A wife Led Marriage

[bimma360]

This thread is funny. In this "discussion," I've seen people talk about their belief in God and others straight up coming out and saying "you are wrong." Some of those people even pulled verses out of context from the bible to prove their point.

What I haven't seen, though, is the religious people calling anyone wrong... on any viewpoint. I think I have forgotten how discussions work.

And if you are thinking about responding to me using the actual topic at hand. You can respond to my very first post in this thread. I already talked about that, but by that time this was already a religious "discussion."

Well, I made my rounds in this subforum for the year.

[IronFreak]

Yes!

We're friends now okay?

-Amen
We're really good friends now too okay?

This sums it all up.
-it's wrong to judge no matter what belief. Respect is key here.
-rationalizing isn't always a good idea either, no matter what religion
-Quit polishing your pussies, once again this is true no matter what religion.

Deal!

[Wh33lhop]

This thread is funny. In this "discussion," I've seen people talk about their belief in God and others straight up coming out and saying "you are wrong." Some of those people even pulled verses out of context from the bible to prove their point.

What I haven't seen, though, is the religious people calling anyone wrong... on any viewpoint. I think I have forgotten how discussions work.

And if you are thinking about responding to me using the actual topic at hand. You can respond to my very first post in this thread. I already talked about that, but by that time this was already a religious "discussion."

Well, I made my rounds in this subforum for the year.

I think actual religious debates are extremely fruitless so I haven't been paying attention to the back and forth in this thread and can't comment on that.

What I will ask is that you consider the last time you heard about someone being beaten to death because of their love for Jesus.

Now remember the last time someone was killed in the name of God.

The last time someone was beaten to a pulp for their lack of faith. Or for being gay. Or for being an American. Or for being raped. Or for not covering their face. The last time some kid died from an easily curable disease because their parents insisted on "faith healing."

Think about the people who can't marry who they love, the people who are carrying a baby they don't want or was forced upon them; they'll have to have this kid and probably raise it. The parents who insist their kids not learn about evolution, in effect preventing others' from learning as well. The people who killed their families to save them the horror of the impending apocalypse.

Now imagine you're an atheist. You are watching all of this happening around you in utter disbelief. Watching the religious, so deep and steadfast in their own faith, try and force their rules on everyone. Hopefully, you can see why there is some animosity there. You can see why atheists are disgusted by some people's seemingly baseless faith structure. Are you personally hurting anyone with your faith? Doubtful. But maybe you can see the distaste for your faith, because not only do we deem it illogical, but we have seen what it is capable of in large numbers and in high doses, and we do not consider it harmless.

[cale]

This thread is funny. In this "discussion," I've seen people talk about their belief in God and others straight up coming out and saying "you are wrong." Some of those people even pulled verses out of context from the bible to prove their point.

What I haven't seen, though, is the religious people calling anyone wrong... on any viewpoint. I think I have forgotten how discussions work.

And if you are thinking about responding to me using the actual topic at hand. You can respond to my very first post in this thread. I already talked about that, but by that time this was already a religious "discussion."

Well, I made my rounds in this subforum for the year.

As the only individual who directly quoted the Bible to counter some people's claims, explain to me how stating there is actively a debate between not only theists and non-theists but amongst theists, is me stating anyone is wrong? I challenged claims, I did not claim anyone to be flat out incorrect. Quit trying to play a helpless victim and label those of us who challenge posts made here as close minded or out to get someone.

Again, this is a forum not a blog. What you post here is free for scrutinization and criticism, especially this sub-forum as it is dedicated solely to controversial topics. Crying about people being insensitive or that certain beliefs should be free from criticism is bullshit. Don't like it? Stay out of the discussion.

[z31maniac]

I think actual religious debates are extremely fruitless so I haven't been paying attention to the back and forth in this thread and can't comment on that.

What I will ask is that you consider the last time you heard about someone being beaten to death because of their love for Jesus.

Now remember the last time someone was killed in the name of God.

The last time someone was beaten to a pulp for their lack of faith. Or for being gay. Or for being an American. Or for being raped. Or for not covering their face. The last time some kid died from an easily curable disease because their parents insisted on "faith healing."

Think about the people who can't marry who they love, the people who are carrying a baby they don't want or was forced upon them; they'll have to have this kid and probably raise it. The parents who insist their kids not learn about evolution, in effect preventing others' from learning as well. The people who killed their families to save them the horror of the impending apocalypse.

Now imagine you're an atheist. You are watching all of this happening around you in utter disbelief. Watching the religious, so deep and steadfast in their own faith, try and force their rules on everyone. Hopefully, you can see why there is some animosity there. You can see why atheists are disgusted by some people's seemingly baseless faith structure. Are you personally hurting anyone with your faith? Doubtful. But maybe you can see the distaste for your faith, because not only do we deem it illogical, but we have seen what it is capable of in large numbers and in high doses, and we do not consider it harmless.

As the only individual who directly quoted the Bible to counter some people's claims, explain to me how stating there is actively a debate between not only theists and non-theists but amongst theists, is me stating anyone is wrong? I challenged claims, I did not claim anyone to be flat out incorrect. Quit trying to play a helpless victim and label those of us who challenge posts made here as close minded or out to get someone.

Again, this is a forum not a blog. What you post here is free for scrutinization and criticism, especially this sub-forum as it is dedicated solely to controversial topics. Crying about people being insensitive or that certain beliefs should be free from criticism is bullshit. Don't like it? Stay out of the discussion.

Isaac Hayes and Canada owning bitches ITT

[funcrew]

OP, What worked pretty well for me after a few years of trial and error was taking charge of my own business and not consulting with my wife about anything. Also not directing her side of the operation either. This requires picking and choosing which areas you care about controlling, and which ones you stay out of and accepting the results.

Where I ended up was that my dignity as a dude and respect from my children and peers was paramount. Any attitude, circumstance, or position my wife took up that undermined my dignity or standing in my social sphere came under immediate and ruthless attack. Many other things though, I stayed out of as being beneath me. As a side effect after many years, my wife is quite loyal and although we disagree on virtually everything, there's no need to argue about any of it.

Your mileage may vary.

PS Also, you understand that in a large number of cases, marriage sucks pretty bad for guys, right?

[bimma360]

Well lets be clear here, you quoted the Bible out of context to counter people's claims. I go into that below. As far as stating anyone is outright wrong, you are right you didn't say that. Although my comment appeared to be directed toward you (quoting the Bible was), I was actually speaking of others in this thread.

I don't think I am playing the victim here at all. I was stating what I found interesting. I hopped in this thread, and actually posted something of value (go read my first post) pertaining to the actual topic at hand, without even talking specifically about the topic of religion. I stayed in this thread, b/c of some people's general attitude in here.

And yes, you are right this is a forum. Anyone can post whatever they want. The first time you made that statement to me, you used the word discussion. Now I see you added scrutinize and criticism as well. Criticizing and having a discussion are two different things. We can discuss topics like religion and gender, or we can criticize each other. Just b/c it's allowed, doesn't necessarily mean its productive. And just b/c one is contributing, doesn't necessarily mean it's anything of value.

Read on to see your contribution...

As the only individual who directly quoted the Bible to counter some people's claims, explain to me how stating there is actively a debate between not only theists and non-theists but amongst theists, is me stating anyone is wrong? I challenged claims, I did not claim anyone to be flat out incorrect. Quit trying to play a helpless victim and label those of us who challenge posts made here as close minded or out to get someone.

Again, this is a forum not a blog. What you post here is free for scrutinization and criticism, especially this sub-forum as it is dedicated solely to controversial topics. Crying about people being insensitive or that certain beliefs should be free from criticism is bullshit. Don't like it? Stay out of the discussion.

So you start here with a verse to support your claim... quoted out of context.

Pretty sure as a Christian male the Bible is to your advantage here!

Ephesians 5:22-24 ~ Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Sounds like that guy needs to step up his Christian game and lay the smack down on his wife, she's his property after all..

Here someone fills in the context...

Ummm... keep reading verses 25-28. You'll note there are some instructions for the husband too. I think you are probably quoting the above in jest, but don't feed the trolls by taking it out of context.

