Women. God’s afterthought and man’s curse to rule.
I think it quite ironic that God, who tells us to reproduce as his first commandment to man in Genesis 1, does not give us something to reproduce with till Genesis 2; 18. Further, only after a severe chastisement without correction, even to death, an immoral concept, after we ate of the tree of knowledge, are men given what is required for reproduction; the desire and mental capacity to do so.
God never tells Adam why he is being chastised. This is an expression of hate on God’s part because there is no evil in wanting to become as God as scriptures urge us to do. Note here that I take the Jewish view of our elevation in Eden and not the fall interpretation that Christianity mistakenly puts on it.
Chastisement without correction is just cruelty and thus unjust on God’s part. That is the message of Eden. God is unjust. If so, the inequality built into the bible, where men are cursed to rule over women, ----- is unjust.
Genesis 3;16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
As a man, I am not pleased that God has cursed my fellow man to have to suffer ruling over women. To rule over women is to be responsible to them and their demands. I think we should stop being slaves to women and give them full equality. Men owe it especially to men and to a lesser degree to women and between you and I, justice demands it ------, and so would all just people.
As a man, are you ready to shed your yoke of slavery to women and reject God’s command to rule over them?
Sounds to me like the "serpent" is still whispering in Eve's ear.
Hiss, stop hissing in her ear!
As for the "ruling over", fella, you missed a few decades -almost a century, actually.
Look around, for the most part women have and do rule the world, since Eve.
As for your genesis mentions, once more you take the same story, outlined, then detailed later, and try to form two concepts. Someone is missed the oversize "WAW" smack in the middle of Torah.
Christian Gnostics, what can you do... at least atheists try to implore common sense and some logic.
That is Gnostic Christian. Get it right fool.
Strange that if women rule, they work the same jobs for less money than men.
Ask your wife a hole.
I'm afraid james is right. Women do rule the world. Simply on a different level.
And, as to the story in Genesis, he is also correct. If you are going to look at a book as a message, you have to view the entire thing in order to come to conclusions. You can't look at one part, to decide what it says, then separate another to get a completely different message. That makes no sense and is not the way you approach any other text. Bad interpretation is the fault of a reader, not the writer.
And what does asking your wife about a hole have to do with the subject?
Bad interpretation can also be the fault of the writer. The bible is quite simply black and white. Why is it only some people can call on certain parts of the bible while others who pick the darker side can not?
Woman do not rule the world. They do have lots of power, but fail to use it. One look at the Catholic church will expose disrespect to woman by Religions. And when Countries don't have a separation of Church and state the disrespect to woman become law. Saudi Arabia come to mind.
I realize women are subjugated and discriminated against in some sectors and on some levels. However, name a man in the west who claims to rule the roost and I'll point out a liar.
As to your comments about the Bible; the only two groups who insist their interpretation of that book is the infallible one are fundamentalists and atheists. Most everyone else agrees that you see what you choose to in it. Which is probably why it will be difficult to ever find a way to completely marginalize that text
Sure women rule the roost in Western homes. That's because the west (for the most part) has a separation of church and state which means we don't use holy books to make laws. I have a hub about how women are treated poorly by the Catholic Church and how women can take the respect they deserve. But for some reason the comments on that hub from women support what the church is doing to them. I for one simply don't understand why women would bring the children (girls and boys) to a place of worship that is supposed to be about love and respect that clearly states women are not capable. Is that the message we want to teach our children? For me it's like banging my head against a brick wall. It only appears to hurt me.
It takes all kinds. But, I wouldn't feel sorry for them. It's a choice they make. Some women don't want to work. They want to stay at home with kids. And, there is nothing wrong with that if it is a joint decision.
And, think about it. If you had someone willing to foot the bill for your existence and all you had to do for it was vacuum once a week and cook dinners you might consider it. Heck, if the disposable income was right, I might consider it.
Holy Crap! You mean that's all I'm required to do? I've been getting royally screwed on this stay-at-home thing for YEARS then. I'd post what I do in a normal day but right now I have a three-year old asleep across my legs and a baby attached to my right breast. It's making typing difficult.
Your choice. I did it all and held a forty hour job. My choice. I really tend to laugh politely when stay at home parents look for sympathy.
Yeah... I laugh when "working moms" think 8 hours behind a desk is more tiring then chasing children homeschooling and keeping a house clean and a family fed too. I worked for a while... it was like a vacation
I said I laughed politely. But then, I didn't ever attempt to set myself on a pedestal as if I was better than the stay at home counterpart. It's freedom of choice and I don't owe an adult respect or sympathy for making their choice. It isn't anything special.
I replied exactly in kind to your replies. If you think I set myself on a pedestal then maybe you should also look at your own comments as well.
I wasn't actually referring to you. If you took it that way, I apologize. But the stay at home crowd I know toots their horn pretty loudly and, from what I've seen, it's a lot of smoke. We all do what we want. It's an option. Not the right way, or the wrong one. Just a choice.
Still, with the modern conveniences, I don't see more work involved in that choice.
See it's the opposite for me... It's the working mom crew that gives me a hard time. Of course I'm a liberal with mostly liberal friends but I homeschool and stay at home.... both of which are traditional conservative ideals. I can assure you it's a little more work than just running a vacuum once a week (try 3-4 times a day btw) and getting dinner ready yet I am seen as contributing nothing to society and being "a good little wife". True I'm not beating clothes out on a rock... with the 3 loads of laundry I do each day that would be kinda sucky I admit. But I wake up with the sun and generally don't get to bed until well after midnight and I am either directly interacting with the kids or doing something to care for the house/family/pets at least 90 percent of the time. I FALL into bed... a bed I share with at least one child (usually two now) a husband and usually a cat or two.
Yes that is my choice but don't think it's necessarily the easiest option. For me working at home and raising my kids without day-care and/or what I consider to be inferior education is more important than working to pay someone else to raise them... which would be essentially what working outside of the home would do. And we don't have disposable income. As a matter of fact we have given up quite a few things because we feel that involved parents are more important than cable tv or fast-food. It's not a high-horse but it is IMO the best way to raise a family. Obviously that's my opinion or I would be doing it differently.
Now with that said I don't really care what other people do with their children. Their children and their rights to raise them as they see fit... but I will say that I have never had a tougher job than being a stay-at-home mom... and I've had some pretty tough jobs.
The best way to raise your family . That distinction is important. And the comment about inferior education is the typical thing I roll my eyes at. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. Your kids will have to grow up and only then will you know. But, statements such as that one are a slap in the face to those making alternative choices.
1. I thought I made it clear that it was my opinion about my family.
2. Inferior education is actually a pretty accurate statement. I live in one of the poorest counties in one of the poorest states in the nation. The statistics for West Virginia education are abysmal. I am qualified to teach in any school in my state and- in fact- have more qualifications than most of the teachers hired by the BOE. In addition I am far more qualified in my knowledge of special education than anybody employed by the county BOE for occupation/speech therapy. You can roll your eyes if you like but the truth is I am more educated than the teachers. I am also likely more intelligent than they are too.
3. One of my children is already grown. He turned out fine. In addition when my second son chose to enter the public school system his intake scores on standardized testing were 4 grade levels above state average.
4. So my statements are a slap in the face but your statement about dinner and vacuuming once a week were fine? So slaps in the face are only permissable if YOU are making them. There's a word for that... I'd teach you it if my teaching skills weren't so awful. I believe it starts with H though.
The choice is not what I'm talking about. I was the one who took time away from work when my kids were born. It was something that I thought was important so I made that decision. I'm talking about women who have the power to change the Catholic church, but don't and bring the children in to see the injustice. The Vatican's argument has always been that Jesus only picked male apostles therefor he must have only wanted males. Jesus never said males only, this was an interpretation. Jesus did say (according to the bible) that the poor get a faster trip to heaven and followers should remain poor (without sandals). Have you seen the way the pope dresses? Have you seen priests driving there own cars and going on expensive vacations? Yes. So no vow of poverty and no women priests. All women have to do to change things is not show up Sunday with the family and cash. Cash is what they will listen to. It seems so simple. It's the right thing to do. I maintain bringing your daughter to Sunday Mass is teaching her that she is not as equal to boys and boys are being taught the same. This is something I'm very passionate about.
Are you Catholic? If not, and you are passionate about it, join the church and call for change. I'm not Catholic. How is what the Catholics do my business?
I was born and raised Catholic. I of course no long consider myself Catholic, but my wife, up until a short while ago would drag all five of us to Church on Sunday morning. What do I care? Well I care about all and any injustices, it's part of being human. In this case there is a very simple solution to a big problem.
As I said, it takes all kinds. I am thankful for the variety. I wouldn't raise a child that way, but I respect anyone's choice and their right to make decisions they feel are the correct ones when raising a child. Because their children are not mine to raise. No one is a clone. We present information to our children as they grow and it is that child's freedom to follow in our footsteps when they are grown, or not. So, if people want to raise a child in an environment that claims the Pope points the direction of 'God's way' it isn't my right to passionately, or otherwise, stand in their way.
Because, I can assure you, I wouldn't appreciate someone shoving their opinion of cosmic truths on my kids either. That is quite the potential injustice in and of itself.
How does staying home with kids equate to not wanting to work? Do you have kids? if so, I'm really interested to know how you managed to raise kids and vacuum once a week, this is a new one on me! Did you neglect them in some way? And what's all this joint decision about? I could well and truly understand equal partners making joint decisions about the way in which they want their children to be raised, but many hetro relationships are not equal, and whilst a man might decide that initially that's what he wants, they more often than not don't stick around for the real work.
Actually, I had no problem juggling parenting and working and keeping the house neat. The kids turned out great too. Maybe we're a fluke. You got me.
Well you see, I did. I thought working and parenting and housework and caring for a disabled sister were, let's say, pretty tough. But there again, I spent most of time wondering if I was getting exactly right, there are soooo many critics out there, who, unfortunately, tend to be women who have decided that their way is the best way, and women who do it differently are probably just looking for an easy ride and a man with a disposable income!
I didn't have a disabled sister. I'm sure that was tough.
You know, I do think women are too critical of themselves and worry too much about how they are judged. I don't suffer with that problem, so I guess that is a bonus. I do the best I can, make judgements calls on what is important and let other things ride until I can get to them. And I don't make excuses for not being perfect. I freely admit it.
I don't doubt you would have ben able to criticize my daily life had you been there. I wouldn't have cared. However, the stay at home moms I know have a heck of a lot more leisure time, which they spend on leisure activities; so I still say I'm not inclined to sympathize with their plights. It's the life they chose. And not everyone has that option. They should consider themselves lucky on some levels.
And not all stay at home are mums are the same. Some can't afford leisure time, they should not all be painted with the same brush, especially when they are just trying to do the best for their family, as most women do.
God tells Adam exactly why he was being punished:
"And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;" - Genesis 3:17.
Funny how you quote Genesis 3:16 later on, but leave out the very next verse that disproves your statement in your second paragraph.
But if Adam had not eaten and discovered desire and the good and evil of sex, he could never do God's first command to him. His eyes would have remained shut.
That is a catch 22 and that is why God was unjust in punishing A & E for doing exactly what they had to do and that is why God put Satan there to insure that they would do exactly what they did. Right?
That is why the Jews call their myth an elevation and that reasoned point of view was reversed by foolish Christianity to a fall.
Tell me, how is becoming as Gods, God's own words, a fall?
No, Satan did this on the 7th day, the day that God rested from His work. Jesus talks about this in a parable, and Jesus reveals things that are "hidden". (Matthew chapter 13, verses 24 to 30 is the particular parable I am speaking about, if interested). Satan had already fallen, inwardly. In the garden, Satan fell from his appointment through his actions.
Pretend for a moment that God is really omnipotent, all-knowing, and all that junk. Don't you suppose that maybe God went through all the possibilities for every possible future event, based on one act of creation? He would know what would happen in the future, and chose the reality with the least amount of casualties, when throwing free will into the mix?
I say free will... God created us, because He wanted to share His creations with us. He wants us to be happy, but only through free will could we truly be happy. If we were created as robots, there would be no such thing as "love" or anything, as it would just be a rehearsed affair. It wouldn't be real.
If we were created without free will, it would not be possible for us to sin, and *all this* would be pointless and arbitrary. But it isn't, because we do have free will. God tells us we're sinners, but shows us how to be forgiven, and yet we are so stuck in saying that we're not sinners.
God's foreknowledge of things doesn't rule out free will, it simply means that He already knows what your choice is. It was always your choice, and God plainly warns us of our own choices and how they lead to spiritual destruction. He begs and pleads with us, and even went so far as dying in a flesh body, just to warn us of our choices! He always gives time before destruction comes, to warn people and give them time to repent, but we mostly are stubborn and refuse.
It doesn't matter to Satan what you do, as long as you're disobedient to God. Satan doesn't care about anyone, and that is why God warns us about Him by name, when Jesus plainly talks about Satan in several instances.
If nothing else, without free will we would never know how lost we are, especially when we do things our own way. It isn't like God's rules are all that hard to abide by, and Jesus even simplified it to two principals: Love God, and love your neighbor as yourself. God wasn't trying to burden us with silly laws, He was just trying to protect us from Satan, because Satan is the opposite of love. He's referenced as the "destroyer" and "son of perdition" for a reason.
Satan is not anyone's friend, and the lies are many, but there is only one truth. Trust the Creator-God, YHWH, who shed His own blood for remission of sins.
Do commands with a horrendous threat attached inhibit and annul free will?
Yes they do.
This is clear because the first time A & E do their will instead of God's, he threw his hissy fit all over them and us.
That is hardly God honoring our free will. The bible is full of instances where God shows disdain for our so called free will by killing us and ignoring our free will to live.
God put A & E in a catch 22 and murdered them by neglect and locking away the tree of life for not being able to get out of the impossible position he put them in. That is completely immoral and unjust.
I am confused, you don;t respect God, but oppress women because he tells you to and kills people? Sounds like an abusive relationship all round.
You read the O P a bit too quickly. I said,
" I think we should stop being slaves to women and give them full equality. Men owe it especially to men and to a lesser degree to women and between you and I, justice demands it ------, and so would all just people."
I do admit though that I wrote the O P in a way where not all see my position.
You are right that I do not respect bible God even as I know he is man made and a myth. Better said, I do not respect what men have created him to be.
He definitely calls for the oppression of women and I think that to be one of his dirtiest deeds.
God doesn't threaten, He warns. The consequences of any sin, is spiritual death, because sin originates from within the very being of a person. Remember Jesus talking about cleaning the outside of the cup, but forgetting to clean the inside of the cup? It's a parable.
Free will used in service to God and God alone, is obeying God out of your love for God. That fulfills Jesus' 1st principal/command of what all the law and the prophets are based on: Love God, first and foremost. (Mark 12:30).
If you can't love God, well that is also your choice. God tries to protect us, even when we turn our backs on Him, just so we have a chance of turning back to Him. Because that is all God really wants. He doesn't want us to die, but that is the consequences of separating yourself from God, because sin is separation from God. The hope against hope itself, even knowing our eventual failure, He still gives us a chance. That is a righteous and just God, to me, who gives everyone a fair chance at salvation.
And just for the record, I emphatically state that I believe (thought I can't prove it beyond a resonable doubt as of right now), God will save those who never had a fighting chance coming out the doors. I don't think for a second that He would leave people accross the globe, who have never heard His name mentioned, out for the vultures to pick at us. Spiritually speaking, of course.
It's like if you take a plant, and remove it from sunlight. They have water and CO2, and should be able to live. But plants need sunlight to live, too. Without it, they die. It is much the same way with the spectral radiance of God, which sustains our very being. Our souls are sustained by God and God alone.
It's not a "catch 22" at all. If it were, then God is a liar, and my faith is in vain. I know that isn't true, but I only hope I can explain to you what I mean in enough detail so that you understand it from my perspective. I don't want to condemn you or anyone else, or just argue pointlessly: That is not my intent.
I appreciate your civil dialogue so far, DL. I really enjoy answering questions, rather than criticism. It means at the very least, you're willing to consider what I'm saying, and I appreciate it 100%.
Thank you and God bless you.
Yes, in very much the same way Jigsaw warns people they're about to be tortured and mutilated.
Yes, fair in the same way as any decision one must make when they have a gun pointed at their head.
Plants exist, but souls have never been shown to exist, hence your example is meaningless.
"Yes, in very much the same way Jigsaw warns people they're about to be tortured and mutilated."
That's more of an example of what Satan does. When we become slaves to sin, in our denial of God, we serve Satan whether we like it or not. We become his pawns, and Satan then subjects us to cruelty and misery, in order to get us to curse God. Sorry you fell for it, but you're looking at this from the wrong direction. We do have an enemy, and Jesus mentions him by name: Satan.
"Yes, fair in the same way as any decision one must make when they have a gun pointed at their head."
Not even close. Only Satan threatens us with death. God threatens us with eternal life in a place called heaven. You don't want to go to heaven? Don't drag people down with you, or you're just heaping sin on top of sin.
A better analogy would be that a flood is coming, and God tells you to build a boat. Do you listen, or just sit there and make excuses?
"Plants exist, but souls have never been shown to exist, hence your example is meaningless."
Fine, souls don't exist. How does that change trying to follow the example of Jesus? I find the greatest virtue embodied in forgiving ones murderers.
What is your ideal, and why?
You say you should follow Jesus and I agree. Jesus in fact asks just that.
He says to pick up your cross, responsibility for your salvation, and follow him.
Yet Christians do not. They prefer to take the immoral position of ridding him as a scapegoat instead of taking responsibility for their own salvation as Jesus says we must.
We don't earn salvation, we simply accept it. Jesus died, because by Mosaic Law, no one was saved from sin. The law was a burden, and Jesus lightened the burden. Didn't abolish it, but made it easier to be forgiven. No one can save themselves.
This scripture and others like it is a lie then is it?
2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
You call into play Mosaic Law yet the Jews did not accept Jesus as the messiah.
Do you think that human sacrifice and punishing the innocent instead of the guilty is a moral and just practice?
Depends on who you identify as "innocent"... I'm not willing to decide who should live or die, and so I leave it up to God.
Jews did accept Jesus, early on. They later became known as "Christians", or "Christ-men" to identify them as followers of Jesus. All of the early Christians, were Jews.
Heck, I'm an Irish-Sephardi Jew. I accept Jesus as Messiah.
Wow, you have another magical invisible entity to use as an excuse. Have you never used reality to explain anything?
Sorry, but the magical world you've created for yourself really has nothing to do with me.
Gods never say such things, that's why people die and their houses get destroyed.
Because it is highly likely Jesus never existed, either.
"Because it is highly likely Jesus never existed, either."
That's just simply not true. There is evidence of a historical Jesus:
If you believe this that I would like to discuss the morality of his words.
If you want to, let's do so but please indicate if he was a man or a God from the get go please. It will make it easier on both of us.
If you do want to I will start a new O P as to not derail this one.
Jesus was God in the flesh. All the prophecies yet to be fulfilled, are because (and the bible even mentions this) Messiah was "cut off" (crucified) at only 3 1/2 years into His divine ministry.
That is why the tribulation is shortened by 3 1/2 years, as divine judgment from God.
If you want to make another thread about it, I'm all for it.
Sorry, but people who lived decades after the alleged Jesus are not evidence and in fact that website draws ridiculous conclusions...
"Josephus was born only three years after the crucifixion of Jesus, making him a credible witness to the historicity of Jesus."
How can a baby born AFTER an alleged event be a credible witness to that event? Hilarious.
By the time he was 7 years old, I'm sure he heard of this Jesus guy. He was close enough to the "eye-witness" period to be credible.
How is it that Jesus is the only historical figure, who never has enough evidence for ever existing for people like you? You don't want proof, you just want to be right.
You mean he was listening to hearsay about this Jesus guy. And, he was also intellectually competent enough to understand and synthesize what he heard at the ripe old age of 7. No, that is not credible by any stretch of the imagination.
There are plenty of historical figures, many of them religious figures that most likely never existed.
Yes, we want evidence to support the claims, we want to be right because we don't want to be wrong, that is the point entirely.
Josephus wasn't the only contemporary writer to mention Jesus. Don't you find it odd that people who hated Jesus, wrote about Him as if He were a real person?
Even if you take all the miracles away from the story, and even attribute this Jesus figure as an allegorical person, what Jesus teaches us is profound. Love your enemies? Bless those that curse you? Revolutionary thinking, in my opinion.
Do you really believe what you wrote? "By the time he was 7 years old, I'm sure he heard of this Jesus guy" A seven year has heard of Santa and will be convinced he exists if told so. Secondly one cannot be an eye-witness of an event he heard of. It's like saying a child is an eye-witness that Santa has rain deer, because his parents told him so. I don't know if this Jesus guy ever walked on earth, but I do know that from the stories about him, only a few thought he was special when he was alive. After his death, according the stories he became popular as a martyr.
There is a lot wrong with the way you read the bible but let’s see if we can discuss it civilly before I speak to all of your points that I do not agree with.
“God doesn't threaten, He warns.”
In the case of A & E, be it threaten or warn, he still actively murdered then through neglect by making sure they could not reach the tree of life. That is murder by today’s standards. Note that when J W’s deny their children blood, they are jailed for murder and God is no better and deserves the same justice.
“The consequences of any sin, is spiritual death,”
Your bible does not agree because it says that A & E grew spiritually and became as Gods, God’s own words, after eating of the TOK. Developing a moral sense is awakening spirituality, not killing it.
BTW, the Jews have recognized this for a long time and that is why they name this myth our elevation. Christianity reversed this more sound interpretation to a fall and destroyed an otherwise good theology and deserved rite of passage.
“ because sin originates from within the very being of a person.”
True. But to sin, one must know they are sinning. A & E could not know that what they were doing was evil as the had no knowledge of evil and would not have known that to ignore the command to stay as bright as bricks was a sin or evil.
In secular law, this type of innocence is is covered by the Latin term mens rea. It basically says that if one has no evil intent or evil mindedness when doing something, there is no culpability.
Thank you for taking the time to reply to me, I appreciate it.
"In the case of A & E, be it threaten or warn, he still actively murdered then through neglect by making sure they could not reach the tree of life. That is murder by today’s standards. Note that when J W’s deny their children blood, they are jailed for murder and God is no better and deserves the same justice."
I respectfully disagree. If God is who He says He is, then Jesus said "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone." Only God is without sin, and is able to cast that first stone (and consequently, last stone too). This doesn't mean God wants to punish us, and allows for even the worst among us time to repent and be saved from their sin. God loves us, and doesn't want us to die, but a Just and Holy God can not allow sin to corrupt the rest of His children. Sin is like a cancer, and we are all one body in Christ. Those cancerous parts, will be cut off and sent into the medical waste incinerator.
God is admitting that He is respsonsible for all of this by allowing us free will, in His own selfless sacrifice on the cross. But because we have free will our sins are our own, and the blame can only fall on ourselves. We wanted it our way, in clear disobediance to God? Fine, suffer the consequences. And even the little things, only seem little at first until it catches up with you.
This is why knowing the context of the Passover, is vital to understanding the relationship between God and all of us.
"Your bible does not agree because it says that A & E grew spiritually and became as Gods, God’s own words, after eating of the TOK. Developing a moral sense is awakening spirituality, not killing it.
BTW, the Jews have recognized this for a long time and that is why they name this myth our elevation. Christianity reversed this more sound interpretation to a fall and destroyed an otherwise good theology and deserved rite of passage."
Okay, if this all happened the way I think it did, then this is how I see it: The knowledge of good and evil, isn't a bad thing. It is all about how it is used, both internally and externally. Adam and Eve were already well-off in the GoE, and had no need to toil or labor for the bountiful blessings they received while there! What more could they ask for, except the one and only thing, that God said not to do? They were already told they should't "eat" ("partake of"), not as in literal fruit, but as in "the fruit of your labors" - You expect to get paid for working, and money is the fruit of your efforts/labor.
This is why Eve saw that it was pleasant to the eye, and and a tree to be desired to make one wise: She knew God said not to, but reasoned within herself (inwardly), and THEN partook of the "fruit" (externally).
Satan got them to take something that wasn't theirs. It wasn't that God was being a tyrant, but once again just trying to protect us from Satan. The real question is; not if, but when was God going to allow Adam and Eve to eventually "partake" of this fruit? If it was put in the garden, it was for them to have. Maybe not all at once, but in due time.
Think of this like acquiring anything that is new and exciting. Without God's direction, we quickly degenerate into using newfound knowledge to gain advantages over each other. This usually results in gain for the self (or ego, as I believe you would call it), but at the expense of another person or group, etc..
Unless that "thing" was specifically designed to provide a purpose to another "thing", it wasn't meant to work that way. God made the trees to bear fruits and nuts, for our bodies to consume, digest and be sustained. They have a specific purpose, but people abuse what God gave them all the time.
And yes, you can know what evil is, without ever doing evil yourself. We read about evil all the time, and see it in the news every day. Would we ever do anything like those evil people? No, but we know what they're doing is evil. We don't have to kill someone to know that doing it is evil, in the same way you don't need a broken leg to know it is going to hurt.
Oh well. I tried.
You gnored God's conduct and what I said and just went into preach useless dogma mode.
My post was on murder, spiritual growth and the culpability of A & E’s sin.
Your reply ignored God’s murder, was on original sin, and your agreement that the knowledge of good and evil is not a bad thing yet ignore that God punished them for taking good knowledge.
This is not the way to get through a theology.
Gnosticism is the way to get through a theology?
Maybe you should watch "Aquarius - The Age of Evil" and/or "Age of Deceit - Fallen Angels and the New World Order" (legally, for free) on a popular video hosting site.
I agree with your first.
Can I have a quick conclusion from you as to what you got from watching the above before I take the time to do so?
Nothing too long. Just in a nutshell.
I don't know how you view conspiracy theories and such, but, I'm pretty sure things are happening in the world that can't be dismissed as simply coincidence. I see it as a fulfillment of biblical prophecy, happening right now.
"Aquarius - The Age of Evil" is a documentary of the origins of Theosophy and other religious doctrines, and how they are connected to this "New World Order" thing I've heard so much about. The movie focuses mainly on a refutation of the Zeitgeist film(s).
(Approximate run time is 2h 18m).
"Age of Deceit - Fallen Angels and the New World Order" is some of the same material as in "Aquarius", but with the addition of the "UFO/alien" phenomenon that is being promoted in many popular movements. It deals with more of the spiritual aspect of the whole conspiracy. It really shows you how it is connected to Luciferianism.
(Approx runtime 2h 30m).
I would also recommend the "Know Your Enemy" series by The Fuel Project. (They are currently doing another series called "Stay Free" that is up to part 18). The whole thing is like 11 hours long, but it covers the "entire" (as briefly as could be done, in only 11 hours...) conspiracy from a biblical perspective, starting from Adam and Eve. It covers the Nimrod, Semiramis and Tammuz story and origins of Babylonian paganism.
Also, Michael Heiser, PhD, has a video floating around about Gnosticism. He made the video some time after "The Da Vinci Code" became popular. It's basically a refutation of Gnosticism, and I understand why you wouldn't want to watch it, but if you can force yourself to do so, you might understand where I am coming from... Or you might just get angry! I guarantee nothing.
The world as a whole do not understand, neither can it differentiate between maleness and femaleness,
Thus it is feminine.
The feminine does not understand its own role and will always strive after the masculine to dominate it.
The feminine will always strive among themselves so as to determine the ruler,
The masculine will always rule over the feminine because he understands both the ways of the masculine and the feminine.This he does without strife.
The male who strive after the female to dominate her as ruler, has made himself female.
For this male has not understood the way of neither the male nor the female.
The female who submits herself to the male without strife, will do because she understand the way of the male and the female, and also understand the the male must rule the female.
That female is now transformed into a male and though the maintain her role as female it is under the authority of the male.
Thus the perfect unity of the male and female, where the feminine is hidden by the masculine.
Spiritual men understood this thus God is called father and Earth mother.
So we see men as the Sons of God submitted unto Mother (Earth ) until the time of their maturity.
But if a man were to disregard the feminine he dishonors his mother and strives against her, thus relegating himself to femininity, this is why in the closing of the age, the confusion of sexuality will become rampant.
Male following after femininity to the extent hat they become it and the female totally disregarding their own femininity that become persistant striving with the male.
The place of masculine is the rulership and not one of a dictator but one of servant hood.
Any man who understands this and find himself a wife... and merely a woman. And he is the one to determine that status.
So looking at part the story in never good enough.
Not the way he puts it but I agree that man should rule for woman's sake and elevation above man.
I think that that is what this link is telling us.
I disagree, I've been married for 22 years and what I have learned is people are only happy when they have control on their lives. I personally don't like being told what to do and when to do it. If you want happy employees give them control or make them think they are making decisions. What a happy wife? Let her control her life by making her own decisions. My wife and myself have equal say. Well she almost always gets what she wants anyway, tell her she can't have it and for sure she will get it. Big decisions are made by both of us because we both have to live with the results of the decisions.
Anytime you take control away you get a miserable person. No one want a miserable wife. I've seen the result to many times. Sooner or later the wife will get control back, usually with the man is a different apartment and much less money.
No argument on the spirit of your words and I think the same way.
I just take the thinking to the extreme and use the analogy of a sinking ship and from that position I would say that rulership is mine and there would be no discussion with my wife or any woman as to who gets the seat in the lifeboat.
That is what I mean when I say that man should rule for woman's sake. To elevate her. That is our male duty as I see it.
"The place of masculine is the rulership and not one of a dictator but one of servant hood."
I agree with this. Way too much opinion and not knowledge in the rest of what you wrote.
Just out of curiosity what is knowledge and how does it differentiates itself from opinion?
In the end you would see any and all knowledge is merely opinion,
And any opinion is knowledge
Which way the pendulum swings depends of the individual observer....
if he knows then all is knowledge...
if he does not know, then he flips back and forth between the two, ever doubting and never finding the rest, necessary to lead to him knowledge.
Share your knowledge
Simply stated, I am not interested in re-writing the dictionary, opinion is somewhat less persuasive than knowledge and points to a possible truth only, not a truth.
Take you opening remark.
"The world as a whole do not understand, neither can it differentiate between maleness and femaleness,
Thus it is feminine."
This is pure opinion as, unless you have a survey to back it up, you have no way of knowing this to be true and that is what it would take to make it knowledge.
See what I mean?
Apparently you have not noticed that you have justified my position in your stated argument as a whole...
which is "knowledge is merely an opinion that is become popular."
Now why do it in an argumentative fashion?
Now to approach the argument within your argument...again to separate as you imply knowledge from opinion.
"The world do not know maleness from femaleness..... this is why they are the world"... as you said it my opinion and need validation by a consensus among the people of the world to establish it as knowledge
Why not start a thread to that effect, I think there are a diverse amount of the world population here so at least you can have idea what he world thinks....
I am assuming you are interested in knowledge....and I know what I know.
I agree. Morality should not have a price tag.
Actually, women were created first. It is the men who were the afterthought. However, men wrote the bible. Kind of looks like a little history rewriting went on there... Just saying...
Except for the created part. We evolved and have the fossil records to show how.
Look, I too believe we evolved. But to state that we have the fossil records that show how isn't quite honest. We have fossil records that point to how we think we evolved. Even though it makes more sense than the Play Doh account; it is still, in the end, a belief.
How many facts are required before you believe in a theory that science uses every day in damned near every scientific discipline that you can name that has a biological component?
This guy says it quite well.
You do realize I am never going to waste time on your links?
I don't care what you choose to believe in. I'll stick to the facts. Thanks anyway.
A man-made God that creaed the earth and universe in 7 days and jumpstarted life in a plush garden inhabited by a talking snake isn't exactly classified as "fact". LOL
A little history!!!!!!!!!!!!
A lot of history.
But I know what you mean. + 1
by Rodric Anthony 6 years ago
Why do people not understand that the Bible does not contain all of God's word?Are people being purposely taught that the Bible is all containing of God's word. Do people not know the history of the Bible? The book is a collection of unrelated books put together by the catholic church--specifically...
by Estess 11 years ago
Now don't get me wrong; I dont want to offend anyone here, but if Jesus is revealed to have been invented by the that time "people in power" to have control over the World, what would your reaction be? Just curious:)
by ngureco 2 years ago
If You Were Made The Pope, The Most Immediate Change You Would Make Is To Allow Priests Get Married?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 6 years ago
Religions have inculcated people that the feminine principle is evil as a result of the Adam and Eve mythology. Religions, especially patriarchical religions, have indoctrinated people that women were to controlled and subjugated to male authority. All aspects of women's power,...
by Mikel G Roberts 2 years ago
How is it possible that Protestants think Catholics aren't Christians?The earliest Protestant church was the Lutheran Church, named after the Catholic monk Martin Luther. The man that broke away from the only christian church in existence, the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church was...
by Kathryn L Hill 5 years ago
However, in the man, the soul's feminine essence is hidden or downplayed. In the woman, the masculine essence is hidden or downplayed. We benefit in marriage through experiencing the essence which manifests predominantly in our partners. In this way marriage helps us get in touch with the deeper...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|