EVIDENCE FOR GOD

[blackbird]

7 hours ago, Goddess said:

I know.  I had to get rid of those "glasses" to find out that I am a wonderfully flawed woman, worthy of life on this planet.  Otherwise I would still be thinking I am nothing but a lowly woman, subject to the whims of whatever man is in charge, harassed by having a religion dictate each action, choice and decision, constantly reminded that I am "not good enough".  You can keep your spiritual "glasses".  I'll stick with reality.

Every religion says this exact same thing about their own personal made-up Gods/Allahs:

No woman should consider herself as a "lowly woman, subject to the whims of whatever man is in charge, ...etc"  I don't believe the Bible teaches that.  Maybe Islam, but not biblical christianity.  Women are special people in the Bible and in real life.

Edited January 11, 2018 by blackbird

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

LOL  Now when I look at that statement, I can't understand why ^^^THAT^^^ is more believable than evolution.

The biblical teaching is God the Son, Jesus Christ, always existed from eternity past.  He is not "created".  He is both the Son of God and God according to the Bible.

I wouldn't put the Bible alongside the theory of evolution.   Evolution is only a theory and doubtful in many people's minds.  The Bible is God's inspired word and is therefore not a theory invented by men.

[?Impact]

11 minutes ago, blackbird said:

No woman should consider herself as a "lowly woman, subject to the whims of whatever man is in charge, ...etc"  I don't believe the Bible teaches that.

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. - Ephesians 5:22-23

[?Impact]

13 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I wouldn't put the Bible alongside the theory of evolution.   Evolution is only a theory and doubtful in many people's minds.

I would put an evidence supported theory above a collection of children's fairy tales.

Edited January 11, 2018 by ?Impact

[blackbird]

8 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Lots of rocks in Africa, maybe you will catch on soon.

---

Concerning creation scientists, this is the claim of that group: Since the beginning of modern science, creationists have strived to explain our world based on the unchanging laws of our Creator.

If you look closely you will see that they are in fact not scientists and admit so in their own statement. They are not looking for evidence driven knowledge, but how they can jerry rig the evidence to fit their creationist mentality. The problem of course is every step of they way they become more and more absurd.

So would you say some of the greatest scientists in the last eight hundred years, like Sir Isaac Newton, who believed in God and the Bible, were not scientists?  Why, because they believed in God and the Bible they are not real scientists?   You have a strange criteria for determining who is a scientist and who isn't.

Edited January 11, 2018 by blackbird

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. - Ephesians 5:22-23

Why would you quote the Bible if you don't believe it and think it is all fairy tales?   The explanation is based on what the Bible teaches, which you don't accept from the get go.

[blackbird]

4 hours ago, GostHacked said:

The bolded text is inconsistent with how the Bible said how everything was created. If you go by the bible (ugh) the earth was created, man was created, THEN the Virgin May gave birth via immaculate conception to Jesus aka God'd only son.

Must be painful to have an athiest to tell you this.

Sorry, I don't really follow your point.  The Bible teaching is that Jesus always existed and the incarnation was when he came to earth and took on a human body.

Edited January 11, 2018 by blackbird

[blackbird]

4 hours ago, GostHacked said:

The bolded text is inconsistent with how the Bible said how everything was created. If you go by the bible (ugh) the earth was created, man was created, THEN the Virgin May gave birth via immaculate conception to Jesus aka God'd only son.

Must be painful to have an athiest to tell you this.

Why would you say God using his Son to create the universe is inconsistent with what the Bible says?   Don't forget God the Son is part of the trinity and is therefore God.

[DogOnPorch]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

Why would you say God using his Son to create the universe is inconsistent with what the Bible says?   Don't forget God the Son is part of the trinity and is therefore God.

 

Polytheism. If I were to actually bother being a polytheist, I'd go for the Greek/Roman mythology rather than Christian mythology. That Dionysus sure knows how to party.

[?Impact]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

So would you say some of the greatest scientists in the last eight hundred years, like Sir Isaac Newton, who believed in God and the Bible, were not scientists?  Why, because they believed in God and the Bible they are not real scientists?   You have a strange criteria for determining who is a scientist and who isn't.

Sir Isaac Newton was a Fellow at the University of Cambridge, I suggest you do some research on the Blasphemy Act of 1697 to understand the iron fist the Church used to rule over England at the time. While it was not as bad as the Church of Rome and their torture and murder of previous scientists, it still forced him to conform. Newton was a product of his time. He certainly was a student of the Bible, but that does not provide insight into his beliefs. I suggest if Isaac Newton were alive today, you would have a far different impression of his beliefs.

[?Impact]

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

Why would you quote the Bible if you don't believe it and think it is all fairy tales?   The explanation is based on what the Bible teaches, which you don't accept from the get go.

I certainly do believe in the Bible, just like I believe in Harry Potter. They are real, I can touch them, I can read them. It is the stories of the Bible I have problems with, not that are uninteresting or not enjoyable to read, simply that they do not reflect the reality of the universe. I was simply quoting a passage from the referenced piece of literature that seems at odds with your previous claim. If a woman is to submit to her husband, who is the "head of the wife", then that sounds very much like a woman being subject to the man in charge.

Edited January 11, 2018 by ?Impact

[blackbird]

21 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

I certainly do believe in the Bible, just like I believe in Harry Potter. They are real, I can touch them, I can read them. It is the stories of the Bible I have problems with, not that are uninteresting or not enjoyable to read, simply that they do not reflect the reality of the universe. I was simply quoting a passage from the referenced piece of literature that seems at odds with your previous claim. If a woman is to submit to her husband, who is the "head of the wife", then that sounds very much like a woman being subject to the man in charge.

You will have to read ch5 verses 22 to 33 to get a complete understanding of the relationship between a christian husband wife.  It is not a master-slave relationship which might be implied by taking one verse out of context.  

It also says concerning believers "Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God." Ephesians ch5:21  This is speaking about the relationship between ordinary believers, not just between a husband and wife.   Further down it says "Husband, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;" Ephesians ch5:25  It is a special relationship where the husband is the head of the wife and home, but must love his wife as his own body.  This of course goes against women's liberation ideology, but this is not women's lib.  This might not make much sense to a non-believer but it is the way God created men and women. Each has his or her own role in the family.

 

Edited January 11, 2018 by blackbird

[blackbird]

35 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Sir Isaac Newton was a Fellow at the University of Cambridge, I suggest you do some research on the Blasphemy Act of 1697 to understand the iron fist the Church used to rule over England at the time. While it was not as bad as the Church of Rome and their torture and murder of previous scientists, it still forced him to conform. Newton was a product of his time. He certainly was a student of the Bible, but that does not provide insight into his beliefs. I suggest if Isaac Newton were alive today, you would have a far different impression of his beliefs.

Here are a dozen or so scientists who believed in God in the period from the 15th century up into the 20th century, with some information about each of them.  I realize the Church of Rome ruled with an iron fist for centuries and dealt harshly and cruelly with heretics.  Apart from that, many people still believed in God.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html

[Goddess]

15 hours ago, blackbird said:

Maybe Islam, but not biblical christianity. 

Not true.  Christianity may be a bit further ahead in granting women autonomy than Islam is, but both religions view women as "lesser" than men.

I know all about how Christianity views the submission of women.  Every marital problem that arises - the solution is for the woman to submit. Yes, that works, when one person is constantly submitting to the other, it creates a kind of "peace" in the home.  But it is not good psychologically for either men or women.  For women, having to constantly submit to the man - whether he's right or wrong - is demoralizing and dehumanizing and in some decisions - not in the best interests of the family.  For men, the usual "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" holds true.  Many men - given that kind of power over their wife by a religion - will abuse it.  It's the nature of humans.  We all see it in religion - all religion.  We see it more than "submitting to each other."  

In the religion I was in, whenever there was a sermon on family/marriage - the focus was on wifely submission.  Very little was said about how men were to exercise that authority in a loving way.  That part was always glossed over.  I suspect it's the same in most other religions as well, since women are still "lesser" in the eyes of all of them.

Edited January 11, 2018 by Goddess

[?Impact]

43 minutes ago, Goddess said:

In the religion I was in, whenever there was a sermon on family/marriage - the focus was on wifely submission.  Very little was said about how men were to exercise that authority in a loving way.  That part was always glossed over.  I suspect it's the same in most other religions as well, since women are still "lesser" in the eyes of all of them.

I understand that, at least at one time, some religious leaders were fairly involved in marriages. Having regular meetings with the engaged couple (perhaps in group sessions) and coaching them on marriage. That seems interesting in that some of the Priests leading these discussions were also inexperienced, as their vows prevented them from being married themselves. Has anyone participated in these sessions and can tell us what was discussed at them concerning submission, etc.?

[?Impact]

11 hours ago, blackbird said:

This might not make much sense to a non-believer but it is the way God created men and women. Each has his or her own role in the family.

It is not just against women's lib, it is against mens experience. I would not want to have be robbed of the opportunity to be involved in the raising of my children. I'm glad that I didn't have a God telling me my place in the world.

[Goddess]

1 minute ago, ?Impact said:

I understand that, at least at one time, some religious leaders were fairly involved in marriages. Having regular meetings with the engaged couple (perhaps in group sessions) and coaching them on marriage. That seems interesting in that some of the Priests leading these discussions were also inexperienced, as their vows prevented them from being married themselves. Has anyone participated in these sessions and can tell us what was discussed at them concerning submission, etc.?

My EX and I went to a few "counselling sessions" during the really bad time of our relationship.  It was with 3 elders in the church - it's always 3 men in this particular religion, never any women.  One was married for many years, with no kids, one was a newlywed, and the other was very very elderly.  None had any experience in marriage counselling.

I think they DID try and they DID give him some counsel.  They could see he was an idiot, but again - it's very rare in that religion for husbands to receive much instruction on family/relationships.  Almost all marital problems - the solution is for the woman to submit and obey.

The counselling sessions were okay, but mostly they showed me that he was incapable of changing anything.

They made him read the scripture about "cherishing your wife" (I think Ephesians something??) and asked him what that meant in practical, every-day terms.  He was unable to come up with an answer.  By the time I left, I was the one working full-time, doing ALL the cooking and cleaning (the house was 5200 sf and he refused to allow me to hire anyone to help with the cleaning), raising the children (teens by then).  The elders asked him if I had been asking for him to help and he said, Yes.  They asked him, "Then why didn't you help out?"  His reply was that "Well, I just figured - Now, SHE knows what it's like."  This irritated me.  When he was the one working full-time, that was all he did - he came home to a clean house, dinner on the table, clean laundry, happy children, an organized life.  I just thought, There was never a time in our marriage where I would have seen him struggling with things and not tried to help him.  That attitude towards me was directly responsible for the breakdown of the marriage.

While they did make some points directed to him during the counselling, years of being told he is the man of the house, woman must submit and obey, women are to be "workers at home" (according to the Bible), etc......had already taken its toll on him and his behaviour.  You can't teach this to people and then act surprised when marriages fail.

[betsy]

3 hours ago, Goddess said:

Not true.  Christianity may be a bit further ahead in granting women autonomy than Islam is, but both religions view women as "lesser" than men.

 

Well, I suppose.....if you view the Vice President as a "lesser man" than the President....then, that's what a woman is to your interpretation of the Bible.

 

But that is not the case.  That's the feminist pov.

 

I don't think being second-in-command makes for a lesser person.  

Have you ever seen a kingdom with two kings thriving peacefully?

 

 

 

 

Edited January 11, 2018 by betsy

[Goddess]

We're not talking politics here.  We're talking marital relationships.  The Vice President is still given respect, dignity and listened to.

This is not the case when a religion dictates that one is the "head" and the other must submit.  This is not the case when an every-day man is constantly told he is superior and must be listened to no matter what.

If you want it to be the same as politics, then maybe religion should start teaching it's male members what being a real "head" is all about - the responsibilities of headship, not just that they are to be obeyed by women.  Good grief, even the President is subject to rules and laws and is informed of what those are.  Religious men like to gloss over that part.....

Edited January 11, 2018 by Goddess

[blackbird]

7 hours ago, Goddess said:

Not true.  Christianity may be a bit further ahead in granting women autonomy than Islam is, but both religions view women as "lesser" than men.

I know all about how Christianity views the submission of women.  Every marital problem that arises - the solution is for the woman to submit. Yes, that works, when one person is constantly submitting to the other, it creates a kind of "peace" in the home.  But it is not good psychologically for either men or women.  For women, having to constantly submit to the man - whether he's right or wrong - is demoralizing and dehumanizing and in some decisions - not in the best interests of the family.  For men, the usual "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" holds true.  Many men - given that kind of power over their wife by a religion - will abuse it.  It's the nature of humans.  We all see it in religion - all religion.  We see it more than "submitting to each other."  

In the religion I was in, whenever there was a sermon on family/marriage - the focus was on wifely submission.  Very little was said about how men were to exercise that authority in a loving way.  That part was always glossed over.  I suspect it's the same in most other religions as well, since women are still "lesser" in the eyes of all of them.

The way you describe it is a problem.  But that is not how it is supposed to be.  Such a couple need to find a good church and a good minister to discuss their problems with.  That's  about all I can say.   I don't agree with the master-slave situation that you described.  That not what the Bible endorses.  There's definitely something wrong in a situation like that and the people involved need help or may end up getting separated and divorced.  In some cases if there is physical or mental abuse, that may be the only solution. 

[blackbird]

5 hours ago, ?Impact said:

It is not just against women's lib, it is against mens experience. I would not want to have be robbed of the opportunity to be involved in the raising of my children. I'm glad that I didn't have a God telling me my place in the world.

