The answer for timothy 2:12
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-09-2012, 04:09 PM
RE: The answer for timothy 2:12
(26-09-2012 04:05 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(26-09-2012 04:01 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Meaning?

You'll have to be more specific.

Oh c'mon, KC. It was my periodic dig at your delusion; it was overdue. Yes

You're right.

I was thinking you didn't love me anymore.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2012, 04:10 PM
RE: The answer for timothy 2:12
(26-09-2012 04:02 PM)kim Wrote:  
(26-09-2012 03:52 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  The Bible doesn't convey God as completely benevolent, and I'm still at a loss as to where this incorrect concept came from.

So, you don't feel John 3:16 covers his ass then, huh? I'm thinking that a lot of people pretty much go with that as the be all and end all. But then, a lot of people shop at Wal-Mart, too. Dodgy

Greek specifically says "all the believing ones". Doesn't say anything about anyone and everyone. JC is addressing believers.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2012, 04:30 PM
RE: The answer for timothy 2:12
(26-09-2012 04:10 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Greek specifically says "all the believing ones". Doesn't say anything about anyone and everyone. JC is addressing believers.

Oh. Gee so... which version was written for the white, calvinist, cracker, swamp-living, believers? Just so I get the "right" meaning. Dodgy
***
You said "I'm still at a loss as to where this incorrect concept came from." and so I'm giving you an idea "specifically" where this concept may have come from. The majority of people just kind of go with what is spooned into them, Kingsy. John 3:16 - this is why people think god is all fuzzy, warm, and loving.

If you do not know this, you are seriously out of touch with mainstream, US religious retards who have this shit on business cards, signs on doors of their businesses, and on their license plates. I wouldn't put it past Rick Perry to have it tattooed on his ass.

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kim's post
26-09-2012, 04:34 PM
RE: The answer for timothy 2:12
(26-09-2012 04:30 PM)kim Wrote:  
(26-09-2012 04:10 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Greek specifically says "all the believing ones". Doesn't say anything about anyone and everyone. JC is addressing believers.

Oh. Gee so... which version was written for the white, calvinist, cracker, swamp-living, believers? Just so I get the "right" meaning. Dodgy
***
You said "I'm still at a loss as to where this incorrect concept came from." and so I'm giving you an idea "specifically" where this concept may have come from. The majority of people just kind of go with what is spooned into them, Kingsy. John 3:16 - this is why people think god is all fuzzy, warm, and loving.

If you do not know this, you are seriously out of touch with mainstream, US religious retards who have this shit on business cards, signs on doors of their businesses, and on their license plates. I wouldn't put it past Rick Perry to have it tattooed on his ass.

Yeah, I know what you're saying.

And, the majority of the modern translations are unfortunate because in many instances there are incorrectly conveyed thoughts based on what the oldest manuscripts say.

And that John 3:16 thing I've addressed many times because is fuel for Arminians.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2012, 04:41 PM
RE: The answer for timothy 2:12
(26-09-2012 04:34 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  ... because is fuel for Arminians.

Honestly... I do not know what that means.

I know who Armenians are. I like Serj Tankian - he's Armenian.

As for Arminians... I just figure you are a crappy speller. Undecided

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2012, 05:21 PM (This post was last modified: 26-09-2012 05:26 PM by depat.)
RE: The answer for timothy 2:12
The Pauline Epistles are notorious for misogamistic attitudes towards women, a misogamy that has informed the placement of women in church doctrine and dogma for roughly 2000 years. Yet, the misogomy that seemingly arose 2000 years ago was the result of several thousand years (at least) of history before that. It is believed that when the human discovery of who implanted the child in the woman occured. A women's place in her social group changed in almost every society in the world. I say "in almost every society," yet none were every found and none exist today.

Unfortunately, religions grew up around these strange notions about a woman's place and a man's place and are the greatest contributers in dictatiing a woman's place in church, home, and society.

The philosopher Aristotle (300 years BCE) studied human biology, discovering what he called the telos of each kind of life. He taught that female fetuses grew on the inferior side of the woman's body and the male on the superior side. He taught about body humors. Think about the female cycle and where the blood goes when a woman reaches menopause (the evil eye, witch, hag). He believed that the female was really quite nasty and only compatible with man for bearing children. His writings informed about 2000 years of female biology in the area of medicine, even into the Victorian era. Aristotle's writings were recovered during the early years of the Crusades. The Church used these documents (mostly clerics could write) to affirm what they already knew about women/Eve, the noose tightened. St. Mary may have been developed by the Church, beyond merely a human woman because of Aristotle's writings.

Sorry I'm on my soap box
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2012, 07:28 PM
RE: The answer for timothy 2:12
(26-09-2012 04:41 PM)kim Wrote:  
(26-09-2012 04:34 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  ... because is fuel for Arminians.

Honestly... I do not know what that means.

I know who Armenians are. I like Serj Tankian - he's Armenian.

As for Arminians... I just figure you are a crappy speller. Undecided

Jacobus Arminius

Christians who believe in freewill are called Arminians because of his outspoken beliefs against Calvinism and election.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2012, 07:36 PM
RE: The answer for timothy 2:12
(26-09-2012 03:49 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(25-09-2012 08:35 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  You're setting up a double-standard with the instructions that you want to follow and the instructions that you'd rather remain directed at their specific audience, because EVERYTHING in the bible is written to an audience other than the reader. Consider this specific reference to this audience:


Now it's funny, because I don't remember ever being brought out of Egypt or out of slavery. So should I ignore the commandments that follow because God wasn't talking to me? Consider also that this is from the Old Testament, a bunch of things told to a people that lived in a tribal community unlike our own. Does this mean that, because their culture was so different, that I should ignore these commandments? The 10 commandments are literally the only place in the bible that we're commanded not to steal or kill. Does this mean I'm free to steal and kill?

