Religion excludes women

@ghost-of-a-duke said
What about words attributed directly to God, that come across as sexist? Has God allowed His own words to be changed by the free will of the human writers?

Okay, time out.

Which "words directly attributable to God" are sexist?

Could you point me to these?

@suzianne said
The content of our Bibles is based on what the Council of Nicaea (all men, mind you, all church elders) decided was "include-able" and it was they who, inspired or not, decided what stayed in and what would be left out. They were basically editors, yet who can edit the Word of God? Was Jesus himself on the Council? I don't think he was.

Well, me personally, I don't have any reason to think any of the Bible is "divinely inspired". Some Christians think all of it is. You'd be somewhere in between, would that be right?

@suzianne said
Okay, time out.

Which "words directly attributable to God" are sexist?

Could you point me to these?

Let's start with:

“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” Genesis 3

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Let's start with:

“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” Genesis 3

Sarah called Abraham “Lord”, I’m happy with “Sire”.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Let's start with:

“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” Genesis 3

And what did God say that in reaction to?

Eve disobeying Him and following Satan and persuading Adam to do likewise.

You think God said that out of the blue, with no justification or reason behind it?

@fmf said
Well, me personally, I don't have any reason to think any of the Bible is "divinely inspired". Some Christians think all of it is. You'd be somewhere in between, would that be right?

Then explain the accuracy of prophecies in the Holy Bible and scientific facts that were centuries, if not thousands of years, ahead of their time (i.e. ahead of the knowledge of man.)

@pb1022 said
And what did God say that in reaction to?

Eve disobeying Him and following Satan and persuading Adam to do likewise.

You think God said that out of the blue, with no justification or reason behind it?

I didn't think it necessary to reference the context. (Even my cat knows the context).

Both Adam and Eve (in that quaint fictitious story) disobeyed God. And yet Eve is told her husband will rule over her. (And the same for her descendants).

As Adam was clearly easily led and a bit thick upstairs, perhaps God would have been better off telling him to be ruled over by Eve.

@pb1022 said
Then explain the accuracy of prophecies in the Holy Bible and scientific facts that were centuries, if not thousands of years, ahead of their time (i.e. ahead of the knowledge of man.)

Many episodes in the NT were contrived to satisfy OT prophecies. Take for example the requirement for Jesus to be born in Bethlehem and the NT writers coming up with the weak excuse of Joseph having to return to the place of his birth for the census.

(In reality, there was no need for Joseph to return to Bethlehem for the census. That simply isn't how a census works, then or now. A census is taken in the place you are currently living. The idea you have to go back to your place of birth to take part is a nonsense. - And of course, there is no record of a census being taken at that time anyway).

And I thoroughly reject the Bible contained 'scientific facts that were centuries, if not thousands of years, ahead of their time.' Who are you trying to kid?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Many episodes in the NT were contrived to satisfy OT prophecies. Take for example the requirement for Jesus to be born in Bethlehem and the NT writers coming up with the weak excuse of Joseph having to return to the place of his birth for the census.

(In reality, there was no need for Joseph to return to Bethlehem for the census. That simply isn't how a census work ...[text shortened]... cts that were centuries, if not thousands of years, ahead of their time.' Who are you trying to kid?

I previously asked if you would watch a short (11 minute) video that demonstrates 10 scientific facts in the Holy Bible that were centuries, and in some cases thousands of years, ahead of man’s knowledge, and you said you had to wash the hair on your knuckles.

Your mind is closed on the matter.

@pb1022 said
I previously asked if you would watch a short (11 minute) video that demonstrates 10 scientific facts in the Holy Bible that were centuries, and in some cases thousands of years, ahead of man’s knowledge, and you said you had to wash the hair on your knuckles.

Your mind is closed on the matter.

As is yours to everything scientific that has happened in the last couple of centuries that thoroughly debunks your particular brand of religion.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Many episodes in the NT were contrived to satisfy OT prophecies. Take for example the requirement for Jesus to be born in Bethlehem and the NT writers coming up with the weak excuse of Joseph having to return to the place of his birth for the census.

(In reality, there was no need for Joseph to return to Bethlehem for the census. That simply isn't how a census work ...[text shortened]... cts that were centuries, if not thousands of years, ahead of their time.' Who are you trying to kid?

I don’t accept your statement regarding the birthplace of Jesus Christ, but leave that aside for a moment.

Are you saying the NT writers contrived the date of Jesus Christ’s crucifixion to fit the prophecy in Daniel? What about Isaiah 53? What about Zechariah 2:10-11?

I can cite a lot more.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
As is yours to everything scientific that has happened in the last couple of centuries that thoroughly debunks your particular brand of religion.

Well at least you’re acknowledging your mind is closed.

And for the 1,000th time, the theory of evolution is not science. Why are atheists so obsessed with it? Oh yeah. It’s your religion.

@pb1022 said
I don’t accept your statement regarding the birthplace of Jesus Christ, but leave that aside for a moment.

Are you saying the NT writers contrived the date of Jesus Christ’s crucifixion to fit the prophecy in Daniel? What about Isaiah 53? What about Zechariah 2:10-11?

I can cite a lot more.

That's irrelevant if you are unaware of how a census works. It doesn't change the fact that there was no need for Joseph and his family having to return to Bethlehem, making it blatantly obvious the writers of the accounts were trying to fulfil OT prophecies and manipulating facts to make them fit.

So no, I won't leave that aside.

@pb1022 said
Well at least you’re acknowledging your mind is closed.

And for the 1,000th time, the theory of evolution is not science. Why are atheists so obsessed with it? Oh yeah. It’s your religion.

Evolution is evidenced based. Unlike the stuff you subscribe to. But I do understand why science terrifies you.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Evolution is evidenced based. Unlike the stuff you subscribe to. But I do understand why science terrifies you.

Have you investigated the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ?

Your claim there’s “zero” evidence tells me you haven’t.

And your belief that the theory of evolution is “evidence based” tells me you haven’t investigated that either.