how do roles as a function of an organization not immediatately define the roles as DIFFERENT from each other? And if you hate the function of the organization, then you justify that the component roles/organization is flawed....sexist in this case.

 

Come on Doc....use your brain.

[Rev R]

Again, as it describes Christ as the second Adam, his "mate/bride" would be him as well. As I was saying, the components for the creation of the bride were from Christ's side as well. The blood was the life and the water was the Spirit for the entity that is the second Eve in my opinion.....both would be One and sinless.....and I think that it is what it is trying to describe the people we become through this particular mechanism that is Christianity.

 

So who is the "entity" that is the bride- this Neo-Eve?

[FiddlingAround]

 

And this is coming from Mr. Reductionist? So how do roles as a function of an organization not immediatately define the roles as DIFFERENT from each other? And if you hate the function of the organization, then you justify that the component roles/organization is flawed....sexist in this case.

 

Come on Doc....use your brain.

 

Really, End? Sigh...

 

All right, why don't you tell me what my DIFFERENT role should be.

 

To be forced to marry any man who rapes me before I'm properly betrothed?

 

To obey my husband? Regardless of his actions?

 

To learn in submission, because my thoughts and ideas cannot possibly benefit a man?

 

To be saved by having children, then stay home and tend to them whether or not I, as an individual, am at all interested in or suited to raising children?

 

I'm sorry...but few things rub me the wrong way like people who first claim that when the Bible says something sexist it doesn't really mean it...and then turn around and tell me that the Bible commands a "different" role for me because I'm female. Either really repudiate the sexism or own up to it.

 

Hmmm...and I do have trouble understanding your posts sometimes, so if I'm hitting you with something totally left field of what you meant, I apologize.

[Guest end3]

Again, as it describes Christ as the second Adam, his "mate/bride" would be him as well. As I was saying, the components for the creation of the bride were from Christ's side as well. The blood was the life and the water was the Spirit for the entity that is the second Eve in my opinion.....both would be One and sinless.....and I think that it is what it is trying to describe the people we become through this particular mechanism that is Christianity.

 

So who is the "entity" that is the bride- this Neo-Eve?

 

the easy answer is Israel.....Israel being the community of believers in Christ (the church) as judged by Christ, and IMO, Jewish Israel as well.

[Phanta]

I'm still thinking about this conversation.

 

Do you truly see Numbers as ONLY metaphorical? I want to be clear. What I am hearing from you is that you don't believe those were actual plain directives of behavior for the ancient Israelites. Is that right?

 

Phanta

[Sconnor]

So when you say that the writings are sexist, I am of the opinion that you are missing the intent of the relationship between man and woman as God has defined.

 

And I am of the opinion that you are cherry picking.

 

Opinions aside: the fact of the matter – end is cherry picking.

 

In fact, that is what all Christians do to rationalize their own idiosyncratic beliefs.

 

That’s why Catholicism doesn’t allow women priests.

That is why evangelicals keep women out of authority positions in the church.

That is why some Christian denominations propagate women as subservient.

That is why polygamy is a way of life at the FLDS church.

That’s the ideology that makes it possible for women to be brainwashed and held against their will in Mormon sects.

That is why men burned women at stakes.

Etc. etc. etc.

 

And they all go to their bible for their marching orders.

 

And from their own particular interpretation from the bible, they ALL rationalize its god’s will.

 

Just like you do, end -- when you make unsubstantiated, outrageous claims about god’s character and will.

 

That's why end has no credibility.

 

--S.

[Guest end3]

I'm still thinking about this conversation.

 

Do you truly see Numbers as ONLY metaphorical? I want to be clear. What I am hearing from you is that you don't believe those were actual plain directives of behavior for the ancient Israelites. Is that right?

 

Phanta

 

No, I believe it was literal, but a means to achieve the sin-free goal. Sin being something to be kept in control by the law. A right then take care of it existance. Gets dirty, stop, scrub it.

[Guest end3]

So when you say that the writings are sexist, I am of the opinion that you are missing the intent of the relationship between man and woman as God has defined.

 

And I am of the opinion that you are cherry picking.

 

Opinions aside: the fact of the matter – end is cherry picking.

 

In fact, that is what all Christians do to rationalize their own idiosyncratic beliefs.

 

That’s why Catholicism doesn’t allow women priests.

That is why evangelicals keep women out of authority positions in the church.

That is why some Christian denominations propagate women as subservient.

That is why polygamy is a way of life at the FLDS church.

That’s the ideology that makes it possible for women to be brainwashed and held against their will in Mormon sects.

That is why men burned women at stakes.

Etc. etc. etc.

 

And they all go to their bible for their marching orders.

 

And from their own particular interpretation from the bible, they ALL rationalize its god’s will.

 

Just like you do, end -- when you make unsubstantiated, outrageous claims about god’s character and will.

 

That's why end has no credibility.

 

--S.

 

All you have listed is transient "truths" Scott...truths at the time.

[Ouroboros]

No, I believe it was literal, but a means to achieve the sin-free goal. Sin being something to be kept in control by the law. A right then take care of it existance. Gets dirty, stop, scrub it.

This is very confusing End3.

 

If the law that Phanta quoted is to be taken literal, it is a pagan/witchcraft ritual.

 

If it's not a pagan/witchcraft ritual, but a illustration (figure of speech) of something else, then it's not literal.

 

So how can it be literal and not literal at the same time?

[Guest end3]

 

And this is coming from Mr. Reductionist? So how do roles as a function of an organization not immediatately define the roles as DIFFERENT from each other? And if you hate the function of the organization, then you justify that the component roles/organization is flawed....sexist in this case.

 

Come on Doc....use your brain.

 

Really, End? Sigh...

 

All right, why don't you tell me what my DIFFERENT role should be.

 

To be forced to marry any man who rapes me before I'm properly betrothed?

 

To obey my husband? Regardless of his actions

 

To learn in submission, because my thoughts and ideas cannot possibly benefit a man?

 

To be saved by having children, then stay home and tend to them whether or not I, as an individual, am at all interested in or suited to raising children?

 

I'm sorry...but few things rub me the wrong way like people who first claim that when the Bible says something sexist it doesn't really mean it...and then turn around and tell me that the Bible commands a "different" role for me because I'm female. Either really repudiate the sexism or own up to it.

 

Hmmm...and I do have trouble understanding your posts sometimes, so if I'm hitting you with something totally left field of what you meant, I apologize.

 

A formitable post FA....let me attempt this evening when I can sit down with it.

[FiddlingAround]

 

A formitable post FA....let me attempt this evening when I can sit down with it.

 

Sounds good. I'm on my way to work, so I'll check back in later and we'll talk.

[Sconnor]

I'm still thinking about this conversation.

 

Do you truly see Numbers as ONLY metaphorical? I want to be clear. What I am hearing from you is that you don't believe those were actual plain directives of behavior for the ancient Israelites. Is that right?

 

Phanta

 

No, I believe it was literal, but a means to achieve the sin-free goal. Sin being something to be kept in control by the law.

 

Yeah – how’d that work out for Israel?

 

Bible-god sure caused plenty of suffering and genocide when Israel disobeyed his law – leaving little to NO effect on his fallible, sinful, earthly children.

 

How’s god’s awesome plan (trying to achieve a sin free goal) going for the rest of (sinful, fallible) humanity?

 

--S.

[Guest end3]

So how can it be literal and not literal at the same time?

 

Are you saying can it function literally now? I assume it can function literally if one keeps the entire law. I don't practice it literally as a function of the renewed covenant. Should it be essentially literal for me. Yes, I think if I were all the way to my salvation destination, then I would be complete, mature in Love......it should be written on my heart....a complete understanding via God's definitions, not ours.

[Phanta]

I'm still thinking about this conversation.

 

Do you truly see Numbers as ONLY metaphorical? I want to be clear. What I am hearing from you is that you don't believe those were actual plain directives of behavior for the ancient Israelites. Is that right?

 

Phanta

 

No, I believe it was literal, but a means to achieve the sin-free goal. Sin being something to be kept in control by the law. A right then take care of it existance. Gets dirty, stop, scrub it.

 

Why do you think God directed the adultery test only for women? Other directives (see the one before, which you referenced, and chapter 6) are clearly aimed at both men and women.

 

What do you make of that?

 

Phanta