@Android Raptor Love Thread

Android raptor said:
Duh? All the conservative branches of the abrahamic religions are fucked and have more in common with each other than the do the more moderate versions of the same religion.
Click to expand...
No, silly, if you are left of centre you have to accept Conservative Muslims as part of your coalition or you're a bigot....

generic sauce said:
Dis bitch needs a good dickin eh?
Click to expand...
No, my simping is soft and ethereal like an older Dante whimpering over an imagined Beatrice....
 
SSj_Ness said:
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" - 2 Timothy 3:16
Click to expand...
Touché! :)

Except that that, again, is Paul speaking. Everything that made the cut to be placed into the anthology that is the Bible was decided on by humans. And humans who say that these human-chosen things were actually selected by God is a self-justifying tautology: "if it's in the Bible it's the Word of God beause everything in the Bible is the Word of God."

Honest question: do you not think there is any consideration for societal context in evaluating the words of the Bible? Some principles can be absolutely universal and unbound by time, but it seems odd to exclude the Bible entirely from its historical milieu, unlike every other writing touched by humans. And if the answer is no, this is from God and means literally what it says, exactly as said, then a reasonable extension is that nothing can be extended beyond the words on the page. So screw parables - for example, the lessons around the Pharisees would apply to nothing/no one but Pharisees. We don't have things called Pharisees anymore, so analogizing to modern equivalents or applying those lessons to people not performing those exact functions would be incorrect.

Alternatively, even if allowing the underlying moral to apply, a path of thought would be that since Pharisees were all men, and were referred to as men/what men should do, then even if you analogized to similarly situated persons in modern times, the lesson wouldn't apply to women with similar roles/attitudes. If the Word of God makes such sharp distinctions between men and women and their societal standing/function ...why is it that parables and lessons should apply to everyone, despite only sometimes referring to both men and women, and often referring only to men and using groups/statuses that could only be held by men?

I'd also add that unlike the men who sent letters or wrote the various books, Jesus dealt with women very differently than those men. He discussed theology with the woman at the well, despite the fairly shocking unusualness of this and the shock it gave the local men. ("And upon this came his disciples and marvelled that he talked with the woman: yet no man said, What seekest thou? or,Why talkest thou with her?" -John 4:27)

As John Paul II said, "This is an unprecedented event, if one remembers the usual way women were treated by those who were teachers in Israel; whereas in Jesus of Nazareth's way of acting[,] such an event becomes normal.". Do you think there is any significance to Jesus's actions?

And despite Paul's notion you've referenced in this discussion that women cannot be church leaders, the woman at the well became a prolific evangelist : "Many Samaritans from that city believed in him because of the woman’s testimony, “He told me everything I have ever done.”". -John 4:39

Lol, of course some men could not concede her words were important: "And many more believed because of his word.
They said to the woman, "It is no longer because of your words that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is indeed the Savior of the world."" -John 4:41-42). Funny that that part of the story made it into the book. If the book is inherently divine, one could surmise that God thought there was a lesson there. Those men doubted the woman - who had literally spoken with Jesus and was evangelizing for him - until they heard it from the source. Her words weren't enough, even though apparently they aligned exactly to Jesus's. So this could be an historical, societal context observation about dismissing of women and the misguided limitations of the time/ men. Or, flipped around, the point could be that they were right, and that unless and until you literally hear it live from Jesus himself, don't believe it; some intermediary's recitation is insufficient. This of course is evangelically inefficient and runs against spreading the Word, which Jesus did say to do, so I'm going with the first: those 2 verses are about how the men were foolish and wrong in applying their earthly society's mores that said that women are lesser; woman is as capable and valuable an asset to the cause as anyone else. That is what Jesus showed by engaging her and the outcome of that. And between Jesus's actions/effects and Paul's words, which should be given more weight?

SSj_Ness said:
Downplaying him as just some random dude, as if this was just his opinions pulled out of his ass, is sacrilegious.
Click to expand...
It is not. Paul is not the Son of God. He was a believer and a man. To quote Paul himself: "I speak as a man." -Roman's 3:5

SSj_Ness said:
Irrelevant:

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" - Roman's 3:23
Click to expand...
That is a statement on the nature of humans/humanity, not an excuse for a purported Christian to justify acting contra the Word. And the context is the notion that everyone (Jew and Gentile alike, for the specific context) can receive God's grace - and it is faith alone that is the key to that grace. Not current societal rules ("For no human being will be justified in his sight by works of the law, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. -Roman's 3:10) but faith. And this is from Paul himself.

"Do you suppose, O man, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God?" -Romans 2:3
 
Last edited:
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Billy Bob Dick
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back