Author Topic: A cult?  (Read 56977 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline BuzzKill

  • Posts: 1815
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
A cult?
« Reply #360 on: May 28, 2005, 10:21:00 PM »
Greg - I did not say women were treated better. I said they were less degraded. Amanda made the comment that women were not valued and were degraded - I was arguing they did have value, and were less degraded than women today. I am not saying they were treated better - but that they didn't feel they were being treated badly.

Amanda - the kids and toys thing is something that has been proven by amazed sociologist. No one expected the results, but there you have it. With no prompting at all, children gravitate to what you would call gender biased toys; and the children the study had been raised in homes that strictly withheld such toys as guns and barbies; and were effort was made to be careful the children were not prompted to play with dolls over cars ore vice versa. Mom's interviewed after the study weren't nearly as surprised as the sociologist - one mom commenting her son would turn the carrot he was served for lunch into a "gun," even tho they never allowed guns, or games or TV that included guns.
Even so, there are always exceptions. Lots of little girls would rather play cops and robbers than play house; and boys surely do exist that prefer playing house. What was surprising was, that the tendency to pick one over the other, wasn't nurture - but nature.
Oh, and the personal toy/game preference has nothing what so ever to do with ones sexual orientation. I was a little girl who very much preferred playing with the boys. I had a great plastic dinosaur collection; and always preferred to be the Indian when playing cowboys and Indians. The Indians were the bad guys, but The Indians got to yell and run around and carry on in ways the coy boys/girls couldn't. The girly girls stayed on the swing set (base) pretending it was their cabin; and I got to smear mud on my face and stick Blue Jay feathers in my hair and do war woops! So much more fun. I had a couple buddies who I worked on diggin out a frog pond, under a locust grove, and we spent lots of summer days working on that mud hole full of tad poles.

Archeology has proven the accuracy of the Biblical histories over and over again. You might enjoy a book called 'the Stones Cry Out'. It covers some of this.

// still today, the church acts as if women have no vaule. No women popes. No womne can be priests. Women still have to wear "appropriate cloths" to church (not all the time, but you deffinetly get judged and stared at like an asshole if you dont). //

Well, not being Catholic I am not to concerned about this - but where I think you miss the mark, is in thinking that not being made priest or Pope lessens a person's value. It does no such thing. Women are, and always have been, the glue that holds the church together. God refers to the church as His Bride. This indicates a very high value on female responsibilities and identities. And by the Church, I mean all believers - not just one sect or denomination - but all who accept Christ as Lord and Savior.

As for clothes - well hon, what are you wanting to wear to church? I mean, appropriate clothes are important in many places and situations - and its not like you are expected to dress up and the guys get by with a tank top and flip flops! The service I attend is a very laid back "college" atmosphere - and I attend in my Jeans and a T-Shirt. I wouldn't go in wearing the shorts and ragged shirt I clean the barn in - but I don't dress up.

Over on the 'have you read it' forum, Ginger posted this:

 Post URL: http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... =24#106374

Interesting, and perhaps worth pointing out, John the Revelator described exactly this - One world  (an apostate) religion. And one world government (tho there will be rebellions) and a one world currency is suggested by the absolute control over "money" the world leader will have. Also, that men will marvel and think all this is the greatest of wisdom (a thousand points of light?) and most will be seduced by it.  Its happening.  Did you know the official EU logo is a woman riding a beast?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
A cult?
« Reply #361 on: May 28, 2005, 10:42:00 PM »
Buzz. Well. Post those stats for me will you?

Im sure many things go into little boys gravitiating toward things little girls do not. What tv they wathc and how the charachter (girls and boys) react to each other and what toys they play with, what books they read, ect.

Ill read it.

No, Its that a woman CAN NOT be a preist and a woman CAN NOT be a pope. IT has NOTHING to do with how saintly they are. A woman could be MORE saintly then the pope, but good luck tryign to be pope.

I should be able to wear whatever hte heck I want to church! IT is a fucking house of worship not a popularity contest and anyone who stares at someone and rudly comments to them for wearing a Jimi Hendrix t shirt is a fucking hypocritical bastard. If I was going to the Rits Carlton for dinner it woudl be different. But this "god' shoudnt give a crap what I wear as long as my heart is in the right place.

Amanda
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
A cult?
« Reply #362 on: May 29, 2005, 08:43:00 AM »
the heart is what matters.  our church has no problem with what kind of t-shirt you wear, but would have a problem with the language.  For out of the mouth flows the heart.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline BuzzKill

  • Posts: 1815
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
A cult?
« Reply #363 on: May 29, 2005, 09:45:00 AM »
Why are you so worried about a woman being Pope? I'd suggest the saintly among us, male or female, would really rather not be Pope - but not being Catholic, I have a jaded and suspicious attitude towards the Pope.

I don't have stats for you Amanda - I don't know that anyone has stats on that study - but its true and it was much talked about in both print and TV media. It might have been Date Line or Frontline or both that did an episode about it.  I read articles in the news magazines - it is not something I pulled out of my hat.

What they did was set up a large play room with a one way glass so the kids could be observed as they played.

Then groups of young children were brought iin and allowed to play at will while the psychologist observed. I think that is one mistake I made - I think it is more likely the researchers were Psychologist - but I don't really recall.

Anyway - over and over the children played in the typical gender biased roles with no prompting at all  - and these were kids being raised by "liberal" college educated parents who had made a conscience decision to avoid all gender biased prompting. In their homes they had cars and dolls and blocks and the kids played at will. There was no parental interference - and the kids were not school age yet, so as to be influenced that way.
It was really very interesting.

As I mentioned, those making the study were fairly amazed at what they saw happening as it was the opposite of what they expected. They thought the kids would group up in mixed gender groups and play all kind of things, with all kinds of the toys - but it didn't happen.

They split off into boy /girl groups with the girls mostly gathered together, relatively quietly over by the fake kitchen playing house.
The boys were far more loosely gathered - but still playing together, in a louder more aggressive fashion with the guns and cars and blocks.  

The more interesting thing to me was the surprised comments coming from the other side of the glass.

As for your choice of clothing - did you not put on the Hendrix shirt for the very purpose of instigating reaction from your elders? Did you not get exactly what you wanted? Would it kill you to show some respect and put on something more neutral? Not that I have anything against Jimi - but he does have a certain image that doesn't mix well with church attendance. You know that. I very much suspect thats why you wore it. And Amanda, no one likes to be disrespected. It was disrespectful.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
A cult?
« Reply #364 on: May 29, 2005, 04:44:00 PM »
All religions make me wanna throw up
All religions make me sick
All religions make me wanna throw up
All religions suck
They all claim that they have the truth
That'll set you free
Just give 'em all your money and they'll set you free
Free for a fee

They all claim that they have 'the Answer'
When they don't even know the Question
They're just a bunch of liars
They just want your money
They just want your consciousness


All religions suck
All religions make me wanna throw up
All religions suck
All religions make me wanna BLEAH

They really make me sick
They really make me sick
They really make me sick
They really make me sick
They really make me sick
They really make me ILL
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
A cult?
« Reply #365 on: May 30, 2005, 10:27:00 PM »
To anon, we are on a open forum. I have the right to curse if I feel like it. And no I woudl not curse in a church mainly to be respectful. However I do feel that my clothing should have nothing to do with my acceptance.
Amanda
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
A cult?
« Reply #366 on: May 30, 2005, 10:37:00 PM »
Buzz,
Its not that I want a woman to be pope. I ahve a problem with the fact that it is not acceptable for one to be pope. It is DISCRIMINATION. Oh the media discussed it. Well then it must be unbiased and true! :roll: I could give a crap less about what some right wing biased corperate owned media has to say on the subject. Unless you tell me that it is scientifically proven wiht all the details of the study I dotn see how you can base it in fact. How old were the childern? Had they been exposed to "gender approppriate" toys before? Had they seen role playing on tv of roles played by men and women? Did their parent teach them gender roles, ect. Kids learn alot at a suoper young age. All these factors play a part.

 Not at all. I did it because I like Jimi. No more psycholgical analisis is needed on that. My parents made fun of me for dressing "like a homless person". They talked down to me about my cloths. I wore perfectly nice clothing. Just the image they didtn like. But somehow me fitting into my "proper girl cloths" made me a better person. Their opinion not mine. And my parents made church so villy unpleasant that I could care the less what they thought was appropriate or not. They should not have cared either. They just wanted to protect heir church image. They didnt want their "friends" to see their kid dressed like a "hoodlum". And pooh pooh on that. I can dress how I want. Oh my god lady! You are so just as bad as they were. Disrespectful to whom? Was I making them listen to Jimi? Was I saying god is a piece of shit? Was I mocking their religion? NO! I was respectful. I was quiet and listened. I think what you wear has NOTHING to do wiht your faith. And if oyu think that then you are as crazy as my freakin parents were. And I feel sorry that you judge peopel by their clothing. Geez.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
A cult?
« Reply #367 on: May 30, 2005, 11:42:00 PM »
Quote
On 2005-05-28 19:21:00, BuzzKill wrote:

"Greg - I did not say women were treated better. I said they were less degraded. Amanda made the comment that women were not valued and were degraded - I was arguing they did have value, and were less degraded than women today.


"Less degraded than women today."

That is the most asinine, uneducated, wishfull thinking piece of intellectuall doggie doo You have spoken yet.

Tell Me Buzzkill, is God mandated Rape degrading?

Is taking women captive, shaving their heads, killing their babies by smashing them against rocks not degrading?

How about being sold by your father to another man? Degrading?

I am convinced you have no interest in the truth, only supporting your warped dogma based on a world full of supernatural boogiemen.

Tell me, is this degrading, to be considered just another piece of PROPERTY of the man that owns you?

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."

And what of Jesus? He said you could never divorce under any circumstances unless the Wife was guilty of fornication. No mention of divorce if the man was similarly guilty. Further, divorcing her made HER guilty of Adultery.



" But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."

Is this degrading?


And Pauls teachings of women?


"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."


Degrading?

How about Lot, who offered his daughters to a mob of men that were out to rape to angels (silly concept) and then later IMPREGNATED his own daughters...all to cause god to call him a "righteous man"

Is this degrading to the raped children by the God pleasing pedofile Lot?

This is but a small smattering of examples of your "less degraded" biblical women.
 




Buzzkill, this entire discussion has cast you as a very intellectually dishonest person. You seem to have very little interest in historical accuracy at all but only want to redefine everything in your narrow supernatural world view.

"less degraded than women today"


What a pile of shit that statement is.


GREGFL
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
A cult?
« Reply #368 on: May 31, 2005, 01:03:00 AM »
THANK YOU GREG!! You made my point clearer than crystal!
 :nworthy:  :nworthy:  :nworthy:  :nworthy:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline BuzzKill

  • Posts: 1815
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
A cult?
« Reply #369 on: May 31, 2005, 03:39:00 PM »
// "Less degraded than women today."
That is the most asinine, uneducated, wishfull thinking piece of intellectuall doggie doo You have spoken yet. //

Well you are entitled to your opinion Greg. But it is just your opinion. My opinion on most of what you say, is much the same.

//Tell Me Buzzkill, is God mandated Rape degrading? //

Tell me Greg, where did God mandate rape? I need chapter and verse so I can look it over see what your talking about. I am pretty sure you are not understanding something important to the meaning of the text, if you think God mandated rape.

//Is taking women captive, shaving their heads, killing their babies by smashing them against rocks not degrading? //

Again I need chapter and verse.

//How about being sold by your father to another man? Degrading? //

Today, yes of course. Then - no it wasn't. If the father was offered anything for a daughters hand in marriage - it was (I'm guessing) a huge compliment - as usually, the father was expected to pay the groom a dowry. Poor girls, with out a large dowry, were/are, at a disadvantage. It was the way society was all over the world at the time - and still is in large parts - and this doesn't mean this was ever what God wanted for His people.
This is an example of human tradition being mistaken for God's word. No where does God mandate that marriage be arranged in this way - but men began the tradition, and kept with it, and as it is described and mentioned in scripture, it has been viewed by some as the way it should be - because it is the way it was - and this is how the traditions of man, can take precedence over the word of God.  
We are warned away from the traditions of man for this very reason. See Matthew 15. Colossians 2 vs 8.  The Isaiah verse quoted in Matthew is, Isaiah 29 vs 13


//I am convinced you have no interest in the truth, only supporting your warped dogma based on a world full of supernatural boogiemen. //

You are convinced wrong. Truth is very important to me. I believe the Prophets and Apostles have taught the Truth.  I think there is just tons of evidence that this is so. You, on the other hand, I think are deceived by the Great Liar; and will believe anything that supports the lies with out question or reflection.

//Tell me, is this degrading, to be considered just another piece of PROPERTY of the man that owns you?
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." //

Is your wife your neighbor's? No, of corse not. And your neighbor isn't to try and get her from you, or to wish she, or anything else that is yours,
were his - but rather is to be happy with his own. And no doubt his wife would be more honored by this as well.
This does not mean a wife is property. Yes, I know wives and daughters were (and in parts of the world still are) considered property - but again - what you have here is a tradition of men - not a commandment from God.

//And what of Jesus? He said you could never divorce under any circumstances unless the Wife was guilty of fornication. No mention of divorce if the man was similarly guilty. Further, divorcing her made HER guilty of Adultery.
" But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."
Is this degrading?  //

You completely miss the point of this teaching. What was being said was, it is wrong for men to set aside their wives for the multiple and petty reasons allowed under the law. Jesus was telling the men he was talking to (and the churchmen today as well) that they are to keep and protect their wives for as long as they might live - and that it is wrong to think God approves of men casting out their wives for burning dinner.
He was talking about the sanctity of marriage and the seriousness of the convenient between man and wife. In God's eyes the two really do become as one; and Jesus was pointing out the seriousness of separating them by divorce; that as far as God is concerned, they are still married. The only justifiable reason for divorce is adultery - b/c if adultery has taken place, then the marriage convenient has already been broken. Even so - He does not say they must divorce. Only that in this case, they may divorce. This is a recognition that remaining married to an adulterer would be demeaning and more than can be expected of any man or woman.
He wasn't casting blame on the woman unjustly divorced by her husband - but rather blame on the hard heartedness of the husband - and pointing out to him the terrible situation he has placed his wife in. He was teaching that she must not be so demeaned.

//And Pauls teachings of women?

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." Degrading? //

Degrading? No I don't think so. This was the accepted custom of his day. What he is saying is that the woman needs to be respectful and hold her tongue in church and not be starting arguments. I suspect he had good reason to make this suggestion. The authority he speaks of is spiritual authority - and it is true that he is teaching men are supposed to be the spiritual leaders in church and in the home - but this does not mean that if men ignore their responsibility, women can not pick it up. Rather, that this is the responsibility of men - that women have other responsibilities. But in no case are these responsibilities to be left undone if one or the other falls short.

//How about Lot, who offered his daughters to a mob of men that were out to rape to angels (silly concept) and then later IMPREGNATED his own daughters...all to cause god to call him a "righteous man" //

I have always been bothered by this situation in Lot's story; and it is one of the things that is occasion for debate in Christian circles. Myself - I tend to think those who say Lot was attempting to protect the guests in his home, above all other considerations, as was the custom then among God's people, to be closest to the truth.   Note that the Angels interceded and kept all in Lot's house from harm.
As for the situation with his daughters, it seems incest was not the abomination then, that it is today. If I recall correctly, it was the daughters who had the idea - So I'd  argue if that's case - if they were degraded by this, it was  their own choice.

//Is this degrading to the raped children by the God pleasing pedofile Lot? //

I am certain there is nothing that indicates Lot was a pedophile.
He pleased God by wanting to honor God and live rightly; even tho all around him were exceedingly evil. We are not told Lot was perfect in all he did, nor Abraham or Isaac or Jacob, just that they were Faithful.

//Buzzkill, this entire discussion has cast you as a very intellectually dishonest person. You seem to have very little interest in historical accuracy at all but only want to redefine everything in your narrow supernatural world view. //

Intellectually dishonest? Why? B/c I don't think you have cornered the market on Truth? B/c I think you are deeply deceived?
I would argue it is you with no interest  in historical accuracy and you who are wanting to redefine times and events to fit your narrow spiritual point of view.

//"less degraded than women today"
What a pile of shit that statement is. //

I disagree.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
A cult?
« Reply #370 on: May 31, 2005, 05:25:00 PM »
Jesus loves you!

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
A cult?
« Reply #371 on: May 31, 2005, 05:29:00 PM »
Quote
On 2005-05-29 13:44:00, Anonymous wrote:

"All religions make me wanna throw up

All religions make me sick

All religions make me wanna throw up

All religions suck

They all claim that they have the truth

That'll set you free

Just give 'em all your money and they'll set you free

Free for a fee



They all claim that they have 'the Answer'

When they don't even know the Question

They're just a bunch of liars

They just want your money

They just want your consciousness





All religions suck

All religions make me wanna throw up

All religions suck

All religions make me wanna BLEAH



They really make me sick

They really make me sick

They really make me sick

They really make me sick

They really make me sick

They really make me ILL



"
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
A cult?
« Reply #372 on: May 31, 2005, 05:42:00 PM »
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
A cult?
« Reply #373 on: May 31, 2005, 06:20:00 PM »
Buzz, GREAT JOB!  I find no other book, religion, or people that lift women up more than the Bible, Christianity, and Godly men.  Ungodly men are disgusting, especially when they are pretending to be "in the will of God".  Godly men honor and love their wives, serve them with grace and gratitude, protect them, encourage them and value them more than they value themselves.  Godly men keep family first before career or sports.  They are the spiritual leaders in their homes helping in every aspect of marriage and family life.  I know....I have been married to one for more than 20 years.  He is truly a blessing!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline GregFL

  • Posts: 2841
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
A cult?
« Reply #374 on: May 31, 2005, 09:45:00 PM »
Yeah, GREAT job buzzkill. You have done a very good job warping the truth and history into a bastardization of feelgoodie revisionist spiritural fantasys.

great job

 :lol:  :lol:  :lol:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »