Is it wrong to date your best friends little sister?

[nashtymavsfan13]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Anyone who would leave a land mine untouched, so that an innocent person would be bombed to shreds, needs to seriously re-evalute their priorities in this world.

The point was, you wouldn't try to get as close as you could to it without setting it off, you would want to stay completley away from it. Same thing with sin. You would also tell others about the dangers of the landmine, like Christians are telling others about the dangers of sin.

[bernardos70]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Anyone who would leave a land mine untouched, so that an innocent person would be bombed to shreds, needs to seriously re-evalute their priorities in this world.

How do you know that it wouldn't be a terrorist stepping on it instead?

[D-Ball]

Originally Posted by Five-ofan

Divorce is pretty universally recognized as a sin. Divorce goes back to Henry the 8th saying essentially im the pope and i can do what i want.

There is a cleansing ceremony, at least in Holy Mother's house, to recognize there was no sacrament performed on the day of the wedding, and therefore, the church recognizes the divorce. But, in assuming the relationship was consummated, wouldn't that sex be lawful and outside Catholic marriage?

Originally Posted by Five-ofan

Its just a slippery slope to go down because essentially once you have sex with someone, in that theory, you have married them. If they dont believe the same way there is no way you can know they wont leave for greener pastures and if they do believe the same they wont mind waiting.

This is assuming all sex within the confines of a serious relationship. And this is assuming that there is no conversation about the extent of the commitment before the two people have sex. If that conversation takes place and both people agree to be committed through it all, is that a marriage? And if that is the case, can engaged people have sex before the marriage without it being a sin?

Originally Posted by Five-ofan

As for the hyperbole, im glad you admitted as such. You realize that weddings are generally known as the brides day and the thing with the names is just tradition which isnt even always observed.

I know that it has always been considered the bride's day, but the reasons have evolved over time. In the beginning, it was less about love and more about financial security and fulfilling the woman's duty on this earth to bear children; she didn't die alone. That's a very sexist view of the world, and a very traditional one. The basic contract at the root of the ceremony is about the exchange of property. It is all tradition now; it has completely different motivations now.

But, we have always valued a woman's virginity over a man's--that's the double standard of sexuality. The idea of waiting, in the traditional sense, had less to do with God and more to do with domination over women. Hyperbole or not, that is what I was aiming towards. If you accept that premise, I see no moral justification from the Bible on this issue. Because I reject the notion I am allowed to have slaves, even though the Bible allows for it, I reject the notion that sex outside the bonds of marriage is wrong.

I applaud anyone who waits. I am glad they have faith enough in an idea, and in the person they are marrying, to wait and make sure they are the only sexual partner of their soul mate's life. That two people would share a moment like that with each other is an amazing gift, even if it is awkward, painful, and messy at first. It's admirable, but I don't consider anyone who doesn't wait to be immoral.

Actions I do consider immoral - rape, prostitution, and one-night stands.

[Evilmav2]

All philosophical debates aside, I'd be a hypocrite if I said dating your best friend's sister would be immoral, because I've personally done something very similar (something like hooking up with my almost-best friends' younger sister in the guest room of his own house), principally because that for all of the problems that such said incidents are likely to incur (and did in my case), the callous, corporeal, and cardinal regnancy that the flighty powers of both personal attraction and social chemistry tend to exercise over the specific interactions of opposite-sex-ted individuals is a grievously formidable assize for any normal fellow to even dare dream of overcoming...

[D-Ball]

Originally Posted by Evilmav2

All philosophical debates aside, I'd be a hypocrite if I said dating your best friend's sister would be immoral, because I've personally done something very similar (something like hooking up with my almost-best friends' younger sister in the guest room of his own house), principally because that for all of the problems that such said incidents are likely to incur (and did in my case), the callous, corporeal, and cardinal regnancy that the flighty powers of both personal attraction and social chemistry tend to exercise over the specific interactions of opposite-sex-ted individuals is a grievously formidable assize for any normal fellow to even dare dream of overcoming...

Right hand, cold showers, and control over all faculties (limit alcohol) have always served me well.

[MavsX]

hey five-0! did you ask her out yet? i bet she said no...

[Big Boy Laroux]

Nice to see some other people join the discussion...

Like D-Ball said, i'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I too admire nashty and wish there were more people with strong convictions like that in the world.

However, i do think that blind faith is something that can't be taken seriously. you shouldn't follow something mindlessly, no matter how organized it is.

as for the sexually immoral stuff. the bible says not to be sexuall immoral. who made the decision that premarital sex is sexually immoral?

Originally Posted by D-Ball

But, we have always valued a woman's virginity over a man's--that's the double standard of sexuality. The idea of waiting, in the traditional sense, had less to do with God and more to do with domination over women. Hyperbole or not, that is what I was aiming towards. If you accept that premise, I see to moral justification from the Bible on this issue. Because I reject the notion I am allowed to have slaves, even though the Bible allows for it, I reject the notion that sex outside the bonds of marriage is wrong.

I applaud anyone who waits. I am glad they have faith enough in an idea, and in the person they are marrying, to wait and make sure they are the only sexual partner of their soul mate's life. That two people would share a moment like that with each other is an amazing gift, even if it is awkward, painful, and messy at first. It's admirable, but I don't consider anyone who doesn't wait to be immoral.

Actions I do consider immoral - rape, prostitution, and one-night stands.

you and I are on the same page, D-ball. I'd add bestiality to that list.

[Male30Dan]

Originally Posted by Big Boy Laroux

I'd add bestiality to that list.

So how will Doc ever have sex with a woman and not have you ringing the immoral bell?

Geez BBL, give the old man a break!

[sike]

1 Corinthians 7:2 and 7:9 speak to it...

but there is no one verse that bluntly says the phrase "premarital sex". I was pretty much a given in the Old Testament and in the New that sex was designed for the marriage bed.

some situations are just considered as "no brainers" in the church...and the Bible talks penty about sexual sins...the fact that it does not mention the phrase "premarital" does not weaken the argument at all.

Off the top of my head the New Testament does not say that rape is wrong either...you know why?...for the same reason that it does not say "premarital" sex is(though I would still contend that is alluded to multiple times)...because those are things that did not need to be said: they were "givens".

"we have always valued a woman's virginity over a man's--that's the double standard of sexuality. The idea of waiting, in the traditional sense, had less to do with God and more to do with domination over women."

In a Biblical sense, this is rediculous. You are welcome to your opinion, but I find that it has little merit whatsoever. Or perhaps there is more to it than I understand...or are you just speaking from a secular standpoint?

[Big Boy Laroux]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Anyone who would leave a land mine untouched, so that an innocent person would be bombed to shreds, needs to seriously re-evalute their priorities in this world.

finally someone sees my point of view! landmines are harmful to everyone, not just you. if we were all selfish, landmines would be dominating the globe. we should all do our part to rid the world of landmines, one by one, as we see them.

[MavsX]

this thread is sweet....and i am in no way helping anyone's cause...

[Five-ofan]

Originally Posted by Big Boy Laroux

finally someone sees my point of view! landmines are harmful to everyone, not just you. if we were all selfish, landmines would be dominating the globe. we should all do our part to rid the world of landmines, one by one, as we see them.

Yeah, thats where this is an imperfect analogy though. You having sex doesnt do anything for anyone else as far as helping them not to have sex.

[fluid.forty.one]

Originally Posted by nashtymavsfan13

Yeah, it is the greatest stroy ever told, because it's not just a story.

If you want me to respect your opinion, you have to respect mine as well.

[fluid.forty.one]

Originally Posted by Five-ofan

Yeah, thats where this is an imperfect analogy though. You having sex doesnt do anything for anyone else as far as helping them not to have sex.

Unless they were the partner and you were really really bad... and that turned them off of sex for awhile.

[Big Boy Laroux]

Originally Posted by Five-ofan

Yeah, thats where this is an imperfect analogy though. You having sex doesnt do anything for anyone else as far as helping them not to have sex.

well, there's two ways i could do this:

1) have sex with all the women in the world, and tire them out. if they're too tired to have sex with you, no sex for you! Brilliant!

B) Satisfy all the women in the world so damn well that they'll be spoiled when it comes to sexual experiences. No one else will interest them in the least. therefore, no sex for you. Equally Brilliant!


hmmm, but i may have to rethink this "all the women in the world". There are a LOT of ugly chicks out there.

[Male30Dan]

Originally Posted by Big Boy Laroux

well, there's two ways i could do this:

1) have sex with all the women in the world, and tire them out. if they're too tired to have sex with you, no sex for you! Brilliant!

B) Satisfy all the women in the world so damn well that they'll be spoiled when it comes to sexual experiences. No one else will interest them in the least. therefore, no sex for you. Equally Brilliant!


hmmm, but i may have to rethink this "all the women in the world". There are a LOT of ugly chicks out there.

Yeah... You have to watch out for the apple too... A bunch of trannies out there!

[Five-ofan]

Originally Posted by Male23Dan

Yeah... You have to watch out for the apple too... A bunch of trannies out there!

I was just watching rome is burning(i know) and they showed an interview with laura quinn. Im not trying to say anything specific but lets just say, she has an apple.

[D-Ball]

Originally Posted by sike

"we have always valued a woman's virginity over a man's--that's the double standard of sexuality. The idea of waiting, in the traditional sense, had less to do with God and more to do with domination over women."

In a Biblical sense, this is ridiculous. You are welcome to your opinion, but I find that it has little merit whatsoever. Or perhaps there is more to it than I understand...or are you just speaking from a secular standpoint?

I speak from 19 years as a Catholic including seven years attending private school and as a devoted Altar Boy. I've completed the sacriments of Baptism, Reconciliation, and Communion. I speak as the child of a former Seminarian. I speak as a man who has not attended any services, outside of funerals, since January of 2003.

I was taught by my father that when Ephesians speaks on the relationship between man and wife, that the line 'You husbands, love your wives...' he was talking about servitude for both partners and the line was to balance the previous 'Wives, be subject to your husbands...' because he was aware that the common relationship of any marriage was to treat women as property.

Men in this era would've heard it as something like: 'Husbands, treat this toaster as you would treat your best friend.' This is the climate in which the Bible was written, translated, and early dogma was established. 1,500 years later after the letter, Shakespeare writes "Taming of the Shrew" where the father arranges marriages for his daughters because he is worried his fiercly independent 'Shrew' of a daughter will die alone.

Tell me again why we're stoning the woman when Jesus says "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone?" What happened in 'The Scarlet Letter?' What was Christina Aguilera complaining about three years ago in a song entitled 'Can't Hold Us Down?'

I'm talking about the world. In the time the Bible was written, women were property, and relics of that belief system exist in the Bible. That's my point.

[Smiles]

Originally Posted by XERXES

thank you. i should have jumped at the opportunity, but your sister made me nervous.

I know, you should have gone for it, X! Imagine how that would've changed holiday dinners and summer vacations.

[D-Ball]

Originally Posted by Male23Dan

Yeah... You have to watch out for the apple too... A bunch of trannies out there!

You must open your mind to new experiences.

[nashtymavsfan13]

Originally Posted by fluid.forty.one

If you want me to respect your opinion, you have to respect mine as well.

I respect yours, but don't agree with it. I still think there is nothing wrong with having this discussion on this forum.

[D-Ball]

Originally Posted by nashtymavsfan13

I respect yours, but don't agree with it. I still think there is nothing wrong with having this discussion on this forum.

Amen.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by D-Ball

I speak from 19 years as a Catholic including seven years attending private school and as a devoted Altar Boy. I've completed the sacriments of Baptism, Reconciliation, and Communion. I speak as the child of a former Seminarian. I speak as a man who has not attended any services, outside of funerals, since January of 2003.

I was taught by my father that when Ephesians speaks on the relationship between man and wife, that the line 'You husbands, love your wives...' he was talking about servitude for both partners and the line was to balance the previous 'Wives, be subject to your husbands...' because he was aware that the common relationship of any marriage was to treat women as property.

Men in this era would've heard it as something like: 'Husbands, treat this toaster as you would treat your best friend.' This is the climate in which the Bible was written, translated, and early dogma was established. 1,500 years later after the letter, Shakespeare writes "Taming of the Shrew" where the father arranges marriages for his daughters because he is worried his fiercly independent 'Shrew' of a daughter will die alone.

Tell me again why we're stoning the woman when Jesus says "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone?" What happened in 'The Scarlet Letter?' What was Christina Aguilera complaining about three years ago in a song entitled 'Can't Hold Us Down?'

I'm talking about the world. In the time the Bible was written, women were property, and relics of that belief system exist in the Bible. That's my point.

Eph 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;
Eph 5:19 Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;
Eph 5:20 Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;
Eph 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing.
Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
Eph 5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
Eph 5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
Eph 5:29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
Eph 5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
Eph 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
Eph 5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
Eph 5:33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife [see] that she reverence [her] husband.

Now what is it that you said above. A woman is property. That is not what the scripture says. It says to treat it like you would your own flesh. Nourish it, love it, cherish it. My understanding after 38 years (off and on) in a Baptist church, reading completely through the Holy Bible at least 3 times, a "quiet time" each morning for the last 5 years in prayer and bible study, and reading through the morman bible, koran, apocraphia, and many jewish writings has me absolutely convinced that Women are not to be looked down upon, or treated as property, but to be treated like you would yourself - and taken care of.

The great mystery spoken of above is about the role of man. How we each have a role in life -- (that some people want someone elses role). Responsibility is where most of the roles lie, and each of us should be able to discern our role, with the help of the Holy Spirit.

[fluid.forty.one]

Originally Posted by nashtymavsfan13

I respect yours, but don't agree with it. I still think there is nothing wrong with having this discussion on this forum.

I dont care what you guys talk about on here, I just thought it was funny. I was referring to the fact that you think the bible is true, and I think it's an elaborate story.


Don't you guys think its funny that after the bible was created, people still thought the world was flat? People thought that the world was the center of the universe?

Most things are completely the opposite of what we thought back in the early 1000s and ealrier..... and yet catholics still believe the same things that catholics back in the day did.

Usually I don't even care but you said "it's a true story" rather than "I think it's a true story" and that says to me that you don't give a shit what I think.

[nashtymavsfan13]

Originally Posted by fluid.forty.one

I dont care what you guys talk about on here, I just thought it was funny. I was referring to the fact that you think the bible is true, and I think it's an elaborate story.


Don't you guys think its funny that after the bible was created, people still thought the world was flat? People thought that the world was the center of the universe?

Most things are completely the opposite of what we thought back in the early 1000s and ealrier..... and yet catholics still believe the same things that catholics back in the day did.

Usually I don't even care but you said "it's a true story" rather than "I think it's a true story" and that says to me that you don't give a shit what I think.

Ok, well I apologize for that. I do care what you think, I just think you have it wrong. I think the Bible is true, and I don't see how someone can just think it's a story. If it was just a story, do you think it would include all the bad things the Israelites did? When we write history it is very one sided and we try to make ourselves look good, why would the Bible include the bad things if it wasn't true? If someone wrote the Bible, and it wasn't God inspired, don't you think it would contain some biastness as well as make the people in it seem perfect?

[Nemesis]

Originally Posted by nashtymavsfan13

I respect yours, but don't agree with it. I still think there is nothing wrong with having this discussion on this forum.

Be careful what you wish for here. I have only heard a pleasant debate one time in my life and that was on the BBC. About the time the debate got interesting/defensive they conveniently took questions from the audience and that was it (I wish I would have recorded it). I know it is an old saying but I just don't discuss my belief/faith with anyone unless I am prepared to hear both sides.

You say you respect his/her opinion but you are not really hearing his opinion and of course vice versa. My two cents is you can't possibly argue with someone who doesn't have Faith (all that really matters in this debate), from their prospective the Bible is a story. That is all you need to understand from their viewpoint.

End the high-jack of this thread.

[dude1394]

I can't understand why a guy wouldn't want his friend to date his sister. I mean especially if he knows and loves him. Wouldn't he know that this guy is a great guy (or not).

Or course since they do know each other, if he gets out of line there is always much blackmail material. I say it's a win-win.

[sike]

I don't mean to discredit your (former) religious life or opinion...but you seem to show very little understand of the BIBLE's opinion of women. I agree with the historical fact that women were treated as less than equals in that culture...But as property? Not even close at least in Jewish culture. and not in any sense in the Christian culture...and that of course as little to do with my points.

Originally Posted by D-Ball

I'm talking about the world. In the time the Bible was written, women were property, and relics of that belief system exist in the Bible. That's my point.

your point is a 100% misinterpretation of clear Scripture. boggles the mind.

Christ, more than ANY other person in history (as far as I can tell) did more to bring about equality between sexes...she reached out to the down and out of the culture and gave them dignity and wholeness...he did this for not just women, but to sinful women....

for example, when men are told to love their wives like Christ loved the church...it is meant to love her with a perfect and sacrifical love...even going as far as laying your life down (which Christ said is the greatest sign of love/friendship)....for you to insinuate that God wants men to being willing love their toaster with that kind of perfect, sacrificial, and Heavenly love seems to me that your presuppositions have gotten in the way of clear exposition of intended meaning.

I guess your religious background which you recited for us, is significant in the shaping of your beliefs...
the saddest part of the post was "I speak as a man who has not attended any services, outside of funerals, since January of 2003."

its important not to confuse the secular culture of the day with the culture taught by Christ in Scripture, I agree that the culture of the day did not treat women as equals but Christ did. And would certainly not agree with the historical overstatement that they were treated like property even among the secular culture. We are talking about the Jewish Culture and Roman cultures right?

if you want to know my background in this field, just pm me and I'll fill ya in.

[D-Ball]

The non-secular world is not independent from the secular. Whether the philosophy flies in the face of convential beliefs of the time, the truth is that church membership, the people who were married, they had sexist ideals.

I'm suprised at the tone of your post. I am not attacking religion, I am simply trying to point out that the basis of marriage within the church has not always been 100% about love. The first law of Proselytizing is to hit the target audience--it's about convincing unwilling participants to adopt a belief. If we believe, today, that the target audience of Ephesians is our society 2,000 years later, we have missed a portion of the message. That is how the secular and the non-secular are inseperably linked, especially when interpreting Biblical passages.

When interpreting Biblical passages, remember how many revisions have been made to the text. Remember that secular governments commisioned their own version of Christianity. Remember that secular governments commisioned their own version of the Bible.

My basic point is this is not as clear-cut as we'd like to believe. If you have faith that can bridge those gaps, congratulations. I personally believe that too many human hands have shaped God's message over the past 2,000 years.

[chumdawg]

I also believe that the bible has little, if any, relevance to the present day. To the extent that it does, it does so on the basis of common sense--which, to put it casually, we don't need the bible for.

What the bible does do is present a number of wholly unsupportable admonitions in this day and age. To follow it blindly is a bit like trying to build a house with 2,000 year old engineering plans.

My belief is that American views toward sex are uhealthy at worst and not beneficial at best. Other countries do it better.

[Five-ofan]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I also believe that the bible has little, if any, relevance to the present day. To the extent that it does, it does so on the basis of common sense--which, to put it casually, we don't need the bible for.

What the bible does do is present a number of wholly unsupportable admonitions in this day and age. To follow it blindly is a bit like trying to build a house with 2,000 year old engineering plans.

My belief is that American views toward sex are uhealthy at worst and not beneficial at best. Other countries do it better.

Disclaimer, I am a christian so what follows is my personal opinion.

The Bible is the most relevant book in the world. There is a reason it is referred to as the living word. It is always relevant. I dont think enough of you understand the concept of god. Thats cool because i dont either but i dont think alot of you even understand the extremely small portion of god that we can understand. To put it shortly, God is GOD. Think of anything that you can imagine. That isnt even 1 one trillionth of 1 one trillionth of a percent of what god can do. Gods powers are literally LIMITLESS. If Gods powers are limitless, do you really think that its impossible for God to right a book that will be relevant for over 2000 years. God can do literally ANYTHING. Largely, the argument that it isnt relevant today is an excuse. Its an excuse to be more wordly. I understand that. I do things I shouldnt but the changeing of the world in the biblical sense's morality does not change morality. To be honest though, morality is actually not the point of it. The point of it is to do what god tells you. Changes in morality have no change whatsoever in what God commanded.

[D-Ball]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

Eph 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;
Eph 5:19 Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;
Eph 5:20 Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;
Eph 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing.
Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
Eph 5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
Eph 5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
Eph 5:29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
Eph 5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
Eph 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
Eph 5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
Eph 5:33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife [see] that she reverence [her] husband.

Now what is it that you said above. A woman is property. That is not what the scripture says. It says to treat it like you would your own flesh. Nourish it, love it, cherish it. My understanding after 38 years (off and on) in a Baptist church, reading completely through the Holy Bible at least 3 times, a "quiet time" each morning for the last 5 years in prayer and bible study, and reading through the morman bible, koran, apocraphia, and many jewish writings has me absolutely convinced that Women are not to be looked down upon, or treated as property, but to be treated like you would yourself - and taken care of.

The great mystery spoken of above is about the role of man. How we each have a role in life -- (that some people want someone elses role). Responsibility is where most of the roles lie, and each of us should be able to discern our role, with the help of the Holy Spirit.

Every piece of scripture is contemporary to the time. The beliefs imparted in this passage were massively radical and that is where my 'toaster' analogy comes into play. Understand that I was referring to general attitudes of society towards women, and that it shaped the marriage ceremony. Contemporary society shaped the authors of this book. God may speak all he wants, but the author has to be receptive and understand the message.

These were men raised in a sexist society. That is one of the most basic teachings--at least the Catholic faith--to open your heart to God in an attempt to interpret God's communication. The symbols, the allegories, and the target audience were shaped by contemporary times. So I am uncertain about the assumed moral judgements that flow from the Bible. I cannot selectively edit what I want to believe and what should be discarded, especially because that is what I am accusing previous generations of doing. It is all supposed to be the word of God--every single letter. That's all I am saying. I was expressing an opinion about using the Bible as a reference of morality in this subject.

I am not an authority, and when asked about 'how do you speak?' all I did was respond with background information. It was not an attempt to raise my opinion to the level of expert.

This, honestly, is why I hate discussing something like this. People become way too sensitive and impassioned, and I don't like hearing the reasoning of my youth. I've made these arguments to people. I don't believe it anymore. The Bible is susceptible to the same forces as any other historical text and the belief that it is not is my problem.

[Five-ofan]

Originally Posted by D-Ball

Every piece of scripture is contemporary to the time. The beliefs imparted in this passage were massively radical and that is where my 'toaster' analogy comes into play. Understand that I was referring to general attitudes of society towards women, and that it shaped the marriage ceremony. Contemporary society shaped the authors of this book. God may speak all he wants, but the author has to be receptive and understand the message.

These were men raised in a sexist society. That is one of the most basic teachings--at least the Catholic faith--to open your heart to God in an attempt to interpret God's communication. The symbols, the allegories, and the target audience were shaped by contemporary times. So I am uncertain about the assumed moral judgements that flow from the Bible. I cannot selectively edit what I want to believe and what should be discarded, especially because that is what I am accusing previous generations of doing. It is all supposed to be the word of God--every single letter. That's all I am saying. I was expressing an opinion about using the Bible as a reference of morality in this subject.

I am not an authority, and when asked about 'how do you speak?' all I did was respond with background information. It was not an attempt to raise my opinion to the level of expert.

This, honestly, is why I hate discussing something like this. People become way too sensitive and impassioned, and I don't like hearing the reasoning of my youth. I've made these arguments to people. I don't believe it anymore. The Bible is susceptible to the same forces as any other historical text and the belief that it is not is my problem.

The problem is the bible isnt just a historical text. It does depict historical events so it can be used for that purpose but no other book has been written by God so its not subject to the same restrictions as other works.

[D-Ball]

Originally Posted by Five-ofan

The problem is the bible isnt just a historical text. It does depict historical events so it can be used for that purpose but no other book has been written by God so its not subject to the same restrictions as other works.

Good point.

[fluid.forty.one]

JESUS HATES THE MIAMI HEAT

[D-Ball]

Originally Posted by fluid.forty.one

JESUS HATES THE MIAMI HEAT

Somehow I think we're completely off topic.

So, how about that dilemna 5-0? Did you ask her out?

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by D-Ball

Every piece of scripture is contemporary to the time. The beliefs imparted in this passage were massively radical and that is where my 'toaster' analogy comes into play. Understand that I was referring to general attitudes of society towards women, and that it shaped the marriage ceremony. Contemporary society shaped the authors of this book. God may speak all he wants, but the author has to be receptive and understand the message.

Yes, and this is also why Relationship is far more important than "the law". Many contemporary scholars of the day didn't realize that the relationship with God is the most important thing, and not the sinful acts we all commit.

These were men raised in a sexist society. That is one of the most basic teachings--at least the Catholic faith--to open your heart to God in an attempt to interpret God's communication. The symbols, the allegories, and the target audience were shaped by contemporary times. So I am uncertain about the assumed moral judgements that flow from the Bible. I cannot selectively edit what I want to believe and what should be discarded, especially because that is what I am accusing previous generations of doing. It is all supposed to be the word of God--every single letter. That's all I am saying. I was expressing an opinion about using the Bible as a reference of morality in this subject.

You say you cannot know what is "right" and what is "wrong" about the bible from anything written by past generations. I say, I couldn't either when I was your age. I couldn't understand because I didn't have the relationship to understand. Man cannot give you wisdom, only intelligence. Intelligence without wisdom though is fleeting because you hold no understanding. Wisdom comes from the Lord through relationship.

I am not an authority, and when asked about 'how do you speak?' all I did was respond with background information. It was not an attempt to raise my opinion to the level of expert.

I never thought you were trying to be an expert. I thought you were trying to get people to understand where you are coming from --- as I am trying to get you to understand where I come from.

This, honestly, is why I hate discussing something like this. People become way too sensitive and impassioned, and I don't like hearing the reasoning of my youth. I've made these arguments to people. I don't believe it anymore.

I stated before that I have always been taught never to talk about religion or politics because it brings out passion in people. The problem with not talking about it, is that it is the destiny and control of most peoples lives. You have a few choices to make in your time here on earth. You can choose - a/the God, Man or ignore. You will make the decision with the life you lead and it is a decision for eternity.

The Bible is susceptible to the same forces as any other historical text and the belief that it is not is my problem.

I used to think so as well. Somewhat I can agree with you. It wasn't until my relationship matured that I started to understand that the Bible is not the same as any other historical text. Yes, man tries to influence it -- but no he really can't. He can't because it isn't about man's interpretation, but about relationships, love, and your heart. For instance, what did Jesus say the most important:
Mat 22:36 Master, which [is] the great commandment in the law?
Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Mat 22:39 And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Everything hangs upon two things: Putting God first, and treating everyone else as you would yourself.

Now, I am using the Bible to put out my opinion, and you have stated that you don't think the Bible is unerrant. Scholars for centuries have been trying to prove it wrong, and none have yet or ever will.

If you don't believe what I have written, study, and put it to the test.
Here is some scripture to get started with:

2Ti 4:1 I charge [thee] therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2Ti 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
2Ti 4:4 And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to 5-0's problem. IMO,

Don't date her till both of you are ready to start making decisions about marriage. I am not saying don't go out as friends and have fun, but don't make it a "date". Dating is for trying to find the perfect mate to spend your life with. If you aren't ready to commit your life to someone, and she is too young, then just don't put yourself in the position until both of you are ready.

[MavsX]

listen this debate used to be funny and hilarous..and now its boring....lets move the church talk into the garbage forum..that way no one will have to see it...

[sike]

Originally Posted by D-Ball

The non-secular world is not independent from the secular. Whether the philosophy flies in the face of convential beliefs of the time, the truth is that church membership, the people who were married, they had sexist ideals.

yet Christ's teachings demanded and ultimately created a change in that culture. It is fairly obvious that we are coming from two very different world views. Once again, I am not arguing that the culture of Christ's day was (what we in 2006) would consider sexist. But Christ came and changed that. He teachings demanded change. And like I said, the claim you made about women being nothing but mere property is historical retoric.

I am simply trying to point out that the basis of marriage within the church has not always been 100% about love.

"Love" in the western definition of the last 200 years or so you mean. (lets please not make this conversation about the mereits of arranged marriage)

The first law of Proselytizing is to hit the target audience--it's about convincing unwilling participants to adopt a belief.

I'm unsure what you mean by "hit", but I would say that the first law of Christian proselytizing is to be prepared to boldly share the truth in love whether your audience is willing to change or not.

If we believe, today, that the target audience of Ephesians is our society 2,000 years later, we have missed a portion of the message.

if you don't think that people are people and have had the exact same problems throughout the centuries(in the most part)...then I'd suggest that you might need to actually look at the problems of past cultures and compare them with ours today...most are the same. And besides that, I believe that clear reading of any book, Ephesians included) will usually make clear its meaning for us today. And in the specific passage you picked from Ephesians about husbands and wives, I believe that dispite cultural differences, the command of God is the same for those husbands as it is for me today.

My basic point is this is not as clear-cut as we'd like to believe.

its getting clearer and clearer that you and I do not respect the Bible and God's ability to sustain His word in the same way. It appears as if we are coming from two very different places indeed.

If you have faith that can bridge those gaps, congratulations. I personally believe that too many human hands have shaped God's message over the past 2,000 years.

I cannot comment as to your understanding of the process of the shaping of the canon, and of course not all translations are equal, which is why a comprehension of Greek and Hebrew are good tools to possess, but I do believe that the Bible is true...and for today. My faith is in a God who can work through the failings of men's "hands" to preserve His word for His children.

my point (lets try to stay with the thread), that Christ changed the way women were treated via his teachings (at least in the lives of his followers) is valid. Christ changed the culture for those who believed. Does that mean that pagans changed...no...does it mean that every Christian got the picture...no...but is Christ in large part responsible for the move to see woman as equals...yes...and did he mean for the marriage relationship to be a partnership and not a dictatorship....yes. It is too clear to argue. Unless you simply want to say that what has been preserved is not really what Jesus taught. For that I cannot argue with you...after all, Christianity does require faith. You either have it or your do not.

[sike]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

My belief is that American views toward sex are uhealthy at worst and not beneficial at best. Other countries do it better.

if you mean like India...I'm inclined to agree.