Logic Mind:

wriggling out like a snake

i dont have to wriggle out. i am a master of the bible, thanks to the lords mercies and graces who synced my spirit with christs spirit which is the words in the bible. whatever you throw at me, i got at least 5 answers and biblical verses for.

the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. john 6 vs 63

words in the bible are spirit. the spirit of christ.

the words syncing with my spirit and bearing witness that i am a child of God

romans 8 vs 16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

Logic Mind:

do you read the bible as you read my responses? no wonder your answers here show a lack of full understanding of the holy scriptures of our everlasting confused god.

quite frankly i dont pay full attention to your responses because i know it will be full of the usual atheist mumbo jumbo. i look at the first few words and then quickly respond. see, you are a professional scoffer. someone to be toyed with when i am bored in actuality scripture says when someone is not of the lord after trying to preach to them, you should shake the dust off your shoes and depart from their presence forever. see thats what i need to do biblically, but then i would miss out on all the fun in the forum seeing as it is laden with atheists. as such, i may read a few lines and respond nonchalantly. or i may just be in the mood for a full on debate in which case i would read it judiciously and respond.

Mr_Anony:
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.

You've taken a detour.

The issue is why you think that the fact that someone should be subject to another simply based on gender isnt sexist.


As for humility, let me address it one last time.

One can be said to be good if the person had the choice to be bad.
Your example does not work because the woman has no choice in the matter. If she is married under biblical standards, she is forced whether she likes it or not to be subject to the man.
She would be "humble" (not even sure if that word is appropriate in this context) if she made a decision to subject herself.

Logic Mind:

Omnipresence negates heaven. god cannot be omnipresent and live in heaven at the same time.
There is no use for heaven thus if I can meet god in venus. why go to heaven if he is in paris?

You are failing at logic. Magic and meaningless words suit you better.

I said to you that heaven is a spiritual place hence is not subject to the physical interpretation of location.
Secondly, if omnipresent negates heaven, then it must negate earth and everywhere else as well.
Omnipresent means that God is everywhere. It is either you don't understand what omnipresence is or you have a problem with omnipresent things as a whole

jayriginal:

You've taken a detour.

The issue is why you think that the fact that someone should be subject to another simply based on gender isnt sexist.


As for humility, let me address it one last time.

One can be said to be good if the person had the choice to be bad.
Your example does not work because the woman has no choice in the matter. If she is married under biblical standards, she is forced whether she likes it or not to be subject to the man.
She would be "humble" (not even sure if that word is appropriate in this context) if she made a decision to subject herself.

i think you are confusing 'being a chauvinistic caveman' with bilical subjection to your husband. husband is supposed to love his wife and vice versa. they are both partners in the relationship and should treat each other with mutual respect. all of what i just said is scriptural. however the man has the final say in crucial decisions. like for example ' we have 20,000 pounds in our savings account and we just gave birth to a son. the womans natural instincts is to start buying baby clothes with all the money. she buys 400 pounds baby shoes etc etc. all emotional driven. if a man lets a woman lead the house she will drive them into bankruptcy. in this situation the man makes decisions like noooooooooo hunny we are buying the cheapest baby clothes because kids grow fast' etc etc etc. thats what it means when it says the woman should be subject to her husband. its not talking about chauvinism. scripture says ' husbands love your wives'

jayriginal:

You've taken a detour.

The issue is why you think that the fact that someone should be subject to another simply based on gender isnt sexist.


As for humility, let me address it one last time.

One can be said to be good if the person had the choice to be bad.
Your example does not work because the woman has no choice in the matter. If she is married under biblical standards, she is forced whether she likes it or not to be subject to the man.
She would be "humble" (not even sure if that word is appropriate in this context) if she made a decision to subject herself.

I don't know what we are arguing about really.
She has a choice whether to get married or not. Christian marriage is a contract where the man must love his wife and the wife must submit to her husband until they die. That is simply the nature of the agreement because of their nature as man and woman.

The man is also bound to love his wife (no matter what) as long as he is married, he has no choice in the matter.

The problem I percieve here is that you think submission to be a bad thing. I say: "what is wrong in submission where there is love?"

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

Come on now, this is incorrect. Sometimes, it is better to admit to one's inability to explain certain things and everyone will understand. This type of comment is what we'll always get when religionists feel the urge to defend their religious texts by all means.

buzugee: i think you are confusing 'being a chauvinistic caveman' with bilical subjection to your husband. husband is supposed to love his wife and vice versa. they are both partners in the relationship and should treat each other with mutual respect. all of what i just said is scriptural. however the man has the final say in crucial decisions. like for example ' we have 20,000 pounds in our savings account and we just gave birth to a son. the womans natural instincts is to start buying baby clothes with all the money. she buys 400 pounds baby shoes etc etc. all emotional driven. if a man lets a woman lead the house she will drive them into bankruptcy. in this situation the man makes decisions like noooooooooo hunny we are buying the cheapest baby clothes because kids grow fast' etc etc etc. thats what it means when it says the woman should be subject to her husband. its not talking about chauvinism. scripture says ' husbands love your wives'

Even the so called "final say" is bad enough isn't it? In your example, it is simple things you are talking about. When the issues become critical and the woman who may have the sounder position is overridden, what then ?

Mr_Anony:
I don't know what we are arguing about really.
She has a choice whether to get married or not. Christian marriage is a contract where the man must love his wife and the wife must submit to her husband until they die. That is simply the nature of the agreement because of their nature as man and woman.

The man is also bound to love his wife (no matter what) as long as he is married, he has no choice in the matter.

The problem I percieve here is that you think submission to be a bad thing. I say: "what is wrong in submission where there is love?"

Submission may be good and bad. There are instances where it is good. Leadership for example would not work if there were no subjects.

I do not see how love comes into this. It is clearly a sentiment and sentiments are known to affect objectivity.
The fact that you are full of love does not make you a reasonable person.

Husbands ----------> Love your wives
Wives -------------> Submit to your husbands

In other words, in a marriage, one person has the final say. The scales are tilted in one way and the determining factor is gender.

How is that right ?

Logic Mind:

what if the man wanted to buy the latest sports car instead, should the woman submit?

Buzugee already told you.

The man has the final say.

Logic Mind:

Hehehe. The scripture even thought you lot how to retreat in face hard hitting atheists. lol.
soldiers of christ on the run. I thought it was individual traits of certain people. Thanks for confirming that it is actually part of your holy scripture.

matthew 10 vs 14 If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town.

its scriptural. we aint supposed to be casting our pearls before swines.

jayriginal:

Even the so called "final say" is bad enough isn't it? In your example, it is simple things you are talking about. When the issues become critical and the woman who may have the sounder position is overridden, what then ?



Submission may be good and bad. There are instances where it is good. Leadership for example would not work if there were no subjects.

I do not see how love comes into this. It is clearly a sentiment and sentiments are known to affect objectivity.
The fact that you are full of love does not make you a reasonable person.

Husbands ----------> Love your wives
Wives -------------> Submit to your husbands

In other words, in a marriage, one person has the final say. The scales are tilted in one way and the determining factor is gender.

How is that right ?

the man is over the woman. opari. its biblical. cant say more than that.

Logic Mind:

what if the man wanted to buy the latest sports car instead, should the woman submit?

well if the man wants to buy the latest sports cars then he is not a man of God. scripture says he who loves his life will loose it. he who loves the world does not love me. scripture says submit to your men only if they are men of God. so if he is not a man of God then she does not have to submit to him.

thats a case of the blind leading the blind.

buzugee: the man is over the woman. opari. its biblical. cant say more than that.

Ok boss.

Deep Sight:

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

I must have done something to hurt your ego on Nairaland.


There was nothing foolish about my energy statement. Funny that you should be bring up a statement of mine that isnt technically wrong to attack me.


Enjoy the butthurt

Mr_Anony:
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.

Asking why God is uncreated is a good question........you never question your belief?

jayriginal:

Ok boss.

i didnt make the rules Sir. i just play by them. am just a squirrel tryna get a nut.

MacDaddy01:


Asking why God is uncreated is a good question........you never question your belief?

Asking why bachelors are unmarried is equally a good question..........we must always seek the definition of a definition?

Mr_Anony:
Asking why bachelors are unmarried is equally a good question..........we must always seek the definition of a definition?

Apples and oranges again

Nope. Everyone who speaks english knows who a bachelor is. A very specifically defined term.


God on the other hand means different things to different people. Some say God is a force.


You keep failing, master debater (or are you just a master bater )

MacDaddy01:

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




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.





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


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

You musta been really bored and more than a little confused when you started this thread. Are you actually countering my arguments with all that crap?
Not commenting again. I actually answered your questions to give you an opportunity to let off some steam. Since I've done that, I'm out. Have more important things to do.

Ihedinobi:

You musta been really bored and more than a little confused when you started this thread. Are you actually countering my arguments with all that crap?
Not commenting again. I actually answered your questions to give you an opportunity to let off some steam. Since I've done that, I'm out. Have more important things to do.

Just like your brother Anony, you dodge artfully when debunked.

jayriginal:
Submission may be good and bad. There are instances where it is good. Leadership for example would not work if there were no subjects.

I do not see how love comes into this. It is clearly a sentiment and sentiments are known to affect objectivity.
The fact that you are full of love does not make you a reasonable person.

Husbands ----------> Love your wives
Wives -------------> Submit to your husbands

In other words, in a marriage, one person has the final say. The scales are tilted in one way and the determining factor is gender.

How is that right ?

The scales were already tilted from the moment one gender's natural instinct was to be 'the protector' and the other gender's natural instinct was to be 'the protected'.

Marriage as defined by the bible allows both genders to be their true selves. If Christian marriage were properly followed in principle, there would be no failed marriages.

The more you respond on this issue, the more apparent it is to me that you really don't have a proper understanding of what love is.

Mr_Anony:

The scales were already tilted from the moment one gender's natural instinct was to be 'the protector' and the other gender's natural instinct was to be 'the protected'.

Marriage as defined by the bible allows both genders to be their true selves. If Christian marriage were properly followed in principle, there would be no failed marriages.

The more you respond on this issue, the more apparent it is to me that you really don't have a proper understanding of what love is.

Ok.

Mr_Anony: . . . Marriage as defined . . . . .

Ah, please permit a little digression.

First question (not at you particularly, Mr Anony just as a matter for general consideration): what is the definition of "marriage" currently?

Why this question? It is to point out that while meanings of words and even concepts may indeed change legitimately, often people will go to lengths of redefinition (what some call the 'redefinition game') and often use that to disguise or obscure the truth or to mislead others or to further certain agenda.

One example, atheists etc have appropriated the definition of "freethinker" whereas probably most of the atheists that deceive themselves as free thinkers are far from free in their thinking and are even slaves to some of their thought formers; the only thing "free" about it is a rejection of "religion".

Another example: atheists claim freedom of "religion" and for that purpose will define atheism as a religion; on the other hand they are ashamed socially to be seen as practising a religion and thus they end up in the absurd position of saying 'atheism is a religion but is not a religion'.

Going back to marriage, of course there has always been a traditional understanding of marriage as the union of a man (or men re polyandry) and a woman or even women. In our present age and moving on from "civil partnerships", marriage is now to be defined as . . . . .

Enigma:

Ah, please permit a little digression.

First question (not at you particularly, Mr Anony just as a matter for general consideration): what is the definition of "marriage" currently?

Why this question? It is to point out that while meanings of words and even concepts may indeed change legitimately, often people will go to lengths of redefinition (what some call the 'redefinition game') and often use that to disguise or obscure the truth or to mislead others or to further certain agenda.

One example, atheists etc have appropriated the definition of "freethinker" whereas probably most of the atheists that deceive themselves as free thinkers are far from free in their thinking and are even slaves to some of their thought formers; the only thing "free" about it is a rejection of "religion".

Another example: atheists claim freedom of "religion" and for that purpose will define atheism as a religion; on the other hand they are ashamed socially to be seen as practising a religion and thus they end up in the absurd position of saying 'atheism is a religion but is not a religion'.

Going back to marriage, of course there has always been a traditional understanding of marriage as the union of a man (or men re polyandry) and a woman or even women. In our present age and moving on from "civil partnerships", marriage is now to be defined as . . . . .

Hmm, the current definition of marriage...........

man/woman
man/women
man/man
woman/men
woman/woman
multiple men/multiple women (group marriage)
adult/child
man/animal http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8658327.stm
man/video game character http://articles.cnn.com/2009-12-16/world/japan.virtual.wedding_1_virtual-world-sal-marry?_s=PM:WORLD
man/Eiffel tower http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2074301/Woman-with-objects-fetish-marries-Eiffel-Tower.html
man/self http://digitaljournal.com/article/325564

..............the list can go on and on. Basically marriage has become whatever you define it as.

Perhaps marriage is subjective as is everything else these days

Mr_Anony:

Hmm, the current definition of marriage...........

man/woman
man/women
man/man
woman/men
woman/woman
multiple men/multiple women (group marriage)
adult/child
man/animal http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8658327.stm
man/video game character http://articles.cnn.com/2009-12-16/world/japan.virtual.wedding_1_virtual-world-sal-marry?_s=PM:WORLD
man/Eiffel tower http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2074301/Woman-with-objects-fetish-marries-Eiffel-Tower.html
man/self http://digitaljournal.com/article/325564

..............the list can go on and on. Basically marriage has become whatever you define it as.

Perhaps marriage is subjective as is everything else these days

lol............talk about hilarious............