December 17, 2008

Psychological Questionnaire

Andrew highlighted a personality test that I found interesting. Patty took this earlier at her work and I found it uncanny how accurate it was pointing her personality out by just a few questions. During the conversation with Andrew, I also was considering how interesting it would be to understand each others personalities, if you feel comfortable to share that is. This may be some horoscope Ouija thing so I appologize, if it is, to my Christian friends but it may be fun. To be accurate, take the test once and give that result, as I have. You can tell me if you agree with the results or not. So to pave the way of ridicule and embarrassment I will share my scores.

First here is the test:



Second Here is how I scored:

I faired as a ENTJ

ExtravertedIntuitiveThinking Judging
Strength of the preferences %
3350126


I did chuckle at the trademark:

"TRADEMARK: -- "I'm really sorry you have to die." (I realize this is an overstatement. However, most Fs and other gentle souls usually chuckle knowingly at this description.)"


They called it the Fieldmarshal

Career choices: Management in Business or Education, Military Education, Politics, Law, Counseling, Engineering, Industrial Management & Manufacturing Management, High School Education, Computer Programming.

Famous people with same traits: Napoleon, Franklin D. Roosevelt , Dave Letterman, Sean Connery, Jim Carrey, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Carl Sagan.

WIKI had some interesting things about it. Now, I think it would be a fascinating study to find out how many of your profiles relates to my own. It explains the type of relationships for ENTJs. Some people I get along with and some I buck horns with. So lets see if this typology test is accurate or not. Here I stand, naked before you.

49 comments:

  1. Sweet. I didn't like that comment system for the primary reason that it required a new registration... Thread control is nice, and would be much appreciated considering Sye's propensity toward thread-jacking, but what can you do?

    I'm an ENTP, apparently, with especially high percentages on "ENT" (67/88/75/33). I probably could've determined that with only a description of the types, but the "test" was a reasonably amusing time-waster.

    Funny that so many of my peers are evidently INTJs; I'll have to see what the differences are...

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wow didn't think it would of erased everyone comments!

    That Sux

    Sorry folks

    Stan,

    ENTP fits you, its uncanny,

    ENTPs are as innovative and ingenious at problem-solving as they are at verbal gymnastics

    Oh how true it is

    ENTPs tend to be oblivious of the rest of humanity, except as an audience -- good, bad, or potential

    "Question authority!"

    That's our Stan. Spot on

    It says we compliment each other aww.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I couldn't care less about that stuff. What I'm interested in is Dan's claim that anyone who "falls away" was never a "true christian" in the first place.

    Let's put that to the test: Dan, you know of Dani'El right?

    The guy who made that "prophecy" about the desctruction of San Francisco in 2009? I know he's mentioned it on your blog quite a lot also.

    According to the critieria mentioned according to your holy book as outlined here and here, does Dani'El match up?

    You and Sye seem to be convinced that he's the real deal.

    What about when Dani'El's "prophecy" fails and 2009 passes without the "old time wrath of god" destruction of San Fran?

    After all, you know what the bible says about false prophets.

    Will you still say that he was a true xian? If so, will you say that "God" did steer Dani'El wrong? Or will you all of a sudden start saying that Dani'El was not a true believer after all? Or will you just say that Dani'El was a true believer who "misinterpreted" what he thought "God's will" was? (that last has it's own problems for theists)

    When Dani'El's "prophecy" fails, and if he winds up renouncing his "faith" instead of making up all sorts of excuses, would you admit that he had actually "fallen away" or would you say that he was "never a true xian" in the first place? After all, you seem to think he is now.

    If you want, you can pray to the "holy spirit" for guidance on this.

    In case you're wondering, I did try posting this to Dani'El's blog. I've yet to see if it shows up.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Apparently you and I are somewhat similar Danny boy:

    ENTJ
    1 / 62 / 12 / 44

    ReplyDelete
  5. Reynold,

    According to the [criteria] mentioned according to your holy book as outlined here and here, does Dani'El match up?

    You couldn't ask a more difficult question could you?

    I have no clue if Dani'El is a false convert or not but I don't think he is. I thought I was a Christian for 15 years before I found out I was lost.

    But I am confused about your question. Where does it say that Dani'El is a false convert in my links or the Bible?

    and if he winds up renouncing his "faith" instead of making up all sorts of excuses, would you admit that he had actually "fallen away" or would you say that he was "never a true xian" in the first place?

    Well that is an entirely different question. If Dani'El claims atheism at any point in his life and makes it a point to steer people away from Christ, like yourself at SFN, then he indeed would be a false convert and would face Judgment all by himself on that faithful day. IMHO He would indeed face eternal punishment. This goes for you and I also though.

    You can tell if someone's of God or not by the fruit, so it should be easy to determine internally for yourself. We are told to test the spirits to determine if its false or not. Look at your fruit Reynold, You strive to war against our Holy God, so you can be rest assured that you are not a Christian. If Dani'El visits porn shops weekly, for example, then the likelihood of him becoming a Christian would be very slim. I would not know unless he shared that information with me. We are also not to judge peoples motives either.

    Was Ted Haggard a false convert? As Sarah Palin would say "You Betcha" Does that mean his is not a Christian now? I have no clue. You understand now? The fruit determined it. The fruit of Ten Haggard that was revealed was indeed that of a false convert.

    But that goes right back to what I was wondering when I read your comment. What makes you think you have any right to judge his salvation when you yourself are possibly not saved? How could you possibly discern right from wrong when you live for the Devil (Father of lies)? But all hope is not lost and that is the great news. And thank you Jesus, you were never a Christian, you still have an opportunity to be one. (Hebrews 10:26) There is still hope for even you Reynold.

    Please do me a favor though, don't die before turning over your entire life to Christ in repentance.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Frodo,

    Apparently you and I are somewhat similar Danny boy: ENTJ

    I knew that had to be a reason why I liked you :)

    And we are a rare bunch at that.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Since I screwed up the comments I will repost them if I can

    Zilch:

    Okay, okay, so I did it too. Guess what? I'm an INFP too. Just like the Virgin Mary (when did they test her?). Trouble is, what Dave W. said: not only are a lot of the questions unanswerable, but the supposed character type of the INFP is not like me at all. And Jung was brilliant, but dotty.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Pvblivs,

    I came out as INFP. There's a shocker.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Freed,

    Yes froggie, you are the one that turned me on to this test and I discovered that I'm an Introvert (ISTJ). I'm also an Inspector, right up there with Queen Elizabeth, Harry S. Truman, George Washington, and Martha Stewart (ugh). I'm loyal, responsible, and stabilizing. Oh, and I forgot...humble. :)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Unethical Chum TIn,

    Has anyone seen anything on the relevance of the percentages associated with these findings? Mine were I=56% N=38% T=12% and J=56%. Other than pigeon holing me as a "scientist", what other info can I gain from this?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Modern Girl


    Here's Mine:

    INFJ
    Introverted Intuitive Feeling Judging

    It says I'm an idealist Counsellor and I'm well suited for work in psychology, counselling, religious education, writing, or web design.

    Considering I'm a PhD student in psychology who spends my leisure time on religious blogs...I'd stay the write ups are fairly well done.

    I've done this test oodles of times. It's a psychology trademark. It does have some scientific grounding and isn't like horoscope. Though, this version had a few typos and html glitches that I picked up.

    ReplyDelete
  12. It says I'm an INTP, seems quite accurate in the description. I'm flattered to share my personality type with:

    Socrates, Descartes, Pascal, Newton, Einstein and Jung.

    'citing!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Dan wrote:
    "You can tell if someone's of God or not by the fruit..."

    Would that include passing on lies and treating other people like crap?

    "What makes you think you have any right to judge his salvation when you yourself are possibly not saved?"

    Since God doesn't exist, then nobody is saved and judgment isn't reserved for God.

    "How could you possibly discern right from wrong when you live for the Devil (Father of lies)?"

    The Devil doesn't exist either, but if he does, then God created him.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Wow, what an amazing mess.

    I got through the test. It says I'm an ENFJ. E by one stinking percent; N by 62%; F by 38%, and J by 33%. As far as I'm concerned, It's all wrong except the J. In fact, I agree with much of the writeup for ISTP (the polar opposite of ENFJ), and not so much with ISTJ (which I might have agreed with before I read the write-up).

    And now that I read INTJ I can say, "that's me!" (It seems that their "intuitive" and "sensing" categories don't match up with my definitions of those words.) But apparently this test could only pick up on half of it.

    Anyway, this only further cements my previous conclusion that MBTI is no better than horoscopes. Sorry, MG.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Whoa, I stop checking the blog for one day to freak out over the weather conditions ..and holy molies!

    Dave,
    You seem have a very neutral personality. For someone like you, I guess these tests wouldn't do that much.

    I still firmly believe in some levels of categorical associations with personality. For example, the extrovert/introvert division in personalities is extremely interesting to me. However, no everyone falls to the extremes of these categories. People who fall in the middle aren't that affected by the dimension.

    As most of you know, I'm fairly new to stalking Dan's blog. What's this gossip about Dani'el?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Dan +†+ said...

    Reynold,

    According to the [criteria] mentioned according to your holy book as outlined here and here, does Dani'El match up?


    You couldn't ask a more difficult question could you?

    I have no clue if Dani'El is a false convert or not but I don't think he is.

    We'll find out after his prediction of the destruction of San Francisco in 2009 fails...

    I thought I was a Christian for 15 years before I found out I was lost.
    Right...because you weren't "fervent" enough?

    But I am confused about your question. Where does it say that Dani'El is a false convert in my links or the Bible?
    I'm asking you: According to the criteria laid out in those verses you quoted in your links: Does "Dani'El" match what the bible would describe as a true xian?

    and if he winds up renouncing his "faith" instead of making up all sorts of excuses, would you admit that he had actually "fallen away" or would you say that he was "never a true xian" in the first place?

    Well that is an entirely different question. If Dani'El claims atheism at any point in his life and makes it a point to steer people away from Christ, like yourself at SFN, then he indeed would be a false convert and would face Judgment all by himself on that faithful day.
    I never asked that...I asked about how he may act when his prophecy fails. Would he be then a false prophet? Would he be a true believer who "misinterpreted god's word"? Or would he be a false convert who deluded himself into thinking that he "knew god's will"?

    Whether he starts trying to deconvert other believers is irrelevent. A person can renounce xianity and not care afterwards about deconverting others still in the religion.

    IMHO He would indeed face eternal punishment. This goes for you and I also though.

    You can tell if someone's of God or not by the fruit, so it should be easy to determine internally for yourself.

    That's what I'm asking you: From what you know of Dani'El, is he bearing the proper biblical "fruit"? When his prophecy fails, what will that say about the "fruit" he bears then?

    We are told to test the spirits to determine if its false or not.
    Fortunately, Dani'El's given us a way to test them. We'll see...

    Look at your fruit Reynold, You strive to war against our Holy God, so you can be rest assured that you are not a Christian.
    Duh...I am not a xian now, and so what? This is not about me.

    If Dani'El visits porn shops weekly, for example, then the likelihood of him becoming a Christian would be very slim. I would not know unless he shared that information with me. We are also not to judge peoples motives either.
    Doesn't stop you from judging others though. Still, what about when Dani'El's prophecy fails? What will that say about the likelihood of his being a xian?

    Was Ted Haggard a false convert? As Sarah Palin would say "You Betcha" Does that mean his is not a Christian now? I have no clue. You understand now? The fruit determined it. The fruit of Ten Haggard that was revealed was indeed that of a false convert.
    So we'll see with Dani'El...thing is, can't the "holy spirit" give you believers any "discernment" about this?

    But that goes right back to what I was wondering when I read your comment. What makes you think you have any right to judge his salvation when you yourself are possibly not saved?
    So what? Are not atheists allowed to figure out who's a believer and who is not?

    How could you possibly discern right from wrong when you live for the Devil (Father of lies)?
    As a creationist, Dan, you don't have any right to call anyone else a liar, or a servant of a liar.

    But all hope is not lost and that is the great news. And thank you Jesus, you were never a Christian,
    Outright b.s. on your part.

    you still have an opportunity to be one. (Hebrews 10:26) There is still hope for even you Reynold.
    yay

    Please do me a favor though, don't die before turning over your entire life to Christ in repentance.
    Sigh...prove he exists first.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Modern Girl: it's not gossip, it's what Dani'el has said himself. He claims that the West Coast of California will be destroyed by fire and brimstone in 2009. Check out his blog if you dare. For myself, I'm going to risk a trip to Sodom, I mean San Francisco, next summer anyway. I hope to meet Dan and Dani'el, and have a nice chat before the molten sulfur falls. Anyone else in the area should drop me a line- I'd love to meet all of you.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dave W:

         Well, horoscopes are set up so that everything "fits" everyone. MBTI is not set up like that. It actually attempts to measure something. Your comment suggests that you think (in your case) it measured wrong because a different category fits.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Reynold,

    With kid gloves to my brother in Christ I will say this. If nothing happens when it was prophesied that it would, then yes that would be a false spirit being followed. But understanding the gifts of the Holy Spirit, I believe, is separate from Salvation. Please someone correct me if I am wrong on this though.

    So if I feel that something bad will happen to someone and it doesn't happen then that would be a mistake only and I was following a false spirit but I believe my Salvation is still intact.

    We are to test the spirits to see if it is from God or not like I said. (1 John 4:1,1 Thessalonians 5:12) So that prophesy that Dani'El feels that will happen, will be revealed to him if it is of God or not, for his purpose of personal discernment. I am confident he will be humbled to admit that to himself, if it doesn't come to fruition.

    So Reynold, you are perfectly fine, biblically, to question the spirits and claims of men. (1 John 4:1) In the very same breath though, two verses after that it also says that you yourself have, and follow, the spirit of the Antichrist.(1 John 4:3) So, if I were you, I wouldn't trust anything at all that you claim.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Dan
    So Reynold, you are perfectly fine, biblically, to question the spirits and claims of men. (1 John 4:1) In the very same breath though, two verses after that it also says that you yourself have, and follow, the spirit of the Antichrist.(1 John 4:3)
    Sorry, Dan, I don't follow any "spirit". They have to actually exist first. Just asserting that they do means nothing to me. Besides, this is not about me.

    So, if I were you, I wouldn't trust anything at all that you claim.
    Besides how badly you've written that last sentence, you do realize that you're implying that since I'm not a xian, nothing I say can be trusted?

    Bigoted git. I'm not the one who keeps getting caught misquoting people on this blog, Dan.

    Speaking of which, do you remember your misquote of Micheal Ruse? The one where you accused him of not being honest when it was you who were taking his words out of context?

    I asked you where you got your source since you didn't mention it. Only after I posted the source did you mention it. I challenged you more than once to show that you had actually read the original article instead of cribbing the quote from AIG or somewhere, simply by asking you to quote the second paragraph of the actual article which you claim to have read.

    So far, nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Sorry, I forgot: You cribbed that misquote from John Morris, not AIG.

    Now, how's about reading the original article by Micheal Ruse himself? All you did was parrot the same misquote John did.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Reynold,

    I said: So, if I were you, I wouldn't trust anything at all that you claim.

    Besides how badly you've written that last sentence,...

    touché

    How about: So I won't trust anything that you claim.

    ...you do realize that you're implying that since I'm not a xian, nothing I say can be trusted?

    Is your counter claim that you can always be trusted?

    Sorry, Dan, I don't follow any "spirit". So why are you questioning someone else's then?

    Speaking of which... Do you feel better claiming that? I am strong enough to offer myself as a punching bag to you if that is what you require to move on in life. Better to do it to me then your spouse or dog at home. At least I hope you have a spouse to aid in the release of this pent up frustration. :)

    Again, I read the original article and the quote is accurate no matter how much Ruse or you deny it. If he retracted at a later date fine, please show me that article that he said that. Criticisms without an offering of a solution is absolutely worthless.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Pvblivs wrote:
    "Well, horoscopes are set up so that everything "fits" everyone. MBTI is not set up like that. It actually attempts to measure something."

    Horoscopes attempt to measure something (and I'm not talking about daily newspaper horoscopes, either, but "real" ones that examine more than just your Sun sign), they just fail to do so by not being very specific. In every MBTI description I read, I could see some little part that I would agree describes some part of my personality, so they don't seem to be very specific, either.

    The fact is that human personality traits run over continua, and those traits change over time and in different situations (quiet mousy librarian by day, steamy-hot dominatrix by night, that sort of thing). Cramming such a wide and mutli-faceted thing like personality into one of 16 pigeonholes and thinking it'll stay that way is, on the face of it, patently absurd. (And the article I posted which was erased when Dan changed the comments back supported that by citing studies showing MBTI to be neither reliable nor specific.)

    Thinking that all INFJs are alike makes no more sense than thinking that all Christians are alike. They aren't. Never will be.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Your right Dave I missed some, for whats it worth:


    Sorry, MG, to dump on your suggested comment system, but I like margins, and I also like not having to create yet another sign-on.

    As far as the MBTI's validity and reliability go, I've read otherwise. For example, Pettinger's 1993 article:

    Measuring the MBTI...And Coming Up Short

    I know it's 15 years old, but I remember agonizing over how to answer the same sort of unanswerable questions 20 years ago for what was ostensibly the same test as the one people here, today, are talking about. I'm sure if I did a little work, I could find more up-to-date but just as critical articles.

    And for me to take the MBTI honestly, I get stuck at question #6. I can't honestly answer it, and I don't know how anybody does. I would be forced to read things into the question that simply aren't there, and if there are multiple questions trying to ask the same thing, there's no guarantee that I'll answer them at all consistently, especially during re-tests.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Well, finally...you list the original article...after god only knows how many weeks...

    But as usual, you left something out.


    He's saying that evolution is good science, and that those who try to attach any further meaning to it are wrong.

    He explains that in his email to me:
    well, I did say that evolution is a religion but I was taken out of context --I think that too often evolutionists take their theory in a religious fashion when they should treat it as science -- let me see if I can dig something out for you -- but really you should read my book "can a darwinian be a christian?" published by cambridge university press


    Now, to the part of the article that you Dan, and other creationists never mention:
    What is the moral to be drawn from all of this? You might think that the time has come to save evolution from the evolutionists.

    Darwinism is a terrific theory that stimulates research in every area of the life sciences. In the human realm, for instance, discoveries in Africa trace our immediate past in ever greater detail, while at the same time the Human Genome Project opens up fascinating evolutionary questions as we learn of the molecular similarities between ourselves and organisms as apparently different as fruit flies and earthworms. Surely this is enough.

    There is no need to make a religion of evolution.
    On its own merits, evolution as science is just that -- good, tough, forward-looking science, which should be taught as a matter of course to all children, regardless of creed.

    But, let us be tolerant. If people want to make a religion of evolution, that is their business. Who would deny the value of Mr. Wilson's plea for biodiversity? Who would argue against Mr. Gould's hatred of racial and sexual prejudice, which he has used evolution to attack?

    The important point is that we should recognize when people are going beyond the strict science, moving into moral and social claims, thinking of their theory as an all-embracing world picture. All too often, there is a slide from science to something more, and this slide goes unmentioned -- unrealized even.

    For pointing this out we should be grateful for the opponents of evolution. The Creationists are wrong in their Creationism, but they are right in at least one of their criticisms. Evolution, Darwinian evolution, is wonderful science. Let us teach it to our children. And, in the classroom, let us leave it at that. The moral messages, the underlying ideology, may be worthy. But if we feel strongly, there are other times and places to preach that gospel to the world.



    There is one thing that Ruse himself didn't pick up though. Gish had said to him: Christianity tells us where we came from, where we're going, and what we should do on the way. I defy you to show any difference with evolution. It tells you where you came from, where you are going, and what you should do on the way. You evolutionists have your God, and his name is Charles Darwin."
    Gish's challenge is easily met: Evolution does not tell us what we should do "on the way". It doesn't even tell us where we are going! All it does, is it tells us where we came from.

    That article notes that Darwin himself when he wrote the Origin of Species sought to make evolutionary biology less ideological as compared to his grandfather's opinion which was that evolution was the deistic god's work who set things in motion and then stood back:

    In 1859, Charles Darwin, rightly considered the father of modern evolutionary thought, published his great work: On the Origin of Species.

    With this book, Charles Darwin hoped to change things and make a less ideological system of evolution. He offered a systematic survey of the biological world, showing how many different factors (the fossil record, the geographical distributions of organisms, the discoveries from embryology, and much more) point to evolution.


    Now, to your statements about me:
    How about: So I won't trust anything that you claim.
    Right. Give a reason why instead of bible verses. How about recording every single instance of my claims being wrong, Dan?

    In other words: If you claim I'm untrustworthy, back up that claim!

    ...you do realize that you're implying that since I'm not a xian, nothing I say can be trusted?
    Is your counter claim that you can always be trusted?
    No, it's my claim that you have nothing to base your accusation: that nothing I say can be trusted, on. I notice that you avoided giving any justification for that charge. How's about backing up your charge first? This isn't the xian dark ages anymore, when all one needed was an accusation to convict. You have to prove your case.

    You're sinking even lower in my estimation of you.

    Sorry, Dan, I don't follow any "spirit".
    So why are you questioning someone else's then?
    I'm questioning creationist honesty, not some non-existent spirit.


    Speaking of which... Do you feel better claiming that?
    Only in that I'm trying to set the record straight

    I am strong enough to offer myself as a punching bag to you if that is what you require to move on in life.
    If you didn't beak off so much there'd be no need. Start acting worthy of respect and stop playing the martyr. You don't deserve it.

    Better to do it to me then your spouse or dog at home. At least I hope you have a spouse to aid in the release of this pent up frustration. :)
    What the hell is this? Is this a joke about wife-beating? WTF? You evangelicals have the most fucked up sense of humour I've ever seen. Is this one of the "gifts" of the "holy spirit" I keep hearing about?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Reynold,

    Well, I believe you accomplished your task then.

    All it does, is it tells us where we came from.

    And it fundamentally wrong and deceptive. So if what is claimed true that "evolution is science" then Science should and does separate itself from just one theory. As I posted about in the past, when a theory becomes the paradigm for science then deception ensues.

    I applaud your exhaustive search for the truth, but in the end it was a search in vein since truth was not the result.

    Now, to my statements about you:

    I was picking on you, period. I wasn't taking you seriously, as you were with me. I was laughing at you and teasing you. If you felt my words harmful then you deserve even a noogie on top of my discontent. Your life is way to short to worry about me and my warped sense of humor.

    You're sinking even lower in my estimation of you.

    Do you think I seek the praise of men? Really? You must be mistaken (John 12:43)

    It was only a friendly banter from one brother to another. If that is offensive then get a hooker you wife beater. BTW stop eating babies and accept a handshake from me.

    Is this one of the "gifts" of the "holy spirit" I keep hearing about?

    Yes, God gave us the gift of a sense of humor, oh that's right you deny that also...your loss.

    ReplyDelete
  27. And it fundamentally wrong and deceptive.
    Evidence please. People like Ray Comfort and yourself get shot down every time evolution is talked about. Assertions do not a case make. Even though you're too squeamish and cowardly to go the the TalkOrigins Archive, I'll mention it anyway.

    So if what is claimed true that "evolution is science" then Science should and does separate itself from just one theory. As I posted about in the past, when a theory becomes the paradigm for science then deception ensues.
    The theory of evolution is just that; a theory with a lot of corroborating evidence, with nothing going against it (once the falsehoods of YECism/IDism are dealt with...remember the Dover trial)?

    What do you mean by "paradigm"? Do you mean that evolution is the "paradigm" in biology as atomic theory is in chemistry or "Einsteinism" is in physics? If so, where is the "deception" in those fields?

    You've not done any thinking about this, I suspect.


    I applaud your exhaustive search for the truth, but in the end it was a search in vein since truth was not the result.
    Evidence please?

    I applaud your non-exhaustive search for the truth where you picked up your holy book and just assumed that it's right and everything else is wrong.


    Now, to my statements about you:

    I was picking on you, period. I wasn't taking you seriously, as you were with me. I was laughing at you and teasing you.

    So what? Jokes about wife-beating is just tasteless. Not even many atheists I know act like that.
    If you felt my words harmful then you deserve even a noogie on top of my discontent.
    Yeah, you xians damn near never apologize for anything.

    Your life is way too short to worry about me and my warped sense of humor.
    Warped? Well, xianity does have a reputation for being misogynistic.

    Guess I can't blame you for that; your religion doesn't place as high a value on the lives of women as secularism does.


    You're sinking even lower in my estimation of you.
    Do you think I seek the praise of men? Really? You must be mistaken (John 12:43)
    Nope. I was just pointing out that you're starting to act like an ass. That's why you get no respect.

    It was only a friendly banter from one brother to another. If that is offensive then get a hooker you wife beater. BTW stop eating babies and accept a handshake from me.
    Nah. I'd rather introduce you to some people I know who were beaten up by their husbands.

    Is this one of the "gifts" of the "holy spirit" I keep hearing about?
    Yes, God gave us the gift of a sense of humor,
    That explains all the jokes jebus used to tell in the bible. The ones about wife beating were a riot. Care to show where those verses are? By the way, not many xians I know would find that joke funny either, due to certain things that have happened in their lives.

    oh that's right you deny that also...your loss.
    No loss at all; I just don't find jokes about wife beating very funny.

    Good grief; how stupid do you have to be to assume that because I don't find wife-beating jokes funny, that I don't have any sense of humour at all? Seriously, how stupid are you?

    I could say that all christians are just necrophiliacs in denial and if you were to take offense to that I could say that xians are the ones with no sense of humour. Get the point yet?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Reynold,

    What do you mean by "paradigm"?

    We went from science to science feeding the paradigm called evolution and now infects every part of science. It's just wrong and not good science. Science should be objective, not subjectively searching for only evolution evidence,plus take evidence that doesn't support evolution and label it "inconclusive".

    You've not done any thinking about this, I suspect.

    Dan:I applaud your exhaustive search for the truth, but in the end it was a search in vein since truth was not the result.

    Evidence please?

    God's Word for one.

    Jokes about wife-beating is just tasteless.

    This inclusion without any mention of the baby eating link. You are cracking me up, dude.

    Besides you do know at what time of day was Adam created? A little before Eve. Adam was a very famous runner since he was first in the human race.

    Judges 14:14 has a riddle if you are searching for humor in the Bible.

    In Mark 5:9, Jesus asks a man possessed by devils, "What is your name?" The devils reply, "My name is Legion; for we are many." Get it? Hilarious!

    John 1:45-51 "Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? " That sarcasm is witty. "Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!" Really an honest Jew? Jesus said "Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? (audience laughs) thou shalt see greater things than these." You could open in Vegas with this stuff.

    You saidI'd rather introduce you to some people I know who were beaten up by their husbands.

    and this

    The ones about wife beating were a riot... By the way, not many xians I know would find that joke funny either, due to certain things that have happened in their lives.

    Oh OK, I perfectly understand what you are getting at now. So we can conclude, of course, someone that is in an abusive relationship would find that subject uncomfortable and it wouldn't bother someone who isn't. So thanks for admitting to the world that jokes about you beating your wife makes you uncomfortable. Since you actually beat your wives (polygamy joke too?) you are getting uncomfortable with that subject. Got it. I will steer clear since you are crawling in your skin with that subject. Who would of thought that God devised humor to pull out truths. He sure deserves all of our praise!

    Seriously, how stupid are you?

    so stupid when I hear it's chilly outside I get a bowl.
    so stupid I sold my car for gas money!
    so stupid I thought a quarterback was an tax refund and I took a spoon to the superbowl.
    so stupid someone told me to do the robot.....and now R2D2 has chlamydia.

    I could say that all christians are just necrophiliacs in denial

    As long as it's done tastefully. :)

    ReplyDelete
  29. Reynold,

    Well, xianity does have a reputation for being misogynistic.

    We are called bride of Christ for a reason, God loves woman. Yes woman submit to the husband and husband submit to God. See we are playing the role of the marriage that will happen in heaven with Jesus and his believers. Stay loyal in Christ and you will understand how exalted you will be in heaven.

    "Many women don't like what the Bible says because it calls wives to "submit to their husbands." However, submission is not limited to wives submitting to their husbands. We are told to submit to God, governmental authorities, our boss, and leaders in the assembly. We are also told to submit to one another, which includes men submitting women and vice versa. God is a God of order. In a sinful world, submission to those in authority is the only way to maintain order."

    Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

    Traits from man and woman equal make up "image of God"

    What about Genesis 2:18 where it says it is "not good" for man to be alone.

    How did God treat women? Remember story of Esther?

    You then have to ask, How did Jesus treat women? Like the woman at the well or Mary Magdalene or even the prostitute about to get stoned.

    "The women described in the Bible are not always homemakers and mothers. Obviously, the biological function of women is to produce children. However, Deborah was both a judge and leader of Israel.(Judges 4:4) Other women were involved in ridding Israel of her enemies.(Judges 4:21) Quite a number of women are described as being prophetesses.(Exodus 15:20,2 Kings 22:14,Luke 2:36) Other women in the Bible were involved in teaching the Word of God(Acts 18:26)"

    Countless other verses point to Jesus holding high regard for women.

    God's people are referred to as female, not male. In the Old Testament, God's people are the "daughters of Zion." The Body of Christ (including us men) is referred to as the "bride" of Christ and God is said to be our "husband." Whenever referred to by sex, the assembly is described as "she" or "her." (Ephesians 5:25,27)"

    In conclusion we have one verse that sums it all up: Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Dan quoting me:
    What do you mean by "paradigm"?


    We went from science to science feeding the paradigm called evolution and now infects every part of science. It's just wrong and not good science. Science should be objective, not subjectively searching for only evolution evidence,
    Your ignorance of the history of science is showing here. In Darwin's day it was creationism that was the ruling paradigm. Very few people wanted to believe in evolution plus an old earth. Read Ronald Number's book The Creationists to get a clue. Numbers also details several examples of people who were trained by ICR and who wanted to believe in a young earth who wound up having to ditch that idea once they got out into the field.

    Compare that with true dogma; young earth organizations like ICR and AIG demand that anyone who joins them take an oath where they swear that they'll only believe the genesis/biblical view of origins and that they promise to never change their mind about that, no matter what.

    How's that for "objective science" Dan? Pot, kettle, black.


    plus take evidence that doesn't support evolution and label it "inconclusive".
    Complete b.s. on your part. If anything, that would describe creationism instead. As I've said before, things like fossil vertebrates in the precambrian would mess up the theory. Also, if the fossil record didn't verify changes in organisms over time as evolution theoriesed, Darwin's theory would not have lasted long beyond him.

    Now, when it comes to people trying to write off evidence that goes against their views as you accuse "evolutionists" of doing, even when faced with the problems presented by the distance that starlight form other galaxies has to travel they shrug it off and still go with the young earth view. When confronted with problems in radiometric dating that would shoot down their views, creationists rely on miracles to save them.

    Humphreys (2000, p. 334) also acknowledges that young-Earth creationism depends on miracles and actually welcomes them. Concerning the decay rates of radioactive isotopes, Humphreys (2000, p. 367) states:

    "It appears that Christ already has direct control of the nuclear (and other) forces, and furthermore that He is intimately involved with them. So even if we cannot follow all the links in the chain of causes back past a certain point, we can be confident that Jesus Christ is not only at the end of it, but at every link along the way. The point I am trying to make is that we should avoid the pitfall of insisting on completely naturalistic explanations for accelerated [radioactive] decay.

    ******Instead, my approach is to push the science we think we know as far as is reasonable, but remain ready at every point to see that God has intervened, and is intervening."*****

    So, you want to talk about people dodging evidence that shoots down their point of view, Dan?

    Continuing with the quote:
    Of course, ANY mystery or problem can be superficially covered up with miracles. Anyone can yell: "God did it!" Whereas forensic scientists and paleontologists can often use remaining evidence to reasonably explain past unwitnessed events, YECs have no way of testing miracles or verifying the existence of supernatural beings. Young-Earth creationism is based on an unbelievable and unjustified faith, whereas the track record of the naturalistic approach of science is well-established, highly reliable and often imported into our daily lives to explain everything from crimes to missing car keys. Also, when faced with the most obvious errors and contradictions in their Biblical interpretations, YECs certainly have vivid imaginations and, by invoking miracles or other unlikely excuses, they can easily plaster over the most blatant inconsistencies in their Bible interpretations and their young-Earth mythology - errors and contradictions that YECs probably would not excuse if they were found in the Book of Mormon or the Koran.


    You claim, Dan, that evolution "infects" every part of science? If by that remark you mean that the established age of the earth and the universe is backed up by observations in physics and astronomy then maybe you'd have a point.


    Oh OK, I perfectly understand what you are getting at now. So we can conclude, of course, someone that is in an abusive relationship would find that subject uncomfortable and it wouldn't bother someone who isn't. So thanks for admitting to the world that jokes about you beating your wife makes you uncomfortable. Since you actually beat your wives (polygamy joke too?) you are getting uncomfortable with that subject. Got it. I will steer clear since you are crawling in your skin with that subject. Who would of thought that God devised humor to pull out truths. He sure deserves all of our praise!
    Yeah, right. Even when biblegod orders the death of babies and pregnant women in the OT you people still say that he deserves all of our praise. What an anti-human philosophy you subscribe to. No wonder those jokes are amusing to you.


    This inclusion without any mention of the baby eating link. You are cracking me up, dude.
    For one thing, no group I've heard of eats babies, so no matter how disgusting that joke is, it's safe to assume that it has no real life parallels. Wife beating is a different matter.

    And, you're still acting like a prick. Jebus muse be proud of you. Can you point out where in the bible he endorsed that kind of joke? The verses you gave did not describe violent humour.

    Well, I guess in order to show that I do have a sense of humour, I can keep on talking about xians as being necrophiliacs in denial then.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Dan +†+ said...

    Reynold,

    Well, xianity does have a reputation for being misogynistic.


    We are called bride of Christ for a reason, God loves woman.
    Only if you do a very good job of cherry-picking verses to make it seem like that. For the opposite view, check out here (this guy is too enthusiastic about picking out verses, but within that link, you'll still find amble evidence of biblegod's attitude towards women.)


    Yes woman submit to the husband and husband submit to God. See we are playing the role of the marriage that will happen in heaven with Jesus and his believers. Stay loyal in Christ and you will understand how exalted you will be in heaven.

    "Many women don't like what the Bible says because it calls wives to "submit to their husbands." However, submission is not limited to wives submitting to their husbands. We are told to submit to God, governmental authorities, our boss, and leaders in the assembly.

    Yes, but women have an extra person to submit to, their husbands. Your point?

    We are also told to submit to one another, which includes men submitting women and vice versa. God is a God of order. In a sinful world, submission to those in authority is the only way to maintain order."
    Why not an equal partnership, if "god" wanted man and women to be equal in his eyes?

    Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

    Traits from man and woman equal make up "image of God"

    What about Genesis 2:18 where it says it is "not good" for man to be alone.

    So woman was made for man? Not helping your case here.

    What about this? As a part of punishment after the "tree of knowledge" incident:
    Genesis 3:16
    To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."


    How did God treat women? Remember story of Esther?
    Remember the story of Lot's daughters who he offered up to a rape gang? After that, "righteous Lot" was spare the destruction of the city.
    Genesis 19: 1-8
    Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."


    You then have to ask, How did Jesus treat women? Like the woman at the well or Mary Magdalene or even the prostitute about to get stoned.
    How's about looking at who gave those laws on how to deal with such offenses by women in the first place in the OT??


    "The women described in the Bible are not always homemakers and mothers. Obviously, the biological function of women is to produce children.
    Let's look at that:
    Leviticus 12:1-14 Women who have sons are unclean 7 days
    Leviticus 12:4-7 Women who have daughters are unclean 14 days.

    Care to explain? Don't do what Robert Turkel/JP Holding does, and say that it's to allow time for "bonding" or some such nonsense, since the context of the verses themselves talk about "unleanliness" and not "bonding time".


    However, Deborah was both a judge and leader of Israel.(Judges 4:4) Other women were involved in ridding Israel of her enemies.(Judges 4:21) Quite a number of women are described as being prophetesses.(Exodus 15:20,2 Kings 22:14,Luke 2:36)


    Other women in the Bible were involved in teaching the Word of God(Acts 18:26)"

    Even though the bible itself says "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. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."--1 Tim. 2:11-14?

    Countless other verses point to Jesus holding high regard for women.
    Except for times when he beaked off to his mother like when he said: "Woman, what have I to do with thee?"

    And of course, some of those verses the SAB pointed out in the link above.

    God's people are referred to as female, not male.
    To point out subordination. So what? Many times, "gods's people" are also referred to as "harlots" whenever they stray from the faith. Why not just "traitorous" or something instead of a word that slams women?

    In the Old Testament, God's people are the "daughters of Zion." The Body of Christ (including us men) is referred to as the "bride" of Christ and God is said to be our "husband." Whenever referred to by sex, the assembly is described as "she" or "her." (Ephesians 5:25,27)"

    In conclusion we have one verse that sums it all up: Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
    Too bad that verse goes against so many others as pointed out in that link I gave previously.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Reynold,

    Yes, but women have an extra person to submit to, their husbands. Your point?

    Person? I get your point but we all do, except God Himself.

    Why not an equal partnership, if "god" wanted man and women to be equal in his eyes?

    So how many Captains are on a ship? It's just a matter of order. You know, too many cooks...

    Besides we are equal when we are together. We complete each other. Do I need to explain the necessity of both to procreate? How people say women are equal to men is beyond me. Want proof? Next time you move tell your wife to P/U all the heavy items because you just did your nails. We are physically wired as well as mentally wired different and it's amazing how complimentary we are together as one. I wouldn't change a thing. It's perfection.

    What about Genesis 2:18 where it says it is "not good" for man to be alone.
    So woman was made for man?


    Yes

    In reference to Leviticus 12:1-14 and Leviticus 12:4-7: Care to explain?

    No, I cannot, that one is new to me. I would have to research it...and pray about it, of curse.

    Woman can be in a position of authority, and even have been in the OT, although "New Testament clearly restricts the authority/teaching position in the church for qualified men."

    Except for times when he beaked off to his mother like when he said: "Woman, what have I to do with thee?"

    You hypocrite, are you claiming you have never been angry?

    and yet you comment again... TBC

    ReplyDelete
  33. Dan +†+ said...

    Reynold,

    Yes, but women have an extra person to submit to, their husbands. Your point?


    Person? I get your point but we all do, except God Himself.
    The point is that women have an extra person to submit to as well as all the other people you listed that we have to submit to; their husbands. Men do not. How is that so hard to understand?

    Why not an equal partnership, if "god" wanted man and women to be equal in his eyes?
    So how many Captains are on a ship? It's just a matter of order. You know, too many cooks...
    What makes you think that a ship is a proper analogy for a marriage? If nothing else, any questions of "leadership" could be left up to the individual couples depending on knowledge and personality. The bible just arbitrarily demands that it be the male. It even goes to the extent that it's easier for a male to divorce a woman than it is for the woman to divorce her husband. See the link in my previous post.

    Besides we are equal when we are together.
    The bible does not often imply equality. More often it implies subservience. Sometimes they're even implied to be property to an extent. See the link I gave in my previous post.

    We complete each other. Do I need to explain the necessity of both to procreate?
    No, but you do have to explain why women were considered "unclean" for 7 days after giving birth to a male child, and 14 days after giving birth to a female child.

    How people say women are equal to men is beyond me. Want proof? Next time you move tell your wife to P/U all the heavy items because you just did your nails. We are physically wired as well as mentally wired different and it's amazing how complimentary we are together as one. I wouldn't change a thing. It's perfection.
    Except the bible makes it clear that the status of women is less then men. People can have different abilities yet have the same status. Besides, you xians don't see any problems with OT baby butchery either.

    What about Genesis 2:18 where it says it is "not good" for man to be alone.
    So woman was made for man?

    Yes
    I'll let you ponder the significance of that answer for yourself.

    In reference to Leviticus 12:1-14 and Leviticus 12:4-7: Care to explain?
    No, I cannot, that one is new to me.
    Hmmm, I guess you should have read your bible more.

    I would have to research it...and pray about it, of course.

    Woman can be in a position of authority, and even have been in the OT, although "New Testament clearly restricts the authority/teaching position in the church for qualified men."

    Now why is that?

    Except for times when he beaked off to his mother like when he said: "Woman, what have I to do with thee?"
    You hypocrite, are you claiming you have never been angry?
    No, but this isn't about being angry. This is about christ breaking the rule about honouring his father and mother. If xians didn't constantly claim that he was "sinless" then the fact that christ had done that would be irrelevent.

    When people are angry and say stuff like that to their parents, it counts as a sin, does it not?

    Why are you dodging?

    and yet you comment again... TBC
    December 23, 2008 5:53 PM

    So?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Reynold,

    The point is that women have an extra person to submit to as well as all the other people you listed that we have to submit to; their husbands. Men do not.

    I disagree. I stay at home to homeschool our kids, You have a job right? So you then have one extra person to submit to, your boss. There you have now been debunkified on that subject.

    God has designed an order, even children are to be submissive to their parents and I am ultimately held accountable and responsible for what happens in my household. I am to be submissive to Christ as the Godhead.

    If nothing else, any questions of "leadership" could be left up to the individual couples depending on knowledge and personality.

    Are you married? So, what if there is a struggle as to the doing the right thing?

    This was not an issue in my house at all, but lets say that my wife wanted our kids in public schools and I did not. Without a house head nothing but railing and debating. With a head of the house every speaks their mind and the CEO makes the decision as to the direction of the family, bearing in mind a wrong decision effects the company/house. So why is it OK for a Company, Ship, or any other organization and not a family? Why? Because God commanded it? Are your Presups showing again? It avoids a great deal of fighting when the driver of the bus is identified. Why don't you and your spouse drive the car at the same time? Why don't you install an extra steering wheel? Sound absurd? If it does, I agree.

    The bible just arbitrarily demands that it be the male.

    Oh, I disagree there is a specific purpose. Read Genesis 3:16

    In reference to Leviticus 12:1-14 and Leviticus 12:4-7: Care to explain?
    No, I cannot, that one is new to me.
    Hmmm, I guess you should have read your bible more.

    Ouch that hurt, touché.

    In my 30 seconds of Bible study: Perhaps, one reason of this was, that the male child had had the advantage of the covenant of circumcision, and brought blessing to his mother. Another reason, however, was, "because the woman was in the transgression," (1 Timothy 2:14) and led Adam into it. It kept up the remembrance of the Fall, and of the first sin, possibly.

    Woman can be in a position of authority, and even have been in the OT, although "New Testament clearly restricts the authority/teaching position in the church for qualified men."

    Now why is that?

    I will fall back to 1 Timothy 2:14 again.

    Let me punch this home for a moment. When Eve disobeyed God by transgressing His Law She brought thing onto herself.

    Now look at these two verses

    See the similarities?

    In referencing the woman: "and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

    In referencing sin: "And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him"

    Metaphorically, the temptation of sin wants to have control over, or consume, Cain, and it did. By nature, because of the fall, the woman will seek to rule over the husband. Also, because of the fall, there is a natural tension that takes place in the family and there is a struggle for headship. "Woman wears the pants in the family" is a result of the curse. We are to resist sin and control from the woman. Powerful stuff, huh? So the Women desire to rule over men, because of the fall, falls naturally into the position of authority, because of her desires. This is why, I believe, that desire was so great they burned their bra's and protested. In a Holy setting though (Church or Family) we are not to allow the woman to usurp that authority.

    Besides we are equal when we are together.
    The bible does not often imply equality.

    I may have misspoken I was thinking of two become one flesh at the time. (Matthew 19:5,Mark 10:8,Ephesians 5:31)

    More often it implies subservience.

    I agree with reason 1 Timothy 2:14

    Except for times when he beaked off to his mother like when he said: "Woman, what have I to do with thee?"
    You hypocrite, are you claiming you have never been angry?
    No, but this isn't about being angry. This is about christ breaking the rule about honouring his father and mother.

    Fine I understand you point but He did honor his Mother's wishes. Calvin said she did wrong in going beyond her proper bounds. Her anxiety about the inconvenience endured by others, and her desire to have it in some way mitigated, proceeded from humanity, and ought to be regarded as a virtue; but still, by putting herself forward, she might obscure the glory of Christ. Though it ought also to be observed, that what Christ spoke was not so much for her sake as for the sake of others. Her modesty and piety were too great, to need so severe a chastisement. Besides, she did not knowingly and willingly offend; but Christ only meets the danger, that no improper use may be made of what his mother had said, as if it were in obedience to her command that he afterwards performed the miracle.

    Perfect love is a constant confronter. It takes far more love to confront then to ignore a situation I have always said and here God's Word agrees. Do you?

    Why are you dodging?

    I'm not, just slow.

    I love these discussions though. It sure makes me sharpen my pencil. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  35. Dan +†+ said...

    Reynold,

    The point is that women have an extra person to submit to as well as all the other people you listed that we have to submit to; their husbands. Men do not.


    I disagree. I stay at home to homeschool our kids, You have a job right? So you then have one extra person to submit to, your boss. There you have now been debunkified on that subject.
    You're still not getting it; no matter how many people we have over us, if a woman is married, she has one more person in authority over her...her husband.

    God has designed an order, even children are to be submissive to their parents and I am ultimately held accountable and responsible for what happens in my household. I am to be submissive to Christ as the Godhead.

    If nothing else, any questions of "leadership" could be left up to the individual couples depending on knowledge and personality.
    And intelligence, I forgot to mention.

    Are you married? So, what if there is a struggle as to the doing the right thing?
    It's hashed out as opposed to one person just making decrees.

    This was not an issue in my house at all, but lets say that my wife wanted our kids in public schools and I did not. Without a house head nothing but railing and debating.
    Or, both parents can set up the rules before they have kids and keep the debates away from them after they have kids. They can even teach their kids about teamwork and about how each side can contribute as opposed to just making decrees.

    With a head of the house every speaks their mind and the CEO makes the decision as to the direction of the family, bearing in mind a wrong decision effects the company/house.
    CEO's generally listen to their advisers at least.

    So why is it OK for a Company, Ship, or any other organization and not a family? Why? Because God commanded it? Are your Presups showing again?
    No, just my sense of fair play. It seems to me that it's your presupps showing again by your blind acceptence of the lower status of women because of "Eve's transgression".

    It avoids a great deal of fighting when the driver of the bus is identified. Why don't you and your spouse drive the car at the same time? Why don't you install an extra steering wheel? Sound absurd? If it does, I agree.
    What makes you think that a marriage is like driving a car?

    The bible just arbitrarily demands that it be the male.
    Oh, I disagree there is a specific purpose. Read Genesis 3:16
    Yeah, it's eve's fault, so all women after her have to pay the price. Not much better than being purely arbitrary.

    Mind you, even before that, woman was made as a "helper" to man, as implying "for man" and not as a "partner" to man.


    In reference to Leviticus 12:1-14 and Leviticus 12:4-7: Care to explain?
    No, I cannot, that one is new to me.
    Hmmm, I guess you should have read your bible more.
    Ouch that hurt, touché.
    Thanks. I was hoping to use that at some point.

    In my 30 seconds of Bible study: Perhaps, one reason of this was, that the male child had had the advantage of the covenant of circumcision, and brought blessing to his mother. Another reason, however, was, "because the woman was in the transgression," (1 Timothy 2:14) and led Adam into it. It kept up the remembrance of the Fall, and of the first sin, possibly.
    Yeah, again, because of their alleged ancestor, all women must be punished.

    Woman can be in a position of authority, and even have been in the OT, although "New Testament clearly restricts the authority/teaching position in the church for qualified men."
    Women being in authority in the bible is more the exception rather than the rule. How many women rulers have their been over nations as compared to kings for instance?

    Then there are the various OT laws which favour men over women.

    Now why is that?
    I will fall back to 1 Timothy 2:14 again.
    Yeah, passing the punishment onto all women because of what the alleged first woman did.

    Let me punch this home for a moment. When Eve disobeyed God by transgressing His Law She brought thing onto herself.
    Onto herself and herself only. Why should it be passed on to others?

    Now look at these two verses

    See the similarities?

    In referencing the woman: "and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

    In referencing sin: "And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him"

    Metaphorically, the temptation of sin wants to have control over, or consume, Cain, and it did. By nature, because of the fall, the woman will seek to rule over the husband.

    So even before the fall, it was man's "god-ordained place" to rule over women? So much for your talk of "equality" then.

    Also, because of the fall, there is a natural tension that takes place in the family and there is a struggle for headship. "Woman wears the pants in the family" is a result of the curse. We are to resist sin and control from the woman. Powerful stuff, huh? So the Women desire to rule over men, because of the fall, falls naturally into the position of authority, because of her desires.
    Yeah, because of what one woman did, all women afterwards must bear punishment. Sounds fair, in bibleland anyway.

    This is why, I believe, that desire was so great they burned their bra's and protested. In a Holy setting though (Church or Family) we are not to allow the woman to usurp that authority.
    Or it could be the lousy treatment that biblical and secular law has been giving them for centuries on end. Nothing like being automatically put in second place just because of your gender.

    Besides we are equal when we are together.
    The bible does not often imply equality.
    I may have misspoken I was thinking of two become one flesh at the time. (Matthew 19:5,Mark 10:8,Ephesians 5:31)

    More often it implies subservience.
    I agree with reason 1 Timothy 2:14
    So then all women are to be punished for something that their alleged ancestor did?? Yeah, that's fair...

    Except for times when he beaked off to his mother like when he said: "Woman, what have I to do with thee?"
    You hypocrite, are you claiming you have never been angry?
    No, but this isn't about being angry. This is about christ breaking the rule about honouring his father and mother.
    Fine I understand you point but He did honor his Mother's wishes.
    Not after lipping off to her first.

    Calvin said she did wrong in going beyond her proper bounds. Her anxiety about the inconvenience endured by others, and her desire to have it in some way mitigated, proceeded from humanity, and ought to be regarded as a virtue; but still, by putting herself forward, she might obscure the glory of Christ. Though it ought also to be observed, that what Christ spoke was not so much for her sake as for the sake of others. Her modesty and piety were too great, to need so severe a chastisement.
    Not helping your case by admitting that...

    Besides, she did not knowingly and willingly offend; but Christ only meets the danger, that no improper use may be made of what his mother had said, as if it were in obedience to her command that he afterwards performed the miracle.
    One would think that as an "omniscient being" he'd have seen that and would have been more circumpsect when talking with her. Besides, even if she was in the wrong, he did it anyway. Since "christ" would never knowingly "sin" and he did it anyhow, that implies that his turning the water into wine was, in the end, not such a big deal after all in regards to his future "ministry".

    Perfect love is a constant confronter. It takes far more love to confront then to ignore a situation I have always said and here God's Word agrees. Do you?
    It can be done, however, without telling your mother to take a hike.

    Why are you dodging?
    I'm not, just slow.
    I know the feeling.

    I love these discussions though. It sure makes me sharpen my pencil. Thanks!

    Pencil??? Snort. We're typing this on the internet! Why do you need a pencil? Now, a marker I could understand.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Reynold,

    You're still not getting it; no matter how many people we have over us, if a woman is married, she has one more person in authority over her...her husband.

    You're still not getting it; Stay at home mothers have one less person of authority over her... a boss. So if the goal is to have less people to answer to, I suggest the woman stay at home. (and take off those shoes and socks, of course :) In fact working woman have one more person in authority over her.

    CEO's generally listen to their advisers at least. and It's hashed out as opposed to one person just making decrees.

    Now come on are you claiming I (or Christians) don't listen to our adviser, i.e. their wife? I would be lost without Patty's input in matters. Her opinion counts/matters the most. We hash out a great deal of things. Ultimately though, and unapologetically, I will make the big decisions of direction of the family.

    Since it was avoided I will ask again: Are you married?

    It seems to me that it's your presupps showing again by your blind [acceptance] of the lower status of women because of "Eve's transgression".

    Oh come on, this isn't masters and servants, it's called a partnership for a reason. Psst, without a soft intelligent woman this would be even more of a yucky place, plus I would have zero children. Your broad stokes of that paint brush is making things look ugly, I will assume that was the goal. You are no Monet, get a smaller brush.

    Pencil??? Snort. We're typing this on the internet!

    Speaking of pencils and sharpness....

    ReplyDelete
  37. Where exactly does the bible imply partnership as opposed to rulership? The bible compares the relationship of man and spouse to that of believer and god.

    Where is the implied "partnership" in that relationship?


    Then there are still all those bible verses that the SAB site lists where women are clearly given less status than men. As you admitted yourself, it's punishment passed down from "eve's transgression".

    Yeah, real fair.

    I'm not married myself, but I know people who are. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  38. Reynold,

    I'm not married myself, but I know people who are

    Buddy that is like saying I'm not a brain surgeon, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night.

    Dude, you are absolutely clueless about marriage until you are indeed married, you are absolutely clueless on parenting until you have children, and you are absolutely clueless about Christianity until you become a Christian.

    Studying is not equal to doing. I can read all day about quarterbacking for the NFL but until I get into a game I will be 'clueless'. And that is tonight's word.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Dan:

         It is interesting to note that cults say that outsiders are clueless and have no basis to criticize. I have long thought that fundamentalist christianity was just another cult, albeit with more members.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Dan +†+ said...quoting me:

    Reynold,

    I'm not married myself, but I know people who are


    Buddy that is like saying I'm not a brain surgeon, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night.

    Dude, you are absolutely clueless about marriage until you are indeed married, you are absolutely clueless on parenting until you have children, and you are absolutely clueless about Christianity until you become a Christian.
    I was a xian for years, whether you admit it or not. Tough. I'd say that you are absolutely clueless about atheism because even while you "thought" that you were a xian but say that you were not, you were still not an atheist.

    Studying is not equal to doing. I can read all day about quarterbacking for the NFL but until I get into a game I will be 'clueless'.
    Actually, not really. You would at least know enough to understand what they are doing or trying to do on the field.

    And that is tonight's word.
    Yeah, that's your word, alright.

    Dan, Buddy. To use your analogy then, it'd be like you criticizing science and evolutionary theory. Even most of the YECs/IDists out there fall into that category. ex)Lawyer Phillip Johnson and Casey Luskin or Physical Chemist Johnathan Sarfati who writes about Anthropology, Geology, Astronomy, and Paleontology in his book "Refuting Evolution" and it's sequel.

    They don't have the training in the proper fields and the experience/study in the proper subject.

    ReplyDelete
  41. That especially applies to the average pulpit-pounding idiot preacher out there who criticizes evolutionary theory when they'd had absolutely no training in any of the relevent fields. Ex) The late leader of "Coral Ridge" ministries, James Kennedy who bashed science that he knew nothing about on a semi-regular basis.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Reynold,

    I'd say that you are absolutely clueless about atheism because even while you "thought" that you were a xian but say that you were not, you were still not an atheist.

    I may have to agree with you. Although, I will clarify something for you to help your own conclusion as to what I was in the past. I was born into an atheist's home I was raised as an atheist and my entire family are atheists, even to this day. My Mom past away as an atheist even. I believe my public school teachings as being related to apes, I loved science and My hero was Carl Sagan and ran home to watch Cosmos whenever it was on. I never knew who Jesus was, but I heard hints of him from people during my life growing up. When I inquired about Him, my Dad's teachings showed me Jesus was a fake character made up to control the masses, "to keep the poor in line" kind of talk. So in the military age 17-21, I thought Christians were weak minded and gullible. I never really knew any other of the false religions in detail. In refection though, I thought Muslims was some black people's religion since I heard of Malcolm X and Mohomed Ali. At age 23 I was given a gospel tract by such a wonderfully kind lady, I finally read the Bible and believed in Jesus but it was only recently that I was born again forever in Christ. Also, it was only after I read the Bible did I find out about other religions and even read the gnostic and Apocryphal writings and, even with basic understandings, I easily rejected all of them as false. So truthfully and accurately I would of been considered to be an ingotheist growing up, until I started searching at which time I became a lost soul with a belief of Christ to, thanks to God's Grace, a Christian much later. I never entered into the religion of Atheism like all of you(dig), to follow my Dad.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Sorry, I believed (past tense) my public school teachings

    ReplyDelete
  44. Huh? Atheism a "religion"? I know that your supreme court has given it the status of a religion in order to convey to atheists the same constitutional rights against discrimination that religious people have or something like that, but it does not mean that atheism is a religion.


    By the way, believing that people and "apes" are related does not by itself necessitate atheism. What kind of "apes" anyway? With some variety of chimp we share about 98% of the genes that they do. I'm too lazy and apathetic to look that up right now.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Pvblivs,

    I have long thought that fundamentalist christianity was just another cult, albeit with more members.

    A cult is defined as followers of an unorthodox, extremist, or false religion so my questions to you is what religion is the right religion if Christianity is a false one? Let me guess, Atheism?

    ReplyDelete
  46. Except that atheism isn't a religion; at most it's a viewpoint on the veracity of all the religions out there.

    No preists, no inset rules to follow, no path to get to any afterlife, no churches or equivalents, etc.

    Discussed earlier in my post just above your last one.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Reynold,

    So are you claiming that the belief system of atheism is some default position to religion?

    ReplyDelete
  48. The "belief system of athiesm" is just a belief that there are no gods.

    Whether "default" or not depends on how the individual arrived to it. A lot of atheists used to be believers until they looked to deeply into their religions.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Something else, Dan...You're question about whether I was married or not does nothing to assuage the problem of the bible's overall misogynistic attitude toward women.

    At most, you could doubt that I know how marriage works, but the bible's dealing with women cover more than just that.

    Ex) Leviticus 12:1-14 Women who have sons are unclean 7 days

    Leviticus 12:4-7 Women who have daughters are unclean 14 days.

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>