Women and the Fundamentalist View of Marriage

To mike_the_wiz:Sorry for interrupting, but I am a bit confused by your post.I have been following this discussion (between you and Dan Carroll) quite well. That is, up to the point of your last post: Firstly, I don't see (as with Dan Carroll) how you can justify you decision in keeping the rules and regulations in the OT that you deem important, while for the same or other obscure reason(s), dismiss others. Please explain.Secondly, is so vague it is bordering on the edge of pointlessness. And the bad thing is, your post is so short that there is hardly any context to misquote it from. Please explain.Thirdly, I don't know about anyone else, but I sure as hell don't understand what you mean by "the fruit of the spirit", nor its relevance to what we are discussing (that is, how you can pick and choose between what rules you want to keep, and what you can't). Please explain what you mean and its relevance.I do not believe that this exchange is fruitless (as I am at present discussing this very point with Brian and jar on another thread), but I pray that you will explain the three points above I have outlined. Thank you.(Just a friendly reminder: post 149 awaits you in the "The power of prayers vs. The Divine plan" thread. I said "take your time", I didn't say "ignore it for as long as you can get away with". It has been 3-4 days since your last response (depending on time-zone) and I believe that I deserve a reply around now?)Sincerely awaiting your reply (to both posts).

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To mike_the_wiz: Well, the "contradiction" part is definitely part of my argument in most of my posts (majority of which is on the prayer thread), but "it is the word of man"? When did I say that? Or have you unwittingly classed me with your perception of stereotypical Atheists or Agnostics think and do?In my earlier post on this thread, I did not claimed to have ANY knowledge on this topic whatsoever; I wrote simply because I didn't understand your argument. After reading your post (which didn't explain anything about "fruit of the spirit"), I am none the wiser in regards to this dilemma: [qs] don't understand what you mean by "the fruit of the spirit", nor its relevance to what we are discussing (that is, how you can pick and choose between what rules you want to keep, and what you can't). [qs] So this time, care to shed some light? Good point, I am beginning to understand your stance. If you were never placed under the laws of the OT, then you shouldn't be made to abide by them, conceded. But I thought we were ALL placed under the laws of the OT? Don't the rules/laws of the OT define what it is to sin? If it does, then isn't "not keeping" them still sinning? In other words, aren't the laws, in actual fact, made for everybody?Obey = not sin.
Disobey = sin.Also, if you just stated that you were never placed under the law (as a gentile), why bring up the "fruit of the spirit" in your earlier post at all?Thank you for addressing my questions.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To mike_the_wiz:Thank you for your response.Reply to your post: But surely you're not insinuating that I'm an Atheist/Agnostic AGAIN? Soooo....the "fruit of the spirit" is a list of attributes? That's my understanding from the quote. What's the context? So if you are incapable of abiding by those laws, or if you have never heard of them, then you have failed to keep them. That seems like an obvious point to make. Have I missed anything? In other words everyone who have never heard of the OT laws would be sinning, from a Jewish/Christian perspective.How is this relevant to our discussion? If all laws in OT describe sinning, and technically speaking, all those who have heard of the OT should abide by those laws, how come (as you say) we must abide by some of the them (e.g. on the issues of homosexuality) while intentionally "failing to keep" others (e.g. on the issues of rituals and compensations)?How exactly does the "fruit of the spirit", now that you have defined it with a quote, resolve that?Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To mike_the_wiz:Question: Just to clarify, is "faith" referring to faith on the Christian deity? Or any deity? Except faith? Remember, God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son to Him. If Abraham had done so, he would have gone against the Sixth Commandment. If he refuses, then he would have displayed no faith in God.(He would also have been charged with attempted murder by today's standards)Also, the countless wars that happened in the OT as a result of God's explicit instructions were ALL violations of the Sixth Commandment. The "crusaders" (defined here as an army in the name of God) have ALL violated the sixth commandment because they had faith in God's instructions.Please explain the apparent contradiction. Very good point. My most sincere apologies. (I have mistaken you for Riverat). I agree. The attributes listed in "fruit of the spirit" may indeed fullfil the ten commandments if explained in this fashion...except for faith (see above). I don't know about that. You seem to imply that non-Christians (who obviously don't have the "fruit") don't love. Furthermore, you seem to be insinuating that according to the bible, they would then be wicked, lustful, and hateful. Please explain. Errrr.....well, personally I would've just promoted the attributes listed in "fruit of the spirit" rather than promoting Christianity.We would then have the benefits of love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, meekness, and temperance without faith, which in itself promotes segregation.Thank you for your reply. I apologise again for my boo-boo.Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To mike_the_wiz:Thank you for your reply.Reply to your post: Ummmm....no. God commanded Abraham not to kill his son. Love has NOTHING to do with it - it was a direct command. I request that you elaborate.Question: If God asks YOU to kill me to demonstrate your faith in him, would you do it? (Hint: this is an analogy with the Abraham case) I insist that you do. After all, you have been successful so far in tying together the commandments (OT) with Jesus's notion of love (NT) as well as the notion of "fruit of the spirit" (NT). Why not try for second base?Also, this thread IS about the "fundamentalist view". From my understanding, the fundamentalist view gathered most of its principles from the OT. How can we even hope to keep this discussion on topic if you won't discuss OT? Sooooo.....what's wrong with being a wonderful natural man? From what you're telling me, "fruit of the spirit" describes a list of attributes, namely "love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and temperance".I can achieve "love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, meekness, and temperance" without God's help, thank you very much. I believe that most Atheists, Agnostics, Buddhists, etc. can do so as well. I see no need for faith in human interactions, nor in how we uphold laws. So in actual fact, a model Christian and a model natural man differ only in "faith". In that case, natural man sounds like the way to go! Slow down, you seem to be getting way ahead of yourself. As reasoned above, if the "fruit of the spirit" simply denotes a list of attributes, I can demonstrate 8/9th of it without God's help. I see no place for faith in my life so the remaining 1/9th is as good as gone. so tell me, what else makes "fruit of the spirit" so special that it can only be "available because of Christ and the cross"?Regarding all those things you said about "cleanliness": I don't understand it, to tell the truth. Can you use a simpler analogy? And can you explain why cleanliness is relevant to what we are discussing as well? Thanks.Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To mike_the_wiz:Thank you for your replyReply to your post: Does Abraham know this? Is this not an obvious progression of events? Consider:If God is taken to be benevolent (Christian assumption), then He CANNOT allow Abraham to kill Isaac on His request. Abraham knows this (surely he must!) so there never was any doubts that God would stop him before he brings the chopper down.Furthermore, God is omniscient, remember? He never needed to test Abraham: He knows. So why the test? Sorry, but I didn't get that. Is that a yes or a no? If it is a no, is your decision a reflection of your lack of faith? Well, if you don't mind me asking a truckload of questions, we'll get along just fine. I was actually referring to the bits where God DECLARED war or instructed men to start a war or kill in His name. Consider this bit:Moses struck the ground to part the red sea to let his people through. If I consider this true, and was a miracle performed by Moses, then when he struck the ground again to "un-part" the red sea and flash-drown the Egyptian army, I would say that he has commited hundreds of counts of manslaughter/murder.Question: would you see WWI, WWII, Gulf War I and II, Vietnam War, etc. as a result of sins commited in those countries? How can we tell the difference between wars we start ourselves and wars imposed on us by God as punishment for our sins? Given that anyone who is not a Christian falls into the "natural man" category, please explain how this comment does NOT imply that non-christians "serve the lust, and will harbour addictions, lusts, hate". Clarify if this is what you are claiming. Well, I would actually avoid fornication, adultery, etc. because I desire to uphold my reputation as an honourable and dependable human being (as opposed to indulging in the endearing title of "stud"). So I guess the answer to your first question is yes.Your second question is strange because while I definitely live for myself (and not God), I don't "worship the flesh" any more than Christians do (from observation). So I guess your question was inherently flawed in drawing the parallel of "worshiping the flesh" with "living for myself". Errrr.....mike_the_wiz? You have to remember that the "fruit of the spirit" seems Godly (God attributes) to YOU only. To me, it is merely a list of attributes which I can easily possess without God's help. Or are you implying that without God, my love is not "love", my joy is not "joy", my peace is not "peace", etc.? That's exactly my point. I have dismissed the cross and Christ because we're focusing on "Women and the Fundamentalist View of Marriage". We are talking about social interaction here, not the afterlife. You were arguing that Christians possess the "fruit of the spirit", so they don't break laws. But then you claim that because no body is perfect, sometimes even Christians cannot uphold all the laws.I'm saying that I'm not a Christian, and I possess the same attributes as "fruit of the spirit" (except faith), and I don't break laws. So considering our lives on earth (NOT after we die), what makes you think that the Christians' lifestyle is anymore moral than an Atheist, Buddhist, Shintoist, etc. one? But we're not talking about sinning. We're talking about what is right to do in a social setting. We're not talking about perfection in a spiritual sense, we're talking about morality in a social sense. Please, focus on the physical world.You stated that:1) Christians can do no wrong if they are filled with the "fruit of the spirit".and2) Christians are imperfect, so sometimes they "fail to uphold" laws as well.These two points appear to be contradictory. Please explain.Note to mike_the_wiz: Please remember to stay on topic and discuss the relevance and suitability of the application of NT and OT in our lifestyle, especially in regards to our treatment of women.Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To fiddledydee:Welcome to the forum fiddledydee.Reply to your post:I agree totally. Here's my two cents:All attempts to divide humanity must focus on the differences between groups: whether the differences lie in race, colour, sex, religion, or another other attributes, it really doesn't matter.The idea behind political-correctness and maturity is that we must acknowledge the underlying EQUALITY within everyone when our understanding penetrates the shallowness of mere appearance and status.Whether we accept a point of view or not should, in my opinion, be based on whether it is objectively moral or fair to do so. Of course, when you bring religion into the arena, the concepts of morality and fairness are predefined by dogma and ultimately (if I may dare use this word) skewed towards the bias of the individuals who created the religion.I sincerely believe that unlike laws (canonic or otherwise), the concepts of morality and fairness transcends time, and it is up to the intellectuals and "thinkers" of the time to determine where the point of justice reside.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To mike_the_wiz: To "not see" something, even if omnipotent, would violate the assumption of omniscient. Furthermore, God is consistent, so to make Himself "not see" anything would be logically impossible. Sound to me like you're not very familiar with the God you worship. No I won't, because killing is wrong, and I don't have a "trust" or "faith" that tells me otherwise.However, if anyone were to tell me not to kill, and then personally instructed me to kill, then I would consider this individual a shifty character and will probably lose faith in him/her. I hope you're not implying that your God is such a pathetic figure. Ouch! You DON'T want to go THERE! Are you implying that it is ok to kill as long as they are evil? Shit! I hope I never appeared evil in your eyes! Stay away from me!Special note: the terrorists responsible for 911 believed that they were killing/murdering in the name of ridding the world of evil too. Perhaps you would be more careful in what you say? Please reconcile your viewpoints in the above comments. In the former, it is quite clear that war "came upon them" as a result of sins. Sounds to me like a punishment, alright. In the latter, you seem to have contradicted yourself. Please explain. Ok, let's put this in perspectives:Christians go good deeds.
-I also do good deeds.Christians think bad thoughts (lust in the heart).
-I also think bad thoughts (lust in the heart).Christians restrict their lust and bad thoughts from being acted on by their faith.
-I also restrict my lust and bad thoughts from being acted on, however, not by faith but instead by my education, maturity, and social etiquette.Christians believe that they will be saved by their God.
-I scratch my head and cock an eyebrow.Christians beleive that the "fruit of the spirit" is a conglomerate of divine attributes that only God can provide.
-I see it as a collection of respectable and commendable attributes (aside from faith) that is good for you and the society. I see no divinity in them, since many followers of other religions (or no religion) obviously display these qualities also (more so than Christians, in some cases).Christians believe that they are inherently "dirty" and need to be "cleaned" through their beliefs.
-I have a higher regard for the integrity and hygiene of humanity.Given the above comparisons, I don't see the reason for pursuing Christianity from a PHYSICAL or SOCIAL perspective. No I can't, but I am saying that for living in the real world, faith is not important for abiding laws. You said that if you have the fruit of the spirit, then you won't break laws. I'm saying that I won't break laws even if I don't have the fruit of the spirit. What's the point of Christianity from a social perspective if the "fruit of the spirit" is not essential for preventing crime? You stated that Christians possess the fruit of the spirit which prevents them from breaking laws. This implies that non-Christians, who do not possess the fruit of the spirit, are LESS moral (relative to Christians). If this is not your point, explain yourself.Patiently awaiting your next post.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"