Like I said, context is only raised when defending scripture that is clearly immoral or inapplicable (such as eating pig).

Now you say that we should consider the bible as inspired word rather than as a guidebook to Christian living, but what exactly do you mean by "inspired"? Could a Christian not justify misogyny by pointing out that the "inspired" word suggested it? There's obvious logical backing behind someone reading a commandment, even one written to a different audience (do I have to make the point in all caps again?) and saying "that must apply to me and my church, too".

I've already addressed this.

If it's about God, then that cannot be contested.

The 10 Commandments were given by God to Moses and Moses gave it to the people. They were still given directly by God. So, it's from God.

The epistles were inspired by God; not given. They were inspired by God to teach the audience that they were intended to. God inspired His chosen leaders and gave them wisdom and discernment on how to handle specific situations. You see this in modern day churches.

This is NOT direct instructions from God or about God. Being inspired by God is something completely different.

Now, I already know where you're going next...

"Well, then what about all the crazy crap that God told the Jews? Wasn't that direct from God? How come you say that's only applicable to the Jews?"

Because it was specifically addressed to the Jews. All of that stuff was for the Jews... to set them apart.

Jesus and the New Testament specifically abolished those practices for the Gentiles. Those were the instructions that were addressed to us (the Gentiles).

So, in a sense, yes, the original 10 Commandment were specifically for the Jews and are not applicable to us; however, Jesus reaffirmed the 10 Commandments with His two commandments.

It was just one example, but I could do this all day. There are plenty of commandments addressed solely to the Jews that you personally value and plenty of commandments addressed to the churches by Paul that you would deny. Do you seriously think, even if I accepted your weak refutation of my first example, that it would make my argument untrue? I don't care if you "already addressed it"... apparently I didn't agree with your "addressing" of the topic. You're getting absolutely none of this from the bible. You've assumed the conclusion (that the guidelines set by your church must have been derived from the bible) and you're fitting the facts to it.

But let's depart from this path (since you've "already addressed it") and consider other implications of this belief.

Implication #1 - Non-jews before Jesus' arrival were sinless. "What???" you ask. Well, if the laws were addressed only to the Jews, then non-Jews had no laws. If they had no laws, they couldn't break them. Sin is breaking God's laws. Therefore, if non-Jews had no laws to break, they couldn't possibly sin and were therefore sinless.

Implication #2 - Basically implication #1 but with Christians and non-Christians. If God didn't address any of the New Testament to us atheists, then they don't apply to us. Not "all have sinned"... just all of you Christians.

Implication #3 - Absolutely any law that a Christian doesn't feel like following can be excused with "it was directed to this audience", because it was always addressed to a specific audience. The "two commandments" of the New Testament? Not addressed to bible readers. Using your same argument, there's no reason any Christian would feel bound to love God or his neighbor.

Of course, I understand where all of this is coming from. You've been reading your bible and learning from Jesus. After all, at the beginning of Matthew 15, the pharisees criticize Jesus for not washing his hands. He answered with an ad hominem tu quoque argument by accusing them of not killing disobedient children. And that wasn't the only time he defended breaking a commandment by personally attacking his accusers. Upon reading the New Testament, I would also get the sense that Jesus "did away with the Old Testament laws". Otherwise you'd have to admit that he sinned. Twice.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2012, 07:42 PM
RE: The answer for timothy 2:12
(26-09-2012 09:24 AM)Erxomai Wrote:  This thread confuses me. What was the question that needed an answer?

How come I'm always the one arguing about inconsistencies in the bible/Christian beliefs? Surely you know the bible as well as I do or better. You understand Christian cognitive dissonance because you also had it at one time. And yet... here I am. Alone.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2012, 08:28 PM
The answer for timothy 2:12
(26-09-2012 07:42 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(26-09-2012 09:24 AM)Erxomai Wrote:  This thread confuses me. What was the question that needed an answer?

How come I'm always the one arguing about inconsistencies in the bible/Christian beliefs? Surely you know the bible as well as I do or better. You understand Christian cognitive dissonance because you also had it at one time. And yet... here I am. Alone.

Recovering from a severe case of cognitive dissonance was exactly why I haven't entered the discussion except to ask a flippant question. Why was the OP giving us an answer to a question we never asked? I don't mean that to sound critical because I understand its just a jumping off point for a discussion to help debate the bible. But I read and hear things in a way that sometimes makes me wonder If I have mild Aspergers because I have the tendency to focus in on the explicit meaning of a word or phrase rather than its intended meaning. So I see, "Here is the answer" and the first thought I have is, "Who was asking any questions." Just silliness.

But there was also meaning behind the question. Why do we even need to bother? I don't agree with Egor's "Atheism=Religion" mantra, but his actual stated reason, for me, has validity behind it: "If atheism isn't a religion then atheists would just go live their lives and not bother with any sort of God talk." (Loosely paraphrased but I don't want to search for the original quote). Anyway, the idea of less god talk resonates very strongly with the place where my soul would be if I had one.

Besides, Crashy, I've been keeping an eye on your analysis and it looks to me like you have things pretty well in hand here. Thumbsup

Besides, you're never alone. His rod and staff are with you even in the valley of the shadow of death. Tongue

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Erxomai's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: