MacDaddy01:


Right now, there are rocks you can not move.

You on the other hand, can not even define your God properly. You say that he created all things but that is a paradox because he couldnt have created himself before he existed.

Why is it that you can't understand that God by definition is Uncreated? Do you have a problem with uncreated things?

Mr_Anony:
lol, why should I be responsible for buzugees ideas. I believe men and women are one in Christ. I also believe that the wife should submit to her husband. I don't regard a wife submitting to her husband as being sexist.

Wouldn't you say that the person submitting is lower than the person being submitted to ?

Take leadership for instance, we submit to authority. The difference being that authority is usually temporary, but in the case of the biblical injunction of submission, its for the duration of the marriage (which is usually intended to be permanent).

So if the bible asks women to be subject to the man, why dont you consider it sexist? Its a blanket rule, no exceptions given.

Logic Mind:

Now that you have told us what heaven is not, can you please enlighten us on what it is. Many thanks.
We just would like to understand where we go to after living a righteous life in jesus.

The best answer I can give you is that Heaven is a perfect place. How do I know? Because God (who happens to live there) told me so. Unfortunately, I can't give you much more detail because I haven't been there yet.

jayriginal:

Wouldn't you say that the person submitting is lower than the person being submitted to ?

I could also say that the person who is submitting is being humble.

jayriginal: Take leadership for instance, we submit to authority. The difference being that authority is usually temporary, but in the case of the biblical injunction of submission, its for the duration of the marriage (which is usually intended to be permanent).

So if the bible asks women to be subject to the man, why dont you consider it sexist? Its a blanket rule, no exceptions given.

Now to read those verses completely would be:-
Wives submit to your husbands, husbands love your wives as Christ loved the Church so much to the extent that He died for Her. Eph 5:22-33.

I don't know about you but I don't think I'll have a problem submitting to someone who is willing to die for me and is humble enough to wash my feet and be a servant to me because He loves me.

Mr_Anony:
Why is it that you can't understand that God by definition is Uncreated? Do you have a problem with uncreated things?

Kai, artful dodging again? What about the rock?



Furthermore, why cant you understand that atheism disproves God by definition? See how stupid that sounds? What makes God uncreated? You just dont define things on our own terms. There has to be substance behind our definitions.

Mr_Anony:
I could also say that the person who is submitting is being humble.


Now to read those verses completely would be:-
Wives submit to your husbands, husbands love your wives as Christ loved the Church so much to the extent that He died for Her. Eph 5:22-33.

I don't know about you but I don't think I'll have a problem submitting to someone who is willing to die for me and is humble enough to wash my feet and be a servant to me because He loves me.

How disingenuous!


Why cant the husbands submit in return if they are equal in marriage?

MacDaddy01:

Since, you dont believe in the big bang, lets go with the other topics. Sexism, slavery and culture. Lets handle 2 for now

Ok

Slavery;
Slavery was regulated and allowed in the old testament. Christians dodge this by saying the old testament is not what grounds their beliefs. The new testament also has paul saying "slaves obey your masters". How is this not an endorsement of slavery. Jesus himself was a coward who never addressed the slavery that was around him.

"Regulated and allowed", buddy, never endorsed. If you're going to say endorsed, you're going to have to prove that it was.

Permission is not the same as Approval ever. In the case of the Bible, God permits a lot of things because He is just. It is unjust to punish a man for a wrong he does not know that he has committed. If the human race at certain stages of its development did not know that slavery was not God's desire, then God had to, in His Justice and Fairness, allow their ignorance and regulate it toward eradicating it completely. Paul was speaking God's very thought when he said in 1 Cor 7:21, "...if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity" (RSV) and in Gal 3:28, "...there is neither slave nor free...for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (RSV).

Incidentally, William Wilberforce, one of the strongest proponents for the abolition of slave trade was a Christian and his stand was a Christian one. John Newton also, a hymn writer and composer of "Amazing Grace", if memory serves me right, was a slave-runner before he met the Lord and was born again. After that experience, he turned against slavery of human beings.

Any man today who dares to involve himself in slavery cannot justify himself from the Bible and will have no excuse of ignorance before God in our days.

Sexism;
Paul wrote that women should be silent in churches and also that they are made in the image of man and not god. How isnt that sexist?

From the same verse written by Paul and which I quoted earlier, Gal 3:28, the Bible says, "...there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

The Gospel is that all the dividing lines separating us from one another have been erased by the Death of Jesus Christ. No one in Christ can claim any advantage over anybody else because of some material quality they possess, whether sex, race, social position, etc.

So, NO, there is no ground for sexism in the Bible. It was never God's intention that one member of the human race should be considered greater or less than another because of their sex.

Mr_Anony:
I could also say that the person who is submitting is being humble.

Sure you could IF the person submitting is being humble of his/her own volition. This is clearly not the case as the bible strictly asks for submission from the wives. Theres also the other verse about women being silent in church and to ask their husbands if they had any problems.

Now to read those verses completely would be:-
Wives submit to your husbands, husbands love your wives as Christ loved the Church so much to the extent that He died for Her. Eph 5:22-33.

I don't know about you but I don't think I'll have a problem submitting to someone who is willing to die for me and is humble enough to wash my feet and be a servant to me because He loves me.

The word submit is problematic. I'm not sure there would be a problem if the word submit was replaced with respect.

v. sub·mit·ted, sub·mit·ting, sub·mits
v.tr.
1. To yield or surrender (oneself) to the will or authority of another.
2. To subject to a condition or process.
3. To commit (something) to the consideration or judgment of another. See Synonyms at propose.
4. To offer as a proposition or contention: I submit that the terms are entirely unreasonable.
v.intr.
1. To give in to the authority, power, or desires of another. See Synonyms at yield.
2. To allow oneself to be subjected to something.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/submit

I think you would agree that just because someone loves you so much that the person would give his/her life for you, it doesnt mean that the person is worth "submitting" to.
Regardless of the love and or humility, the person can make questionable decisions. This would mean that those qualities are not enough to warrant submission.

Agree ?

Also, consider tweaking the verse a bit to read thus :

Husbands submit to your wives, wives love your husbands as Christ loved the Church so much to the extent that He died for Her. Eph 5:22-33.

Would it make you comfortable ?

I'm sure if the criteria were love and humility, many women can be found worthy of submission. So why are only women instructed to submit ?

MacDaddy01:

Why cant the husbands submit in return if they are equal in marriage?

Lol. I just wrote many words to ask that same question.

MacDaddy01:


How disingenuous!


Why cant the husbands submit in return if they are equal in marriage?

Did you read that post at all?

MacDaddy01:


Kai, artful dodging again? What about the rock?

What about the rock?

Furthermore, why cant you understand that atheism disproves God by definition? See how stupid that sounds?

See how stupid what sounds? Atheism doesn't disprove God, it only disbelieves in Him. The sad part is that atheism unfortunately can't prove anything at all.

What makes God uncreated? You just dont define things on our own terms. There has to be substance behind our definitions.

What makes energy uncreated? Can you truly define energy on any other terms other than it can neither be created nor destroyed? what other substance do you want?

The problem is that you don't like the definition so you want God to be redefined for you.
I am sorry my friend, God is just God. If you don't like it, you can cry to the moon.

(It will interest you that some people actually believe Energy=God - I suspect Deep Sight is one such fellow. I really look forward to discussing with that man)

Ihedinobi:





"Regulated and allowed", buddy, never endorsed. If you're going to say endorsed, you're going to have to prove that it was.

Permission is not the same as Approval ever. In the case of the Bible, God permits a lot of things because He is just. It is unjust to punish a man for a wrong he does not know that he has committed. If the human race at certain stages of its development did not know that slavery was not God's desire, then God had to, in His Justice and Fairness, allow their ignorance and regulate it toward eradicating it completely. Paul was speaking God's very thought when he said in 1 Cor 7:21, "...if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity" (RSV) and in Gal 3:28, "...there is neither slave nor free...for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (RSV).

Even it was only regulated, that is shameful. Do you know what it is to be slaves? You are the property of another man who is allowed to beat you and force you to work. If you're a woman, you are also going to be a sex tool. Remember that slavery in the old testament was in a time when children were killed for abusing their parents and people were killed for not obeying the sabbath.

Unfortunately, slavery was endorsed in the old testament----"you may buy slaves from the nations around you".....explicit endorsement.

It is shameful that you are saying that it was necessary for God to allow slavery. You have problems. So it was more necessary for God to punish Adam and Eve for eating a fruit than to punish men for slavery

Ihedinobi:
Incidentally, William Wilberforce, one of the strongest proponents for the abolition of slave trade was a Christian and his stand was a Christian one. John Newton also, a hymn writer and composer of "Amazing Grace", if memory serves me right, was a slave-runner before he met the Lord and was born again. After that experience, he turned against slavery of human beings.

Yes and there were also secular abolitionists as well. Jon Newton destroyed lives as a slave trader before becoming an abolitionist.

You cant you the abolitionist argument for christianity when it was mainstream christianity that was supporting slavery in the first place.

Ihedinobi:
Any man today who dares to involve himself in slavery cannot justify himself from the Bible and will have no excuse of ignorance before God in our days.

lol....after a thousand years of slavery and God just watching slavery

Ihedinobi:
From the same verse written by Paul and which I quoted earlier, Gal 3:28, the Bible says, "...there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

The Gospel is that all the dividing lines separating us from one another have been erased by the Death of Jesus Christ. No one in Christ can claim any advantage over anybody else because of some material quality they possess, whether sex, race, social position, etc.

So, NO, there is no ground for sexism in the Bible. It was never God's intention that one member of the human race should be considered greater or less than another because of their sex.

One good statement does not erase a bad statement. Admit that Paul was sexist.

jayriginal:

Sure you could IF the person submitting is being humble of his/her own volition. This is clearly not the case as the bible strictly asks for submission from the wives. Theres also the other verse about women being silent in church and to ask their husbands if they had any problems.

By marrying, the woman has chosen to submit. At least she wasn't forced to marry the man. Isn't that humility for you?

The word submit is problematic. I'm not sure there would be a problem if the word submit was replaced with respect.

Some bible versions actually use the word 'respect' but the idea is still the same anyway.

I think you would agree that just because someone loves you so much that the person would give his/her life for you, it doesnt mean that the person is worth "submitting" to.
Regardless of the love and or humility, the person can make questionable decisions. This would mean that those qualities are not enough to warrant submission.

Agree ?

I don't think you have ever been in love............and no I don't agree.

Also, consider tweaking the verse a bit to read thus :

Husbands submit to your wives, wives love your husbands as Christ loved the Church so much to the extent that He died for Her. Eph 5:22-33.

Would it make you comfortable ?

I don't support tweaking the bible but I get your point anyway. The answer is I won't feel uncomfortable by it at all. As long as the wife is willing to lead the family and bear such responsibilities i.e. wear the pants, I have no problem submitting to her leadership.
You may as well ask me if I was a woman, how would I feel about submitting to my husband?

I'm sure if the criteria were love and humility, many women can be found worthy of submission. So why are only women instructed to submit ?

Simple.
By nature, even without the bible telling us, we are a patriarchal society in the sense that men are always expected to lead. Genetically, the woman is usually attracted to the "macho man" and the man is attracted to the "helpless damsel in distress".

Basically, what that passage is saying is "Be the man" only it is saying it in a church context.

Mr_Anony:



What about the rock?

Can God create a rock that he can not move?

Mr_Anony:
What makes energy uncreated? Can you truly define energy on any other terms other than it can neither be created nor destroyed? what other substance do you want?

Who said energy was uncreated? You are the one that defines it as such. All we know about the very first origin is what the big bang theory and cosmology proposes.

You and other arrogant christians who have no single qualification in cosmology or physics claim to know more than the scienitists themselves by saying foolish things like "energy is uncreated" or "God made the big bang". Energy came from the big bang- that is as far as scientists know.


So, why is your God uncreated?

Mr_Anony:
The problem is that you don't like the definition so you want God to be redefined for you.
I am sorry my friend, God is just God. If you don't like it, you can cry to the moon.

[/quote]

Your God keeps looking like a fool. A guy that changes his mind about incest, floods the whole world and then brings back a similar world (why flood int he first place), rapes virgins instead of creating his son like he did adam, punishes stealing but allows slavery and my best, he inderectly tells us that he is uncircumcised since he created man in his own image.



All your definitions of God fail

Mr_Anony:
By marrying, the woman has chosen to submit. At least she wasn't forced to marry the man. Isn't that humility for you?

She cannot submit and be an equal partner. Thats basic. A woman who holds herself to be the equal of any man cannot therefore marry and be equal. She either abstains from marriage or marries and becomes subject to the man.

By marrying, the woman has chosen to submit. At least she wasn't forced to marry the man. Isn't that humility for you?

She could have been 'forced" culturally and otherwise, but I get your meaning. No, its not humility for me because if that instruction was not there, maybe many a marriage could have been happier without some inept husband lording it over the woman in the name of submission. What would be humility is if the injunction was not there but the woman decided to subject herself anyway.

I don't think you have ever been in love............and no I don't agree.

Lol. Oya tell me how many people you have died for . [size=4pt]Just kidding[/size]

I don't support tweaking the bible but I get your point anyway. The answer is I won't feel uncomfortable by it at all. As long as the wife is willing to lead the family and bear such responsibilities i.e. wear the pants, I have no problem submitting to her leadership.
You may as well ask me if I was a woman, how would I feel about submitting to my husband?

Yes, but note the blanket nature of the injunction. You probably say this cos you are a man and so you may not feel the acute oppression women go through. It may sound like a novel idea to you and one you'd probably be willing to try but think about it for a minute. What if it was a carpet instruction ; "As long as you are a man, you have to be subject to your wife". Would you think that was fair ?
Wouldnt you think it more reasonable to have some kind of objective criteria ?
If the basis of respect/authority/submission is tied to gender solely, how is that not sexist ?

Simple.
By nature, even without the bible telling us, we are a patriarchal society in the sense that men are always expected to lead. Genetically, the woman is usually attracted to the "macho man" and the man is attracted to the "helpless damsel in distress".

Basically, what that passage is saying is "Be the man" only it is saying it in a church context.

We are indeed a patriarchal society and that factor indeed points in the direction of a man made bible (as opposed to divinely inspired). Thats another topic though, I wouldnt like to go far with that one just yet.

I have a suspicion that you refrained from using the word evolution and choosing "nature" to convey your meaning.

The way I see it, we are "higher animals" because we can rise above our nature (or evolutionary traits if you will).

For instance, the s[i]e[/i]xual urge is one of the most basic amongst humans, yet we are aware of the consequences of uncontrolled breeding. Other animals generally rely on their natural instincts while we can overide them.

When we recognise that something is not good or has outlived its usefulness, we generally moderated it.

So also, when we have old traditions where might was right and we continue to enforce this tradition, its not hard to pin point its source. The bible has been used to oppress women for ages. History is replete with this fact.

As an example, I am sure you dont support female circumcision. Now imagine you came from a tribe where female circumcision was practiced and you were as educated as you are now. Also imagine there was biblical support for female circumcision. Its either you would recognise the barbarity of the act, or you'd justify it on biblical grounds.

So tell me if its not better to be equal partners in a marriage or failing that, have either spouse submit to the other depending on objectively defined criteria and not simply gender ?

jayriginal:

She cannot submit and be an equal partner. Thats basic. A woman who holds herself to be the equal of any man cannot therefore marry and be equal. She either abstains from marriage or marries and becomes subject to the man.



She could have been 'forced" culturally and otherwise, but I get your meaning. No, its not humility for me because if that instruction was not there, maybe many a marriage could have been happier without some inept husband lording it over the woman in the name of submission. What would be humility is if the injunction was not there but the woman decided to subject herself anyway.


Lol. Oya tell me how many people you have died for . [size=4pt]Just kidding[/size]



Yes, but note the blanket nature of the injunction. You probably say this cos you are a man and so you may not feel the acute oppression women go through. It may sound like a novel idea to you and one you'd probably be willing to try but think about it for a minute. What if it was a carpet instruction ; "As long as you are a man, you have to be subject to your wife". Would you think that was fair ?
Wouldnt you think it more reasonable to have some kind of objective criteria ?
If the basis of respect/authority/submission is tied to gender solely, how is that not sexist ?



We are indeed a patriarchal society and that factor indeed points in the direction of a man made bible (as opposed to divinely inspired). Thats another topic though, I wouldnt like to go far with that one just yet.

I have a suspicion that you refrained from using the word evolution and choosing "nature" to convey your meaning.

The way I see it, we are "higher animals" because we can rise above our nature (or evolutionary traits if you will).

For instance, the s[i]e[/i]xual urge is one of the most basic amongst humans, yet we are aware of the consequences of uncontrolled breeding. Other animals generally rely on their natural instincts while we can overide them.

When we recognise that something is not good or has outlived its usefulness, we generally moderated it.

So also, when we have old traditions where might was right and we continue to enforce this tradition, its not hard to pin point its source. The bible has been used to oppress women for ages. History is replete with this fact.

As an example, I am sure you dont support female circumcision. Now imagine you came from a tribe where female circumcision was practiced and you were as educated as you are now. Also imagine there was biblical support for female circumcision. Its either you would recognise the barbarity of the act, or you'd justify it on biblical grounds.

So tell me if its not better to be equal partners in a marriage or failing that, have either spouse submit to the other depending on objectively defined criteria and not simply gender ?

You have purposely ignored the flip side of the equation namely: "Husbands love your wives so much that you can give your life for her".
There cannot be oppression of the woman if the man indeed loves her.

Logic Mind:

You run around in circles and refuse to back up your arguments nor answer simple questions.

Please tell us where god was before he created heaven to live in. Why is this too complicated for you?

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that God is omnipresent so your question is irrelevant?

Mr_Anony:
Why is it so difficult for you to understand that God is omnipresent so your question is irrelevant?

You cant be omnipresent in nowhere.

Mr_Anony:
You have purposely ignored the flip side of the equation namely: "Husbands love your wives so much that you can give your life for her".
There cannot be oppression of the woman if the man indeed loves her.

Oh come on. I already addressed that. I said it wasnt enough. If you don't want to address what I wrote, its fine.

MacDaddy01:

Can God create a rock that he can not move?

Can God create yhurJOTJDTVKP' and make it eat rice?

Who said energy was uncreated? You are the one that defines it as such. All we know about the very first origin is what the big bang theory and cosmology proposes.

You and other arrogant christians who have no single qualification in cosmology or physics claim to know more than the scienitists themselves by saying foolish things like "energy is uncreated" or "God made the big bang". Energy came from the big bang- that is as far as scientists know.

lol, you are quite the ignorant one but let us follow your logic:

What you forget is that for energy to exist, matter must exist. If space time had an origin, then it follows that energy had an origin i.e. the big ban[i]g[/i].

Now it is agreed that the big ban[i]g[/i] is an event, so what ban[i]g[/i]ed exactly? It is either something was previously existing that went ban[i]g[/i]! or the big ban[i]g[/i] is not an event but an actual person or everything came from nothing. Any way you turn, you must encounter an uncreated entity.

So, why is your God uncreated?

Answered above.

jayriginal:

Oh come on. I already addressed that. I said it wasnt enough. If you don't want to address what I wrote, its fine.

If love isn't enough to reason to demand your partner's humility, then I put it to you that you don't know what love is.

I give up.


Mr. Anony can not debate. He answers questions with irrelevant questions

eg

Question; Why is God uncreated?

Anony Answer; Why is energy uncreated?

Who the hell defines energy as uncreated?



Funny that Mr. Anony invited me to a real life debate. In a real life debate, no one would vote for you and you would lose with this kind of strategy.

MacDaddy01:

You cant be omnipresent in nowhere.

Nowhere is your assumption. I never said anything about God existing in 'nowhere'

MacDaddy01: I give up.


Mr. Anony can not debate. He answers questions with irrelevant questions

eg

Question; Why is God uncreated?

Anony Answer; Why is energy uncreated?

Who the hell defines energy as uncreated?



Funny that Mr. Anony invited me to a real life debate. In a real life debate, no one would vote for you and you would lose with this kind of strategy.

Lol, you don't seem to know much about debates do you?

Mr_Anony:

Lol, you don't seem to know much about debates do you?

I dont know much about agbero debates,that much I agree.


I watch formal debates on youtube and the most important ones end up with votes from the audience to determine the winner.

Logic Mind:

so jesus rising from dead after 3 days is a metaphoric statement? Didn't really happen?
Ewoo. No wonder other christians run away from you.

like i said earlier, you are trying to build a case on 'needle in a haystack' scenarios. that makes you a man with paucity of intelligence.
i didnt go through your whole list. i saw the usual 'talking snake' bollocks and i quickly dismissed the list and made my reply. however most of what you put up there are metaphoric phrases.

MacDaddy01:



Your bible stinks of Darwinian ideology. Survival of the fittest. The irony

not survival of the fittest. more like 'whomever desires it most gets it'

buzugee: not survival of the fittest. more like 'whomever desires it most gets it'

Nope


Who is lucky to have been born to genetically and physically strong parents would be more likely to survive

Who is lucky to have been born to Christian parents would be more likely to be christian and have a second life

MacDaddy01: I give up.

Who the hell defines energy as uncreated?

OMG, another display of illiteracy on the scale of his former "Israel is in Europe" da.ftness.

MacDaddy01:

I dont know much about agbero debates,that much I agree.


I watch formal debates on youtube and the most important ones end up with votes from the audience to determine the winner.

Yeah, but the point of debates isn't about popularity votes but the votes must reflect that the debater followed his points logically and consistently. Granted, this isn't a formal debate (more like a heated conversation) but what I have been trying to do is to show you the gaping holes in your argument by asking you questions that if you really knew how to think logically you would have seen what I was pointing at.

Gone are the days when I would entertain your silly questions and sincerely try to give you an answer. Now if you ask me a silly question, I'll simply respond with an even sillier question.....and then we can degenerate into a battle of one liners. I'll keep going like this until the day you show me that you are capable of having intelligible conversations.