Nobody said you should be robbed of the opportunity to be involved in the raising of your children.  Not sure where you got that idea.  Nobody is forcing you to do anything.  It's a free country.  One can believe whatever he/she wishes.

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, Goddess said:

We're not talking politics here.  We're talking marital relationships.  The Vice President is still given respect, dignity and listened to.

This is not the case when a religion dictates that one is the "head" and the other must submit.  This is not the case when an every-day man is constantly told he is superior and must be listened to no matter what.

If you want it to be the same as politics, then maybe religion should start teaching it's male members what being a real "head" is all about - the responsibilities of headship, not just that they are to be obeyed by women.  Good grief, even the President is subject to rules and laws and is informed of what those are.  Religious men like to gloss over that part.....

Yes, being in a christian marriage requires both understand their roles and responsibilities.  Otherwise it won't work.  I am talking about Bible believers, not "religious" people.  There are many "religious" people in the world, even in churches.  Using religion as a cloak for some other agenda will only backfire.  It doesn't work that way.  It seems like the devil has a hand in a lot of things and is probably the first one in the church on Sunday morning.  Don't underestimate his power and influence on people.

Edited January 11, 2018 by blackbird

[blackbird]

5 hours ago, Goddess said:

My EX and I went to a few "counselling sessions" during the really bad time of our relationship.  It was with 3 elders in the church - it's always 3 men in this particular religion, never any women.  One was married for many years, with no kids, one was a newlywed, and the other was very very elderly.  None had any experience in marriage counselling.

I think they DID try and they DID give him some counsel.  They could see he was an idiot, but again - it's very rare in that religion for husbands to receive much instruction on family/relationships.  Almost all marital problems - the solution is for the woman to submit and obey.

The counselling sessions were okay, but mostly they showed me that he was incapable of changing anything.

They made him read the scripture about "cherishing your wife" (I think Ephesians something??) and asked him what that meant in practical, every-day terms.  He was unable to come up with an answer.  By the time I left, I was the one working full-time, doing ALL the cooking and cleaning (the house was 5200 sf and he refused to allow me to hire anyone to help with the cleaning), raising the children (teens by then).  The elders asked him if I had been asking for him to help and he said, Yes.  They asked him, "Then why didn't you help out?"  His reply was that "Well, I just figured - Now, SHE knows what it's like."  This irritated me.  When he was the one working full-time, that was all he did - he came home to a clean house, dinner on the table, clean laundry, happy children, an organized life.  I just thought, There was never a time in our marriage where I would have seen him struggling with things and not tried to help him.  That attitude towards me was directly responsible for the breakdown of the marriage.

While they did make some points directed to him during the counselling, years of being told he is the man of the house, woman must submit and obey, women are to be "workers at home" (according to the Bible), etc......had already taken its toll on him and his behaviour.  You can't teach this to people and then act surprised when marriages fail.

Some churches oppose divorce on any grounds.  I have been in churches like that and abhor that attitude.  Our present minister is the same.  I don't agree but no use arguing with them.  My view is if there is any mental or physical abuse, and it can't be stopped (because as you pointed out some people are incapable of changing), then there is no solution for the marriage.  It must end.  Sometimes that is the best thing for the individuals.  I would be considered as a kind of rebel in most churches.

[blackbird]

7 hours ago, Goddess said:

Not true.  Christianity may be a bit further ahead in granting women autonomy than Islam is, but both religions view women as "lesser" than men.

I know all about how Christianity views the submission of women.  Every marital problem that arises - the solution is for the woman to submit. Yes, that works, when one person is constantly submitting to the other, it creates a kind of "peace" in the home.  But it is not good psychologically for either men or women.  For women, having to constantly submit to the man - whether he's right or wrong - is demoralizing and dehumanizing and in some decisions - not in the best interests of the family.  For men, the usual "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" holds true.  Many men - given that kind of power over their wife by a religion - will abuse it.  It's the nature of humans.  We all see it in religion - all religion.  We see it more than "submitting to each other."  

In the religion I was in, whenever there was a sermon on family/marriage - the focus was on wifely submission.  Very little was said about how men were to exercise that authority in a loving way.  That part was always glossed over.  I suspect it's the same in most other religions as well, since women are still "lesser" in the eyes of all of them.

What denomination were you going to if I might ask?  I'm not familiar with all of them, but know a little about some.

[?Impact]

4 hours ago, betsy said:

I don't think being second-in-command makes for a lesser person.  

I can say with 100% certainty that Donald Trump views Mike Pence as lesser a man than the President. He is expected to stand in the background and nod thoughtfully at every piece of garbage coming out of the Presidents mouth. I would say the submission role in the Bible is interpreted the same by many.