"Husbands, love your wives...
and ...husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself."

:)

And here your response includes some verses from the old testament... which is out of context to that particular line of discussion, and also not applicable to the Christian faith being OT. I'll just point out the "stupidity of it all" statement here. You aren't calling anyone wrong, just calling their beliefs stupid.

You're absolutely right, so long as you can prove she really was a virgin, otherwise it's time to stone-a-bitch!

13 If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 15 then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. 16 Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels[b] of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.

20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.

I posted the prior in jest yes, I posted this quote as a testament to the stupidity of it all.



The naive old religious farts seem to avoid P&R

A new discussion begins here...

I hate the stigma that just because you are religious, you think humans roamed with the dinosaurs, and the earth is 6,000 years old. The two are not synonymous.

I just don't get how you pick and choose what parts to believe, some is literal, some is metaphorical.........I can't understand it.

^That has nothing to do with it. There is no picking and choosing. It's an "old deal" to "new deal" type of situation, all the rules(The Law) for the old generations no longer apply, now it's One rule, not all sorts of "Laws". The old stuff is an example of how impossible the old "Law" was, and why Jesus came, to fulfill the otherwise impossible laws. So now the only rule is believing in Him.

And here you are challenging a claim with once again an out of context verse...

Care to explain Matthew 5:17 then? There's reason it is still central to the debate as to whether or not OT law still holds true. If you can read this and claim there is no uncertainty, then you're being dishonest.

Farbin points out to you...

I think you are focused on the wrong focal point of that passage. Once He fulfills it, it is completed, and move right along to the next 'deal'. What you quoted is prior to his fulfillment of the law. So, yes, He would refer to the present to Him state of the law still needing to be 'completed'.

Examples in other translations...

And I add the fact that you used the verse out of context to prove your point. In fact, all of chapter five deals with something completely different than what you tried to use it as to prove your point.

But you only quote the first few verses. If you continue to read the rest of that passage it describes the "law" as that of the Law of Moses (think 10 commandments) and not the entire OT as a whole.

Christianity isn't about "Believe in Jesus and do whatever you want."

The overall idea of the Christian faith is fairly simple. There is a God, the only way for you to be worthy to be in his presence after death is to be perfect. In the OT there were laws to follow to achieve that and sacrifices were made for the times those laws were broken. But as it turns out, we are not perfect and no amount of sacrifice we could offer would make us worthy. So one ultimate sacrifice was given, Jesus, for us by God. He was the perfect sacrifice to make us worthy of his presence. Without diving into the details any further. The only prerequisite to being worthy of God's presence after death is that you believe in who Jesus was, and why his sacrifice was important. The rest is about your personal relationship with God, based on faith and hope.

The NT is about Jesus and his teachings (including all of Matthew 5), and is what Christianity spawns from.

So... one, you are either educated in the Bible, and are being malicious when you are knowingly using Bible verses out of context to try and prove your point. Or two, you are not.

[bimma360]

I think actual religious debates are extremely fruitless so I haven't been paying attention to the back and forth in this thread and can't comment on that.

What I will ask is that you consider the last time you heard about someone being beaten to death because of their love for Jesus.

Now remember the last time someone was killed in the name of God.

The last time someone was beaten to a pulp for their lack of faith. Or for being gay. Or for being an American. Or for being raped. Or for not covering their face. The last time some kid died from an easily curable disease because their parents insisted on "faith healing."

Think about the people who can't marry who they love, the people who are carrying a baby they don't want or was forced upon them; they'll have to have this kid and probably raise it. The parents who insist their kids not learn about evolution, in effect preventing others' from learning as well. The people who killed their families to save them the horror of the impending apocalypse.

Now imagine you're an atheist. You are watching all of this happening around you in utter disbelief. Watching the religious, so deep and steadfast in their own faith, try and force their rules on everyone. Hopefully, you can see why there is some animosity there. You can see why atheists are disgusted by some people's seemingly baseless faith structure. Are you personally hurting anyone with your faith? Doubtful. But maybe you can see the distaste for your faith, because not only do we deem it illogical, but we have seen what it is capable of in large numbers and in high doses, and we do not consider it harmless.

I agree that they are fruitless as well. Having a debate on religion or faith is also pretty difficult. How can you debate something that you can't prove?

With everything else you said, I totally know where you are coming from. I mean your thinking makes sense. It is what any normal person would think. I want to urge you think about the overall point you are making regarding religion, or specifically Christianity, and see if you can apply them to other areas such as race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. I think the same things can be said about a particular race, gender, or certain group of people.

If you are giving the above reason to explain why you don't believe in a God. That's fine. I think if your reasoning is valid to you, then who am I to judge. If you are giving the above reasons to explain why believing in a God is illogical or baseless, that's a different type of statement all together.

[cale]

I don't think I am playing the victim here at all. I was stating what I found interesting. I hopped in this thread, and actually posted something of value (go read my first post) pertaining to the actual topic at hand, without even talking specifically about the topic of religion. I stayed in this thread, b/c of some people's general attitude in here.

You're right, and I did not counter you with anything relating to religion (I didn't reply to you at all) until you quoted a post of mine. Why is your first post relevent? You seem to be on the defensive for no reason, don't forget you chose to enter the religious debate, no one drug you into it.

I don't think I am playing the victim here at all.

Of course you are, these following quotes serve no purpose other than defending yourself and others from criticism of your religious beliefs. You're claiming individuals to be on the offense unnecessarily, despite that being the very purpose of this type of forum. Several times you and others have made it seem as though any sort of criticism of your theistic beliefs should not take place.

Frankly, I really don't see this thread as people trying to ram God down peoples throats. In fact, its mostly a few individuals expressing their beliefs and others trying to discredit them in reflection of their own beliefs.

In this "discussion," I've seen people talk about their belief in God and others straight up coming out and saying "you are wrong."

What I haven't seen, though, is the religious people calling anyone wrong... on any viewpoint.

Moving on...

And yes, you are right this is a forum. Anyone can post whatever they want. The first time you made that statement to me, you used the word discussion. Now I see you added scrutinize and criticism as well. Criticizing and having a discussion are two different things. We can discuss topics like religion and gender, or we can criticize each other. Just b/c it's allowed, doesn't necessarily mean its productive. And just b/c one is contributing, doesn't necessarily mean it's anything of value.

Scrutinize and criticize your beliefs not you as a person, those are vastly different things. Criticism of beliefs most certainly should take place, it removes stagnation and the propagation of ideals that could potentially be better left out. In my opinion religion is one of those things, I believe it to have adverse side effects to a developed society and is not required.

So you start here with a verse to support your claim... quoted out of context.

That initial quote from the Bible was a joke, I guess it wasn't easy to pick up on? No worries

A new discussion begins here...

And here you are challenging a claim with once again an out of context verse...

Farbin points out to you...

And I add the fact that you used the verse out of context to prove your point. In fact, all of chapter five deals with something completely different than what you tried to use it as to prove your point.

So... one, you are either educated in the Bible, and are being malicious when you are knowingly using Bible verses out of context to try and prove your point. Or two, you are not.

As I stated, there is still debate. Just because two individuals on a car forum claim there is no debate does not mean case closed. I did not pull up that verse willy-nilly and chop off the fat which could potentially give credit to it, I presented what is necessary to understand why there IS controversy regarding it.

[bimma360]

As I stated, there is still debate. Just because two individuals on a car forum claim there is no debate does not mean case closed. I did not pull up that verse willy-nilly and chop off the fat which could potentially give credit to it, I presented what is necessary to understand why there IS controversy regarding it.

You presented, out of context, what is necessary to understand why there IS controversy, on the meaning of something presented out of context.

Well... If you debate by quoting the subject matter out of context, then that's that. I really have nothing further to talk about.

[Wh33lhop]

With everything else you said, I totally know where you are coming from. I mean your thinking makes sense. It is what any normal person would think. I want to urge you think about the overall point you are making regarding religion, or specifically Christianity, and see if you can apply them to other areas such as race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. I think the same things can be said about a particular race, gender, or certain group of people.

That is an interesting point, but I think you misread my post's intended purpose.

If you are giving the above reason to explain why you don't believe in a God. That's fine. I think if your reasoning is valid to you, then who am I to judge. If you are giving the above reasons to explain why believing in a God is illogical or baseless, that's a different type of statement all together.

I was not arguing one way or another. I don't subscribe to any organized religious belief, but I don't think that the content of my post constitutes any sort of proof in that respect.

You made a remark that the religious were being attacked in this thread; my post was merely an attempt to shed some light on the source of emotion behind some of this behavior. Faith, to the atheist, is the opposite of logic. It is believing in the absence of evidence. We see people just randomly constructing highly fallacious arguments for their faith, which is impinging on others' quality of life, and it bothers us. A lot. So we point it out.

[Kershaw]

I think actual religious debates are extremely fruitless so I haven't been paying attention to the back and forth in this thread and can't comment on that.

What I will ask is that you consider the last time you heard about someone being beaten to death because of their love for Jesus.

Now remember the last time someone was killed in the name of God.

The last time someone was beaten to a pulp for their lack of faith. Or for being gay. Or for being an American. Or for being raped. Or for not covering their face. The last time some kid died from an easily curable disease because their parents insisted on "faith healing."

Think about the people who can't marry who they love, the people who are carrying a baby they don't want or was forced upon them; they'll have to have this kid and probably raise it. The parents who insist their kids not learn about evolution, in effect preventing others' from learning as well. The people who killed their families to save them the horror of the impending apocalypse.

Now imagine you're an atheist. You are watching all of this happening around you in utter disbelief. Watching the religious, so deep and steadfast in their own faith, try and force their rules on everyone. Hopefully, you can see why there is some animosity there. You can see why atheists are disgusted by some people's seemingly baseless faith structure. Are you personally hurting anyone with your faith? Doubtful. But maybe you can see the distaste for your faith, because not only do we deem it illogical, but we have seen what it is capable of in large numbers and in high doses, and we do not consider it harmless.

oooooh, i just have to quote this. nice job man. very well written.

and anyone who subscribes to any form of modern christianity (even catholicism or orthodoxy) is very much cherry picking their faith. in fact, because christianity is constantly evolving :p it has managed to stick around. even in 325AD, they were very heavily picking and choose what they wanted their faith to be. does a group of bishops picking and choosing what gospels they want sound supernatural to you? almost all christians have their own personal version of their faith. there is no one universal truth. no where else is that acceptable. of course, everywhere else people need to verify their arguments as well. imagine if we had a billion different versions of the scientific table of elements. madness.

[cale]

You presented, out of context, what is necessary to understand why there IS controversy, on the meaning of something presented out of context.

Well... If you debate by quoting the subject matter out of context, then that's that. I really have nothing further to talk about.

Read what I posted once again, I simply stated that there is debate surrounding that particular verse. I did not make claims regarding the validity of that controversy, nor did I make an argument supporting the claims of those who do actively debate it. I chose that topic in particular as it had already been brought up, I didn't present anything to create an argument of my own.

Scripture to me holds no weight, it's simply the storytelling of something fictitious to begin with. Would you reference a controversy between Orc's and Hobbits in the Lord of the Rings to debate whether or not it to be an accurate representation of the middle ages? Of course not, it wasn't real to begin with. Sure I may reference scripture occasionally, but it's usually only in support of an argument being made against a philosophical principle of theology.

[Farbin Kaiber]

^Keep in mind, the chapter:verse method of using the Bible as a reference doesn't really hold a lot of weight. Think of it as quoting a portion of a sentence out of a movie quote, not the whole quote. Without its context, the "Oh, blah...blah....blah...... Matthew 5:17 says this and so...!" method of quoting the Bible really leaves room for people to twist something to mean something else.

Think of this movie quote without its context...

"You just watch yourself." -Space movie from 1977

[cale]

Unfortunately with the Bible, you'd have to either fast forward or rewind 20 minutes in either direction to find the relevance to that quote. Literary genius! ;)

But seriously, I get what you're saying. I only highlighted the controversy surrounding that particular quote because it had already been brought into the topic, and I pointed out controversy among like minded individuals as it is IMO an indicator of error.