Religion as an Invention
POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Sunday, August 23, 2026 16:07
VIEWED: 9267
PAGE 8 of 12
Shiny.
You guys have every right to discuss whatever you want, whether I agree with or believe in what is being discussed has no bearing on whether you have the right to discuss it.
Paul seems a bit down on women too, I think it was his personal opinion because in the new testiment we see him say things like "I do not permit a woman to teach" etc.
I believe that, even though God refers to himself as He, as do we, he is able to love as a woman would too and has the traits often associated with women in regard to loving us etc. while still having the "manly" traits too.
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The old testament is our history (religiously speaking), I wasn't exactly implying we throw it out the gorram window, lol. I was mostly referring to things like the outdated non-applicable rules concerning animal sacrifices, the trimming of beards and the like.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
I was mostly referring to things like the outdated non-applicable rules concerning animal sacrifices, the trimming of beards and the like.
Did I not point out the update by omission thing? I could have sworn I did.
What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
I was mostly referring to things like the outdated non-applicable rules concerning animal sacrifices, the trimming of beards and the like.
Did I not point out the update by omission thing? I could have sworn I did.
What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.
And I asked if you consider it omission if it does not apply? I try not to swear too much, but I'm pretty sure I said it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
Shiny.
You guys have every right to discuss whatever you want, whether I agree with or believe in what is being discussed has no bearing on whether you have the right to discuss it.
Paul seems a bit down on women too, I think it was his personal opinion because in the new testiment we see him say things like "I do not permit a woman to teach" etc.
I believe that, even though God refers to himself as He, as do we, he is able to love as a woman would too and has the traits often associated with women in regard to loving us etc. while still having the "manly" traits too.
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
Right on Riona. It's my opinion that Jesus was a feminist.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Very likely so, I'll give you that much. There's plenty of interpretation about the resurrection and his order that he not be touched, but that's probably more due to supposed divinity than the witness being female.
Jesus kept a close circle of female friends and relatives that were actively involved in his life, where other men of the time kept them cloistered and in the background. He let them actively participate in ceremonies and other religious gatherings.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
I was mostly referring to things like the outdated non-applicable rules concerning animal sacrifices, the trimming of beards and the like.
Did I not point out the update by omission thing? I could have sworn I did.
And I asked if you consider it omission if it does not apply? I try not to swear too much, but I'm pretty sure I said it.
You can say it doesn't if you want, but it doesn't change the existing passage. I even quoted it for you.
It's your book, man. I don't think any of it applies.
What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Paul was a dick.
That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
Sometimes I wish that some of the apocryphal texts had made it into the book, because there were some that held interesting insights and better attitudes towards women.
Of course, the likelihood is that whatever really transpired in Biblical times... an army of men through several generations conspired to trim, edit, rewrite, and re-interpret the Bible to suit their needs and tastes.
The mere fact that one can step into a book store and find dozens of renditions of the Bible with minor tweaks proves that God does not preserve the contents of the book from alteration. The Bible is a text in the custodianship of human beings, and I think it must be viewed with a critical eye. No matter whether you believe in God or not, it is a surety that humans have tampered with that text through the ages.
We have only our own intellect and good conscience to guide us in what seems true, right, and just.
May God sort us out kindly in the end.
--Anthony
Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
You can say it doesn't if you want, but it doesn't change the existing passage.
I never claimed the passage changed, only that it no longer applies. Maybe this is just a matter of semantics, but I don't feel it is willfully 'omited' when it does not apply to us. This is my interpretation. You are welcome to yours.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME