Women. God’s afterthought and man’s curse to rule.

Does God have both a vagina and a penis or is he androgynous?

Why am I not surprised that you should have the most base and vulgar take on any subject?

Is that why Christian men have denied women equality for so long and institutionalized that immorality in their doctrine?

This thread is a retread of another of your very few themes. If you actually wanted any genuine input you would have paid attention then. These threads constitute preaching, of your own special dogma. There is no real discussion with you, as the second anyone actually challenges your beliefs you throw a fit and storm off.
 
The King James Version you love so much:
You should learn to read more clearly. I didn't say that I loved the King James or that I had studied it for sixty years. I said that I have been "used to it" for sixty years. I have also been right-handed for sixty years. I am used to being right-handed but I neither love right-handedness nor have I studied it.

So God created man and then immediately, same verse, gave him dominion over the "cattle...and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth". There could not possibly be any indication of chronology there, huh?
Again, I didn't say there "could not possibly" be any indication of chronology in that verse. I said that there isn't necessarily any explicit chronology within the verse.

I also said - and you keep ignoring - that the chronology isn't particular significant anyway. You can have it your way if you want but I think it's stretching the text a bit.

The POINT is that woman was specifically created as an improvement to man, an add-on that he needed. The animals, no matter when they were created, were not adequate for that role. It is also stated explicitly that both male and female were to have dominion over the animals - i.e. the subjection of women was NOT part of the original creation.

Those are the points on which the OP is wrong and they're the only points that I have tried to make.
 
This is your version of you testimony. look at facts Woman don't have the same access to the western wall as male , woman don't sit in the temples with man ( Muslim and Jews ). Are there any Imams or Rabbi woman among muslim.or Jews. please check it out and come back.

I agree that women should be equal to men even in the immoral Abrahamic cults.
Is that what you are saying?

Regards
DL
 
Read in Ezequiel chapter 18 or chapter 31 start in verse 10 there you will see what God wants from man. to be justice why was Israel punished read Isaiah chapter 1. you will see what justice God wants

I am not to keen on the garden of Eden that could be just a metaphor. As for me the story of the garden is to show . The natural disobedience in us.

If that is what you get then you do not get much of anything.

Is justice delayed justice denied?
You have no clue do you as there is no scripture to guide you. Can't think at all can you?

Regards
DL
 
That's why I put "fall" in quotes. I don't consider the overall effect to be a fall but most Christians seem to see it that way. On the other hand, for women in particular, becoming subservient would be considered a negative effect.


No. If they don't die, it isn't murder. That's a pretty simple concept.

God didn't deny them food. He denied them one source of food. You might as well claim that you're murdering your children if you don't let them eat ice cream for three meals a day.

I see from your dodge that you agree even if you won't admit it. I don't care, lurkers will see it.

Regards
DL
 
Why am I not surprised that you should have the most base and vulgar take on any subject?



This thread is a retread of another of your very few themes. If you actually wanted any genuine input you would have paid attention then. These threads constitute preaching, of your own special dogma. There is no real discussion with you, as the second anyone actually challenges your beliefs you throw a fit and storm off.

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

Regards
DL
 
I see from your dodge that you agree even if you won't admit it. I don't care, lurkers will see it.
:bravo: Talk about a dodge.... I've pointed out errors in your OP and you've never addressed them honestly.

1. Woman was not created unequal. She became unequal because of eating the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

2. Nobody was murdered because nobody died.

Defend your OP or admit you were wrong. (Or run away like you usually do.)
 
You should learn to read more clearly. I didn't say that I loved the King James or that I had studied it for sixty years. I said that I have been "used to it" for sixty years. I have also been right-handed for sixty years. I am used to being right-handed but I neither love right-handedness nor have I studied it.

Well a reasonable and intelligent person might have some regard for the accuracy of their references. So if you prefer, and even defend, the KJV even after being told it is inaccurate, then you must be awfully set in your ways. Whether love of habit or of object, makes no significant difference.

Again, I didn't say there "could not possibly" be any indication of chronology in that verse. I said that there isn't necessarily any explicit chronology within the verse.

I also said - and you keep ignoring - that the chronology isn't particular significant anyway. You can have it your way if you want but I think it's stretching the text a bit.

I did not say you did, I only asked you a rhetorical question. But go right on clinging to an inaccurate translation if it make you feel any better.

The POINT is that woman was specifically created as an improvement to man, an add-on that he needed. The animals, no matter when they were created, were not adequate for that role. It is also stated explicitly that both male and female were to have dominion over the animals - i.e. the subjection of women was NOT part of the original creation.

Those are the points on which the OP is wrong and they're the only points that I have tried to make.

Nowhere does a helpmate imply improvement.

18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. -Genesis 2 (KJV)​

A solitary god would be no less "alone" (the only explicit reason given for needing a helpmate) and that is remedied by the necessarily subordinate creations.
 
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

And which do you consider a god? If an idea then it cannot be blamed in any personified way, and if personified you are professing to be small-minded.
 
:bravo: Talk about a dodge.... I've pointed out errors in your OP and you've never addressed them honestly.

1. Woman was not created unequal. She became unequal because of eating the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

2. Nobody was murdered because nobody died.

Defend your OP or admit you were wrong. (Or run away like you usually do.)

Adam also ate from the tree of knowledge. If they were equal before, why should she lose her equality and not Adam?

What makes you think that God would have different punishments for male and female and why would he punish Eve more than Adam?

Is punishment tied to gender?


If nobody died, where are A & E and what was the purpose of forbidding the eating of the tree of life?

Regards
DL
 
And which do you consider a god? If an idea then it cannot be blamed in any personified way, and if personified you are professing to be small-minded.

The Gods on offer are all man made so it is true that they cannot be blamed for anything.

Regards
DL
 
Last edited:
So if you prefer, and even defend, the KJV....
I have not defended the KJV or said that I preferred it.

Nowhere does a helpmate imply improvement.
Sure it does. There would be no point in creating a helper if it wasn't an improvement. The man-woman unit was certainly considered an improvement over the man alone. The female sub-unit isn't explicitly declared to be an improvement on the male sub-unit but it's implied by the order of creation.

A solitary god would be no less "alone" (the only explicit reason given for needing a helpmate) and that is remedied by the necessarily subordinate creations.
We're not talking about a solitary god; we're talking about a solitary man. And it is stated explicitly that the "subordinate" creatures were not suitable company.

Gen 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.​

(Pardon me all to hell and back for using the KJV. I promise not to kiss it in public.)
 
Adam also ate from the tree of knowledge. If they were equal before, why should she lose her equality and not Adam?
It's mathematics, boy! You can't argue with mathematics! [/Foghorn Leghorn impression]

It's pretty simple, really. When you take two things that are equal and make one of them unequal, the other one automatically becomes unequal too. If you make one of them less, you automatically make the other one greater.

What makes you think that God would have different punishments for male and female and why would he punish Eve more than Adam?
The text says plainly that He did. He said to the woman that she would be subservient and have pain in childbirth. He said to the man that he would have to sweat to earn his bread. He said to the snake that he'd have to crawl on the ground and people would hate him. It doesn't say that He punished Eve "more than" Adam, just differently.

Is punishment tied to gender?
There were three individual punishments. The pain of childbirth could only apply to the woman, of course, but otherwise they're based more on stereotypical gender roles than on gender per se. A woman of today who chose career instead of marriage and children would be "choosing" Adam's punishment instead of Eve's.

If nobody died, where are A & E and what was the purpose of forbidding the eating of the tree of life?
Nobody died until much, much later - and of natural causes. If you say you're going to kill somebody and they die many years later of old age, that isn't murder.

They weren't forbidden to eat from the Tree of Life. After they ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, they were expelled from the garden to prevent them from eating from the Tree of Life. The explicit reason was so that they wouldn't live forever.

And no, preventing somebody from living forever is not murder.
 
Last edited:
The Gods on offer are all man made so it is true that they cannot be blamed for anything.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?117706-Like-it-or-not-God-is-immoral

So these sorts of threads, and your usual rejection of free will, are completely bogus and trolling. It is good you can admit that.

Sure it does. There would be no point in creating a helper if it wasn't an improvement. The man-woman unit was certainly considered an improvement over the man alone. The female sub-unit isn't explicitly declared to be an improvement on the male sub-unit but it's implied by the order of creation.

helper
: one that helps; especially : a relatively unskilled worker who assists a skilled worker usually by manual labor

helpmate
: one who is a companion and helper; especially : wife

-Merriam Webster​

So either Eve was a helper, which denotes a subordinate assistant, or a helpmate which is primarily a companion (remember "alone" mentioned as the only explicit reason). If the latter, this does not imply any improvement of anything but perhaps general quality of life, which is not an inherent deficiency. Nothing is implied as improvement of the individual man, but you seem more than willing to infer quite a bit.

We're not talking about a solitary god; we're talking about a solitary man. And it is stated explicitly that the "subordinate" creatures were not suitable company.

Gen 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.​

And where are you reading that humans having dominion over animals implies anything about the relationship between humans? It is a false dilemma to presume that a subordinate animal is comparable to a subordinate human.
 
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?117706-Like-it-or-not-God-is-immoral

So these sorts of threads, and your usual rejection of free will, are completely bogus and trolling. It is good you can admit that.

.

Where have I ever rejected free will?
We have it and I have offered people a test to prove it to them.
That is not in any way a rejection of free will.

Don't put false words in my mouth please.

Back up your statement with a quote or we will all know that you lied about what I reject.

Regards
DL
 
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?117706-Like-it-or-not-God-is-immoral

So these sorts of threads, and your usual rejection of free will, are completely bogus and trolling. It is good you can admit that.


.

Where have I ever rejected free will?
We have it and I have offered people a test to prove it to them.
That is not in any way a rejection of free will.

Don't put false words in my mouth please.

Back up your statement or we will all know that you lied about what I reject.

Regards
DL
 
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?117706-Like-it-or-not-God-is-immoral

So these sorts of threads, and your usual rejection of free will, are completely bogus and trolling. It is good you can admit that.

.

Where have I ever rejected free will?
We have it and I have offered people a test to prove it to them.
That is not in any way a rejection of free will.

Don't put false words in my mouth please.

Back up your statement or we will all know that you lied about what I reject.

Regards
DL
 
Where have I ever rejected free will?
We have it and I have offered people a test to prove it to them.
That is not in any way a rejection of free will.

Don't put false words in my mouth please.

Back up your statement or we will all know that you lied about what I reject.

Regards
DL
 
Back
Top