Shii Posted:

Where did I say everything was an analogy?

Well over half of Scripture is written as a literal narrative.

A narrative ridden with plot holes and incongruencies.

What was the purpose of “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” (I Corinthians 14:34-35) ?

Or

“For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.” (I Corinthians 11:8-9)

Literal?

Again, I don’t recall seeing any ‘plot holes’ or ‘inconsistencies.’

All contradictions are due to faulty exegesis. And I’m really not stretching the interpretation much. People just have a tendency to pick out singular lines without bothering to find who the book was written too, written by, and what the surrounding pbumages say.

Anything can be misconstrued when the reader is trying hard enough.

Shii Posted:

Again, I don’t recall seeing any ‘plot holes’ or ‘inconsistencies.’

Enlighten me on the true context or purpose of the above. On WHAT context would that be acceptable?

CroMagnon Posted:

Lol, reminds me of a pastor in the dogreat timesetary “The God Deseption”. He said, “Some people find it hard to look at an ear or an eye and say it happened by acident.” (reffering to evolution) This was a pretty big **** up.

Only idiots think that evolutionist think like this. Its not an accident, its natural selection.

Except the beginning of life had nothing to do with natural selection. Like science would have you believe, it just randomly started in a pool one day.

The directions it took AFTER it began were of course dictated by natural selection.

Shii Posted:

Except the beginning of life had nothing to do with natural selection. Like science would have you believe, it just randomly started in a pool one day.

The directions it took AFTER it began were of course dictated by natural selection.

Spontaneous generation of nucleic acids and other structures required for life have been formed in a lab under early-earth conditions.

Yeh, I’ll agree that those pbumages are controversial.

Only SO MUCH change is allowed at a time though, without being too much to stomach. Even though by today’s standards Paul’s teachings on the subject of women seem harsh, back in 50-100 AD it was incredibly progressive.

Not only were there female priestesses and prophets, but they were allowed in church (even if silent, no other society allowed women in the worship places, apart from shrine prostitution.) Also, even back another 1000 years before Paul, during the period of the Judges, the entire nation of Israel was saved and then ruled by a female, named Deborah, for many decades.

So while it sounds cruel and unfair, it’s a step in the right direction.

We know God intended men and women to be equal from the start because of one of the first pbumages in Genesis, right after God created the world. “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”

So clearly, right from the start, both man and woman were made in God’s image.

Furthermore, a few verses later, Genesis lays out the foundation for how we should treat women in relationships; not as servants, but as equals. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.”

Man and woman are meant to be equals in marriage and in society. It just took a while for the rest of the world to catch up, thusly why the pbumages in Corinthians can be mistaken.

How about

“Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.” (Isaiah 13:15-16)

CroMagnon Posted:

If the Bible is the gold brick in the American spiritual sidewalk, then you simply have to ask: What is the relevance in the fact that Christ might not have been betrayed at all? That he may have orchestrated his own arrest? What does this say about his divine wisdom? About Bible stories as a whole? More importantly, how does the new and improved Judas story pinch the bum of our collective mythology? Does it or does it not kick out one of the shaky support beams of the modern Church? Shouldn’t it?

Yay for ctrl+c

The Gospel of Judas, as claimed/found by the Discovery channel or whatever, is no more relevant to Christianity than the Apocrypha utilized by the Catholics.

Canon isn’t determined by the people present within writings. Many works include people from these times that we know, but not every one is divinely inspired. They fail the tests of canonicity.

DarkDespair5 Posted:

How about

“Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.” (Isaiah 13:15-16)

How about the surrounding context instead of picking at a single verse?

Don’t worry, I’ve got it.

This is a prophecy of judgement against Babylon, for refusing to repent of its sins. Back before the coming of Christ Jesus, humanity was still steeped in sin. Sin and wrongdoing could not be tolerated by a holy God. Therefore, he gave them chances to repent of their ways and turn back to Him.

Upon whence they rejected his calling, he was left with no choice but to follow through with his promised punishment.

Thankfully, we’re no longer bound by this theology of retribution, because Jesus redeemed all men and women from the powers of sin and death.

Shii Posted:

The Gospel of Judas, as claimed/found by the Discovery channel or whatever, is no more relevant to Christianity than the Apocrypha utilized by the Catholics.

Canon isn’t determined by the people present within writings. Many works include people from these times that we know, but not every one is divinely inspired. They fail the tests of canonicity.

What about the rest of his argument?

P.S. Smashing innocent children isn’t something you should do…