Catholic Church Cont'd

[gobiggergoredder]

Benny, you must be unfamiliar with the old biblical tale of Jesus sending a bunny to give eggs to children. I bet that you don't know about Rudolf the Red Nosed Reindeer in the Old Testament either.

 

How about the religion of peace? You know the one were you strap a bomb to your chest and go into a daycare. The one that treats women as slaves. The one that mutilates womens sexual organs. That one that is involved in nearly every major conflict on this planet. I'm pretty sure that is in the readings. You're a big 'progressive' right?

 

Nevermind, it's way more mainstream to question those dirty christians.

[carlfense]

Benny, you must be unfamiliar with the old biblical tale of Jesus sending a bunny to give eggs to children. I bet that you don't know about Rudolf the Red Nosed Reindeer in the Old Testament either.

 

How about the religion of peace? You know the one were you strap a bomb to your chest and go into a daycare. The one that treats women as slaves. The one that mutilates womens sexual organs. That one that is involved in nearly every major conflict on this planet. I'm pretty sure that is in the readings. You're a big 'progressive' right?

 

Nevermind, it's way more mainstream to question those dirty christians.

Goodness. What are you trying to say?

[bennychico11]

How about the religion of peace? You know the one were you strap a bomb to your chest and go into a daycare.

 

You're talking about Isaiah 14:21, right?

or maybe Ezekiel 9:5-7

 

 

The one that treats women as slaves.

Deuteronomy 22:28–29??

 

 

The one that mutilates womens sexual organs.

circumcision?

 

 

I'm sorry...who are we talking about again? 'Cause both seem like insane religions.

[carlfense]

zing.

[gobiggergoredder]

How about the religion of peace? You know the one were you strap a bomb to your chest and go into a daycare.

 

You're talking about Isaiah 14:21, right?

or maybe Ezekiel 9:5-7

 

 

The one that treats women as slaves.

Deuteronomy 22:28–29??

 

 

The one that mutilates womens sexual organs.

circumcision?

 

 

I'm sorry...who are we talking about again? 'Cause both seem like insane religions.

 

I must admit that your response is very good. Unforetunately, you have once again side stepped the issue.

 

You cite verses that are thousands of years old, but neglet to aknowledge that lack of civility noted in those acts are continuing to this day. Those acts are not being performed by Christians. Are you arguing that Muslims are following the Bible or are you still trying to bash Christianity?....I'm not sure.

 

Again, it's only 'progressive' to bash Christians.

 

Comparing circumcision to clitoridectomy is just plain lazy as far as I'm concerned.

[johnnyrodgers20]

How about the religion of peace? You know the one were you strap a bomb to your chest and go into a daycare.

 

You're talking about Isaiah 14:21, right?

or maybe Ezekiel 9:5-7

 

 

The one that treats women as slaves.

Deuteronomy 22:28–29??

 

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, ²⁹ he shall pay her father fifty shekels^[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

 

This doesn't even make sense, how do you compare the two? How does the old testament treat a woman as a slave? You found someone who has committted a crime and he has to marry her and support her the rest of his life. Isn't marrying her punishment enough. ZING!! The other religion treats their women no better than we treat our pets and most treat them worse.

 

 

The one that mutilates womens sexual organs.

circumcision?

 

I think circumcisions are for men, you must be thinking about the wrong procedure.

 

 

I'm sorry...who are we talking about again? 'Cause both seem like insane religions.

 

 

I don't think Isaiah had any bombs!

[knapplc]

I think circumcisions are for men, you must be thinking about the wrong procedure.

 

Good grief, Johnny. CLICK ME

[carlfense]

Again, it's only 'progressive' to bash Christians.

Bashing? I think we can discuss specific issues without it rising to the level of "bashing." I.E. Saying "Christians are stupid" would be bashing. Comparing the actions of Christian institutions to the teachings of Christ would not be bashing. In fact . . . I'm not sure why Christians would object to that sort of comparison. It seems like it would be quite helpful.

 

I don't deal with many Muslims. In fact . . . I can't remember the last time I even talked to a Muslim. I'd be able to offer much more helpful commentary about Islam if I interacted with it on a daily basis. Plus the added fact that I'm very familiar with the Bible and very unfamiliar with the Koran, etc. Anyways. If you are well-versed in Islam please don't hesitate to show us why the extremists/terrorists are acting against the teachings of Mohammed.

[carlfense]

The one that treats women as slaves.

Deuteronomy 22:28–29??

 

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, ²⁹ he shall pay her father fifty shekels^[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

 

This doesn't even make sense, how do you compare the two? How does the old testament treat a woman as a slave? You found someone who has committted a crime and he has to marry her and support her the rest of his life. Isn't marrying her punishment enough. ZING!! The other religion treats their women no better than we treat our pets and most treat them worse.

Where is the woman's choice, johnny? It sounds like she doesn't have one.

[johnnyrodgers20]

I think circumcisions are for men, you must be thinking about the wrong procedure.

 

Good grief, Johnny. CLICK ME

 

I did not know they called female mutilation circumcision, you learn something new every day!!

[gobiggergoredder]

Again, it's only 'progressive' to bash Christians.

Bashing? I think we can discuss specific issues without it rising to the level of "bashing." I.E. Saying "Christians are stupid" would be bashing. Comparing the actions of Christian institutions to the teachings of Christ would not be bashing. In fact . . . I'm not sure why Christians would object to that sort of comparison. It seems like it would be quite helpful.

 

I don't deal with many Muslims. In fact . . . I can't remember the last time I even talked to a Muslim. I'd be able to offer much more helpful commentary about Islam if I interacted with it on a daily basis. Plus the added fact that I'm very familiar with the Bible and very unfamiliar with the Koran, etc. Anyways. If you are well-versed in Islam please don't hesitate to show us why the extremists/terrorists are acting against the teachings of Mohammed.

 

You were just being constructive...I get it.

Benny, you must be unfamiliar with the old biblical tale of Jesus sending a bunny to give eggs to children. I bet that you don't know about Rudolf the Red Nosed Reindeer in the Old Testament either.

[johnnyrodgers20]

The one that treats women as slaves.

Deuteronomy 22:28–29??

 

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, ²⁹ he shall pay her father fifty shekels^[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

 

This doesn't even make sense, how do you compare the two? How does the old testament treat a woman as a slave? You found someone who has committted a crime and he has to marry her and support her the rest of his life. Isn't marrying her punishment enough. ZING!! The other religion treats their women no better than we treat our pets and most treat them worse.

Where is the woman's choice, johnny? It sounds like she doesn't have one.

 

 

I am sure that would have been the best option for her. You have to remember when and where it happened, you are using 21st century logic in an ancient world. If she had been raped then she would no longer be a virgin and no one would want to marry her. She would have no way to earn a living because only men owned land and she couldn't survive without a male.

 

You think a modern woman who has many options still has a choice to get raped? Once the woman has been raped how does she survive if no man is willing to marry her? The option in the bible was not good, but it was made to ensure at least the woman is taken care of if she is violated.

 

And you are talking about two different eras. You are comparing a nation that lived two thousand years ago with a modern one so even if they are remotely similar one no longer exists while the other one is still inflicting pain and intimidating women to this day. :ahhhhhhhh

[johnnyrodgers20]

Again, it's only 'progressive' to bash Christians.

Bashing? I think we can discuss specific issues without it rising to the level of "bashing." I.E. Saying "Christians are stupid" would be bashing. Comparing the actions of Christian institutions to the teachings of Christ would not be bashing. In fact . . . I'm not sure why Christians would object to that sort of comparison. It seems like it would be quite helpful.

 

I don't deal with many Muslims. In fact . . . I can't remember the last time I even talked to a Muslim. I'd be able to offer much more helpful commentary about Islam if I interacted with it on a daily basis. Plus the added fact that I'm very familiar with the Bible and very unfamiliar with the Koran, etc. Anyways. If you are well-versed in Islam please don't hesitate to show us why the extremists/terrorists are acting against the teachings of Mohammed.

 

 

If they aren't acting against the teachings of Muhammad isn't the even more scarey!!

[bennychico11]

This doesn't even make sense, how do you compare the two? How does the old testament treat a woman as a slave? You found someone who has committted a crime and he has to marry her and support her the rest of his life. Isn't marrying her punishment enough. ZING!! The other religion treats their women no better than we treat our pets and most treat them worse.

 

The point of the verse was to point out how women were considered chattel in the Bible. They are property of their father and if the unmarried, virgin woman was raped (and the rape was discovered...it was okay if they weren't discovered)...he was forced to pay the father a set fine and take the wife as his own.

It also had to relate to a recent case in where a raped Afghan woman had to make the decision to live in prison with her child or be set free if she married her attacker. Many westerners were up in arms that a religious country would force such a thing on her.

 

Regarding the circumcision...mutilation is mutilation. But I guess it's only okay if it's done to a child.

I'm not defending either religion's holy text, but it can be argued that female genital mutilation has more of a cultural basis than a Islamic religious one.

 

You cite verses that are thousands of years old, but neglet to aknowledge that lack of civility noted in those acts are continuing to this day. Those acts are not being performed by Christians. Are you arguing that Muslims are following the Bible or are you still trying to bash Christianity?....I'm not sure.

 

I don't know why the age of these verses matter while others don't, but yes. Thankfully the secular sect of our culture has moved us past a lot of these religious verses. Although, be careful. That might make god angry that you're ignoring them now.

[bennychico11]

I am sure that would have been the best option for her. You have to remember when and where it happened, you are using 21st century logic in an ancient world. If she had been raped then she would no longer be a virgin and no one would want to marry her. She would have no way to earn a living because only men owned land and she couldn't survive without a male.

 

You think a modern woman who has many options still has a choice to get raped? Once the woman has been raped how does she survive if no man is willing to marry her? The option in the bible was not good, but it was made to ensure at least the woman is taken care of if she is violated.

 

And you are talking about two different eras. You are comparing a nation that lived two thousand years ago with a modern one so even if they are remotely similar one no longer exists while the other one is still inflicting pain and intimidating women to this day. :ahhhhhhhh

 

I love the justification we try and put on this. Instead of a giving out commandments such as "If you rape a woman, you will be thrown in jail. The woman shall be given love and support from her family and community."

A god instead says that the woman shall live with her attacker for the rest of her life because no one will want her. "Want"...remember that. Again, property in someone else's eyes. And probably in the eyes of the attacker she just was forced to marry. You think that's going to be a loving relationship?

 

Please...don't try and justify rape and claim that your god was only doing his best with what he had to work with.