@Jabster - Can you put into words what you don't understand or do you just prefer belligerence?

If Paul's misogyny is situational or not, that's debatable, but he did have at least as much influence on the creation of the church as Christ did.

@McHonza

Repeating they same daft statement again and again in the hope people will stop asking awkard questions is not the same as answering a question.

@thewarfreak - I think anyone that picks up the label Christian to describe themselves should primarily follow the teachings of Christ. Within those teachings I see a hierarchy that places an emphasis on treating each other in the best possible way. I understand Paul's writing to be supplemental to the teachings of Christ, and also dealing with particular situations.

@Jabster - I did answer the question. Does

"Love your neighbor as yourself" does not provide for raping women.

not cover that adequately?

I just read an article in the local paper about a study to prove that pedophilia in the catholic priesthood is not related to the priest's homosexuality!(?)!! How can there even be a homosexual priest? I thought all gays were seen as the antichrist by the catholics. Whats up with that??

The local paper is correct. Homosexuality and pedophilia are uncorrelated. And the paper is also correct about the underlying issue; according to most reports, there are a large number of homosexuals, proportionately, in the Catholic priesthood. For a long time it was implicitly understood that for gay Catholics who did not want to "live in sin", as it were, the priesthood was an easy out. Nowadays, though, with the priesthood pedophilia scandals, the church has decided to scapegoat them, hence the article refuting the church's underlying contention (namely, that homosexuality leads to pedophilia).

I found a website set up by nuns and I sent the question about Adam and Eve pertaining to incest and you know what they said? Yes, there was incest in the beginning as Adam and Eve populated the Earth, but (get this) incest wasn't considered bad at that point in time and all the children came from such purity that they didn't have genetic problems. It wasn't until many generations later that it was decided that incest was not a good idea because the genetic mutations were starting to reveal themselves. So they change up the story to make it fit whatever circumstance they are trying to convince people of. I just read an article in the local paper about a study to prove that pedophilia in the catholic priesthood is not related to the priest's homosexuality!(?)!! How can there even be a homosexual priest? I thought all gays were seen as the antichrist by the catholics. Whats up with that??

@DDM Jesus ("he himself"?) did teach differently.

Free will?

So god gets a get-out-of-responsibility-card no matter what he does, basically. Guess what: That doesn't make it okay. If god was truly against those actions, he himself would condemn them and not just sit back while that crap is being written in a book about him. So by omission he's okay with it.

@DDM - Free will?

You're citing Old Testament laws. Jesus taught differently, based on individual responsibility, taking into account the affect choices have on the individual and those affected by those choices.

@McHonza - Then it's another example of Paul pissing on Jesus' good name. If we can't trust the Christians that wrote the Bible - then how can we trust that Jesus is accurately depicted in the Gospels (which were, naturally, written by Christians - and long after his death, I might add).

And, if you do have a reason to trust the Gospels, why did God change his mind about women from the Old to New Testament? Or maybe Jesus isn't God/the Son of God?

@McHonza

You seemed to have attempted not to the answer the question so I'll repeat it for you:

"The message here would not be that men should rape women, but rather that good things can come from a bad situation."

Please explain why the message isn't raping women is ok.

p.s. You can only refer to you book of myths (a.k.a. The Bible)

If you are incapable of answering this question then just say so.

Suppose a story in which a woman was brutally beaten and raped...

If that was the word of god, much like the bible is, then yes, god would be condoning the woman being beaten and raped. Otherwise, y'know, he'd just stop them. Or comment about how it's wrong to do that.

But lol and behold, the bible does have something to say about rape. The woman has to marry the man who raped her! Not only is it okay to rape a woman, it's also encouraged! Word of god, folks: Rapists get a free wife.

@thewarfreak - Jesus gave an examples of moving beyond that when he spoke to the woman at the well and healing a woman on the sabbath. There were also women that traveled with him that helped to support them out of their own means.

But women aren't really your neighbor. In the Bible - especially in the OT, but also in the NT - women are considered to be "less" than men.

@Jabster - I like the answers science provides regarding creation.

"Love your neighbor as yourself" does not provide for raping women.

@McHonza

"I'm pretty sure that either story of creation was metaphorical. "

Please explain how you are sure of that.

"The message here would not be that men should rape women, but rather that good things can come from a bad situation."

Please explain why the message isn't raping women is ok.

p.s. You can only refer to you book of myths (a.k.a. The Bible)

@rA - I'm pretty sure that either story of creation was metaphorical.

@DDM - Suppose a story in which a woman was brutally beaten and raped. Discovering later that she is pregnant, she decides to keep the child. The child brings much happiness to her life, bears her grandchildren, and cares for her as she ages. The message here would not be that men should rape women, but rather that good things can come from a bad situation.

The telling of a story in which people are doing something wrong is not the same as defining what is right.

By all means, point out where such things are painted in a negative light, within the context of the bible itself.

How about dust as primordial ooze, ribs as genetic-relatedness, and fruit as the beginning of abstract thought?

The Metaphor Asterisks are so small, they are easy to miss.

DDM - The telling of a story in which people are doing something wrong is not the same as defining what is right.

vorjack - Looking at it from an evolutionary point of view, the very first human would have been genetically different from any previous sub-human. All following humans would have been genetically related to that first man or woman.

Elemenope - How about dust as primordial ooze, ribs as genetic-relatedness, and fruit as the beginning of abstract thought?

Not to mention questions about dust, ribs, and fruit!

Wouldn't evolutionary principles agree that humanity very likely occurred due to some aspect of genetic relatedness?

Hmmm. I don't believe so. While there probably were some less-than-discriminating members of our family tree, I don't believe than incest really played a big part in human development. Theoretically, you'd want every member of the species to mate with members of a very different genetic background, in order to keep scrambling the genetics and create as many combinations of variations as possible.

Of course, even if incest really did play a role in human evolution - perhaps by reinforcing some recessive genes that turned out to be important - that would have little meaning for us today. Evolution has no moral dimension, it simply is. Adam & Eve, however, are frequently held up as a kind of model for how things should be: One man, one woman, etc. If we're to accept that there is some moral dimension to the story, then I think questions about incest are perfectly fair.

he term "bible-based marriage" itself is being used incorrectly to imply that anything written concerning marriage is an instruction or definition.

Presumably god agrees with what's written there, otherwise it wouldn't be in there. He'd be all like "Hell NO you can't have 50 concubines!" and disallow anything concubine related on pain of being stoned to death by children or mauled to death by bears. The fact he allowed it to be in there is, in fact, admission he's okay with it.

One of the first points implies that there is something wrong with the story of Adam, Eve, Cain, and Able because of the implied incest.

Wouldn't evolutionary principles agree that humanity very likely occurred due to some aspect of genetic relatedness?

There are so many errant conclusions in this. The term "bible-based marriage" itself is being used incorrectly to imply that anything written concerning marriage is an instruction or definition.

The definition of a "Christian marriage" would follow the teachings of Christ on marriage. All the commandments and prophets of the Old Testament were placed subordinate to "love God and love each other" by Jesus. Specifically on marriage he reiterated from Genesis that "the two shall become one flesh" and saying that divorce should be avoided.

The quote from Matt 19:29 was misrepresented as well. It was Jesus' answer specifically to his chosen disciples and the inclusion of "wife" is not standard.

Dan posts some Betty from time to time,so yeah you are late,buuuuuuuuuuuuut she is still fucking funny.

I might be late to the party with this one, but I've just discovered Betty Bowers, America's Best Christian:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw