Originally posted by The Pixie
View Post
Right. God told Adam and not Eve. Because Adam, being the man, is in charge. Eve was merely a woman; why would God talk to her?
Adam is the leader, the one in charge, the one with the responsibility. Eve is the one who obeys the leaders.
No one is arguing women are less human.
I am arguing that the Bible says they are of lesser rank. Like the employees in a company are of lesser rank than the employer. The employer is in charge, the employees obey him. The employer is the one who bears the brunt of the responsibility if something goes badly wrong.
I am arguing that the Bible says they are of lesser rank. Like the employees in a company are of lesser rank than the employer. The employer is in charge, the employees obey him. The employer is the one who bears the brunt of the responsibility if something goes badly wrong.
Great. I think that was just a misunderstanding then, as we both agree here.
1 cor 7:10 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.
So Paul is saying that Jesus said a divorced woman (and therefore perhaps man) should not remarry.
1 cor 7:10 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.
So Paul is saying that Jesus said a divorced woman (and therefore perhaps man) should not remarry.
Great. The point here is that the Hebrews were of a different rank to the Canaanites and the slaves were of a different rank again.
Well I would assume the card was referring to modern Christianity.
I think that is fair comment. Here in the UK virtually all Christians embrace science, so that is another reason why it is wrong to label the right as "science".
If you objected to the card because it pits Christianity against science (and I see you have blogged on that issue recently), you would have had a good point.
If you objected to the card because it pits Christianity against science (and I see you have blogged on that issue recently), you would have had a good point.
Good point, I should have added him to the exclusions.
Well, that is it then. My argument is that the card accurately portrays Christianity when it says we are all fallen, sinful and deserve hell. You have confirmed that that is the case.
Well, that is it then. My argument is that the card accurately portrays Christianity when it says we are all fallen, sinful and deserve hell. You have confirmed that that is the case.
Oh. It's also denying the question of how much of it all is true.
You lost me. As far as I can see, the NT has a huge bearing on this discussion. If you say you are sticking to Genesis, then you are indeed saying you are ignoring what is in the NT.
It seems to me that you have an argument against the card if you focus on Genesis only, where as if you consider the whole of the Bible, the "meme" on the card looks pretty accurate. If, for the sake of argument, we ignore the big message of Christianity, and in effect pretend it is Judaism, then you can object to what the card said.
On the other hand, if we consider what modern Christianity actually says...
It seems to me that you have an argument against the card if you focus on Genesis only, where as if you consider the whole of the Bible, the "meme" on the card looks pretty accurate. If, for the sake of argument, we ignore the big message of Christianity, and in effect pretend it is Judaism, then you can object to what the card said.
On the other hand, if we consider what modern Christianity actually says...
That someone being you, right? "I answered I was sticking with just Genesis itself. You don't find the resurrection in Genesis."
Because this is about what Christianity has to say about the individual, and Christianity says every individual is sinful and fallen, and deserves to go to hell.
Comment